Science Guardian/Global Health Review/New AIDS Review » Blog Archive » Anti HIV campaigners winning on all fronts

Anti HIV campaigners winning on all fronts

Gallo corrected, Bialy triumphant on Amazon and fearless blog matador skewers sacred bull at Barnesworld

Lynn Margulis endorses Bialy and doubts

Padian is the sword in the heart

Questioners of HIVâˆ«AIDS are currently winning the paradigm war, it seems, with advances on several new fronts. The Harpers article in March, like a beachhead in Normandy landing an army, has proved armor plated in the fact of false critique and calumny. It has now been followed up by successes on two fronts on the Web.

The Correcting Gallo “56 errors refuted” issued by Rethinking AIDS two weeks ago examined at length and rejected all the 56 objections of Robert Gallo and a group of pro-paradigm activists. Every single claim was faulty, it turned out, when compared with the scientific literature, which apparently is not bedtime reading for Gallo any more, since he doesn’t yet seem to understand that direct T cell killing by HIV has been ruled out.

Now Harvey Bialy has routed John Moore on Amazon, with Moore forced by Amazon to replace his childishly dismissive review of Bialy’s exemplary book, “Aneuploidy, Oncogenes and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg”, with a rewrite (it was against the rules to include the referral to his misleading AIDSTruth.org site), and now a new champion in the form of Lynn Margulis, member of the National Academy and alert to the unjust trashing of Duesberg for some years now. Margulis’s review is worth quoting in full:

Bialy’s message in his hotly contested book Oncogenes, aneuploidy, and AIDS. A scientific life & times of Peter H. Duesberg is of crucial importance to everyone with an interest in the science that should underlie the practice of medicine. “Oncogenes” are defined as “cancer-causing genes”, “aneuploidy” refers to any anomalous number and arrangement of chromosomes in a nucleated (plant, animal, protist or fungal) cell. AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) refers to an illness, a constellation of opportunistic infections and pathologies in a patient with diminished capacity for production of the repertoire of antibodies typical of healthy people. In 1984 a virus now named the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) was announced to be the cause of AIDS. Duesberg disagrees. Duesberg’s accessible, comprehensive and scientific book, Inventing the AIDS Virus that explains why is more an epiphenomenon of the controversy than its cause. Bialy defends Peter Duesberg.
Duesberg’s real sin, as Bialy reports, was his review paper in the most prestigious scientific journal in the United States, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) that questioned the data and interpretations claimed to prove that. Duesberg found a troubling lack of evidence and a number of glaring anomalies in the body of literature.
Duesberg’s paper caused such an uproar in the medical research community that it led to rewriting of the rules for submission by members of their own scientific articles for the PNAS. His questions are still valid. Lives are at stake. We find the paucity of evidence published in standard peer-reviewed primary scientific journals that leads to the conclusion that “HIV causes AIDS” appalling. No amount of moralizing censorship, rhetorical tricks, consensus of opinion, pulling rank, obfuscation, ad hominem attacks or blustering newspaper editorials changes this fact. The conflation “HIV-AIDS” may be good marketing but is it science? No. Yet certainly the political and economic implications of the term “HIV-AIDS” are staggering. (See Harper’s March 2006 article “Out of Control” by Celia Farber).
Peter Duesberg continues his splendid 35-year research career at the University of California at Berkeley where, since 1986 he has been a member of the National Academy of Sciences and hence, eligible to publish any of his own scientific work. Although his government research funds (like ours, on a far smaller scale) were cut from $350,000 per year to zero, he continues investigations into the cause of cancer with work on aneuploidy.
Harvey Bialy’s book may be hard at times for readers with little or no background in this arcane science, but its riveting narrative documents the troubling censorship and punishment of a tenacious scientist seeking answers. Unjustifiably labelled “denialists”,”homophobes”, “charlatans”, or “Nazis”, Bialy and Duesberg are foremost excellent scientists who follow David Bohm’s adage “Science is the search for truth, whether we like it or not”. It strains credulity to ascribe any other motivation to their stance.

Here one has to feel sorry for Moore and friends, for such an indictment of their own attitudes from such a sterling source has to be a source of lasting embarrassment socially for these defenders of their beneficent faith.

Just for good measure, it is backed up by Rebecca Culshaw, the mathematician who finally threw up her hands at the task of making sense of modeling HIVâˆ«AIDS’s supposed biology and publicly announced her refusal to engage any more in this nonsense on Lew Rockwell’s site recently (see Why I Quit HIV and Why I quit HIV - The Aftermath; also Math Professor: Why “HIV/AIDS” Doesn’t Add Up):

Although some of the book’s devastating - and fascinating - moments do indeed come when Bialy is exposing some of the more distasteful tactics behind what is surely the most politicized medical issue in history, by focusing on AIDS, many reviews will likely draw attention to a book that is equally important for what it reveals regarding the politics, and the science, of cancer research.
Beginning with Peter Duesberg’s unwelcome criticisms of the single gene mutation theory of carcinogenesis and leaving the reader with an introduction to the current theory of aneuploidy on which Duesberg now focuses his attention, Bialy weaves a tale of the man and his mission, which is simply to find out truth. Would that so many scientists have similar motives.

Amusingly, the Moore brigade has responded to this magisterial judgement with a frankly dimwitted review so obviously dripping with ill motivated prejudice that it serves as Exhibit A for the prosecution:

3 of 22 people found the following review helpful
Mr. Bialy’s opus. Science fiction at its worst., July 19, 2006
Reviewer: Manny Kimmel (Ohio) - See all my reviews
Mr. Bialy’s journeyman’s prose never fails to bore. He creates a parallel universe in which the modern-day plague of AIDS is a fiction created by greedy and ambitious scientists, politicians, activists, Pharma executivies, and other assorted henchmen.
Against this backdrop of evil, we are given a Christ figure, played by a scientist at a California university who would save the world from the great lie that is AIDS. Oddly, Mr. Bialy’s descriptions of our hero smacks of a schoolgirl crush. Would that we had learned whether this curious realtionship was ever consummated.
Mr. Bialy takes a halfway good science fiction story idea (what if HIV were harmless??) and beats it to death with excrutiating, ham-handed detail.
Life is too short for this kind of drivel. Shame on me for wasting several hours of my life on this nonsense. Shame on YOU if you repeat my mistake.

Ahem.. “Would that we had learned whether this curious realtionship was ever consummated”? Doesn’t the homophobe detector swing wildly at that remark? Bialy is famously passionate for exotic women, Mr “Kimmel”, and married his current wife under romantic circumstances in Cuba, as you would know if you were familiar with the actors in this affair. No doubt we will find out eventually if this is a penname for Moore or some lab intern trying to curry favor, but this illiterate sally is precisely what the author of the book in question delights in, for it tends to more persuasively recommend the book as important and interesting than any direct praise can by itself. Indeed, when last heard from Bialy was in seventh heaven at the rate copies were disappearing from the warehouse.

Meanwhile, today we have yet another positive review from a respected source, Gerald H. Pollack, professor in the department of bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle:

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
Stimulating and Thought Provoking, July 25, 2006
Reviewer: Gerald H. Pollack - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I was impressed. I invite you to read this fascinating book and decide for yourself whether Duesberg has a point or two. I took time from a busy schedule to see quickly how the saga would end, and came away enlightened by a rich body of information about issues of profound significance that cry out for resolution. The message is quite serious, but the presentation is buoyed by abundant humor and wit - a pleasure to read. This is one of those books that will inspire unending conversations with friends and colleagues. Rarely have I been as moved by a book as by this very scientific biography.”

Honestly, could one ask for a simpler, more truthful sounding recommendation? Exhibit B, Dr. Moore! Readers can compare all these with HIV researcher Moore’s newly rewritten diatribe for sense, evidence of having read and digested the book, underlying motivation and other aspects:

1 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
Missing the point on Duesberg, June 25, 2006
Reviewer: John P Moore, PhD (New York, USA) - See all my reviews
The author completely misses the point when writing about Peter Duesberg. His book comes across as a hagiography, not as an objective review of Duesberg’s flawed and ultimately failed scientific career. A more considered approach to the subject would have discussed why it was that Duesberg adopted foolishly contrarian and scientifically inaccurate positions on oncogenes and, a few years later, on HIV and AIDS. Were Duesberg’s thought-processes at this critical time in his career purely science-based? Or were they, as many of his scientific contemporaries believe, driven by his jealousy over the far greater career successes of his then-rivals in cancer virology (Bishop, Varmus, Gallo, Baltimore, for example)? An objective reviewer of Duesberg’s career would have explored such a critical issue. A detailed exploration of whether personal jealousies drove Duesberg’s public posturings should have been a critical component of the story; the book is the worse for such an important omission.
There is another glaring flaw in the book: Duesberg’s perceived (but, nowadays, not real) stature as a professional scientist underpins the activities of a small group of individuals who, bizarrely, deny that HIV causes AIDS (it is, of course, almost universally understood both within the scientific community and by the general public that HIV infection is the cause of AIDS). Like Duesberg, a few of the AIDS denialists are scientists whose careers fizzled out; but others are zealots with extreme political views (both on the far-right and the far-left) who find AIDS denialism politically convenient; and some are deeply troubled individuals with disturbing behavior patterns who deserve pity and professional help. Again, an objective book on this general subject area would explore the role played by Duesberg as the figurehead of the AIDS denialism movement. Why have such an eclectic gallimaufrey of people rallied to Duesberg’s banner? The present author utterly fails to tackle this component of the Duesberg story. As a result, his book is simply not worth reading. The definitive book on Duesberg remains to be written, although he’s probably not an interesting enough subject for a professional biographer to tackle.
John P. Moore
Professor of Microbiology and Immunology,
Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York

Only a man who has never met Duesberg could publicly suggest that “personal jealousies drove Duesberg’s public posturings”, or state “Duesberg’s perceived (but, nowadays, not real) stature as a professional scientist”. Only a man whose position in science leaves him clambering about in shoes two sizes two big for him, a man who is personally familiar with the motivations he suggests, a man who has not read Bialy’s book without prejudice and all the way through, could possibly write such calumny without embarrassment. Pity John Moore, who will have to face all his life the responsibility of having written such self revealing text, as the paradigm is eventually recognized for what it is.

Here are the full Margulis and Culshaw reviews, if you don’t want to click to the complete list at Amazon:

(show)

18 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

Riveting narrative documents the troubling censorship and punishment of a tenacious scientist seeking answers, July 17, 2006

Reviewer: James MacAllister “Lynn Margulis and James MacAllister” (Univerity of Massachusetts Amherst) - See all my reviews

(REAL NAME)

The embroilment of Harvey Bialy and Peter Duesberg in controversy came to our attention when we read George Miklos’ glowing review of Bialy’s book. Mentally meticulous Miklos, a colleague and a hard-nosed critic (even of our own scientific work) is a focused, profoundly educated cell biologist. We read Bialy with scepticism but with the open-mindedness mandated by the severity of criticism both Bialy’s book and Miklos’ review provoked. Demand for evidence and criticism are intrinsic to the scientific enterprise.

Bialy’s message in his hotly contested book Oncogenes, aneuploidy, and AIDS. A scientific life & times of Peter H. Duesberg is of crucial importance to everyone with an interest in the science that should underlie the practice of medicine. “Oncogenes” are defined as “cancer-causing genes”, “aneuploidy” refers to any anomalous number and arrangement of chromosomes in a nucleated (plant, animal, protist or fungal) cell. AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) refers to an illness, a constellation of opportunistic infections and pathologies in a patient with diminished capacity for production of the repertoire of antibodies typical of healthy people. In 1984 a virus now named the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) was announced to be the cause of AIDS. Duesberg disagrees. Duesberg’s accessible, comprehensive and scientific book, Inventing the AIDS Virus that explains why is more an epiphenomenon of the controversy than its cause. Bialy defends Peter Duesberg.

Duesberg’s real sin, as Bialy reports, was his review paper in the most prestigious scientific journal in the United States, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) that questioned the data and interpretations claimed to prove that. Duesberg found a troubling lack of evidence and a number of glaring anomalies in the body of literature.

Duesberg’s paper caused such an uproar in the medical research community that it led to rewriting of the rules for submission by members of their own scientific articles for the PNAS. His questions are still valid. Lives are at stake. We find the paucity of evidence published in standard peer-reviewed primary scientific journals that leads to the conclusion that “HIV causes AIDS” appalling. No amount of moralizing censorship, rhetorical tricks, consensus of opinion, pulling rank, obfuscation, ad hominem attacks or blustering newspaper editorials changes this fact. The conflation “HIV-AIDS” may be good marketing but is it science? No. Yet certainly the political and economic implications of the term “HIV-AIDS” are staggering. (See Harper’s March 2006 article “Out of Control” by Celia Farber).

Peter Duesberg continues his splendid 35-year research career at the University of California at Berkeley where, since 1986 he has been a member of the National Academy of Sciences and hence, eligible to publish any of his own scientific work. Although his government research funds (like ours, on a far smaller scale) were cut from $350,000 per year to zero, he continues investigations into the cause of cancer with work on aneuploidy.

Harvey Bialy’s book may be hard at times for readers with little or no background in this arcane science, but its riveting narrative documents the troubling censorship and punishment of a tenacious scientist seeking answers. Unjustifiably labelled “denialists”,

“homophobes”, “charlatans”, or “Nazis”, Bialy and Duesberg are foremost excellent scientists who follow David Bohm’s adage “Science is the search for truth, whether we like it or not”. It strains credulity to ascribe any other motivation to their stance.

“Cancer keeps more people alive than it kills” claimed a colleague who compared the ample federal budget for cancer research to that for “exobiology” i.e., all NASA’s life sciences investigation except manned spaceflight. Bialy’s “aneuploidy” in the title of his superb account of the state of life science funding refers to Duesberg’s turn of attention to the concept that “genes cause cancer”. Peculiar genes, touted to be responsive to other genes that reverse their action are called “oncogenes”. (As “onco..” refers to tumors, oncology is the study of cancer.) The other genes, to which oncogenes are responsive are called tumor-suppressor genes. VoilÃ¡, the onco.. gene causes the tumor, add the suppressor gene and the tumor disappears. This sort of facile equivocal language added to the universally agreed upon fact: tumor cells are aneuploid with high frequency, led Duesberg to pursue not prizes, just scientific truths.

Cells, in their nuclei, in the bodies of animals and plants are “diploid”. Nearly all of the billions of cells contain two sets of chromosomes. In humans the distinctive staining bodies, the chromosomes (made of protein and DNA) are present in pairs: 23 pairs to a total of 46 where one member of a pair is inherited from the mother and the other member from the father. Diploid here means “normal”. When sperm are made in men’s testes and eggs are produced in the ovaries of women the number of chromosomes per cell is halved such that the sex cells have only a single set. They are haploid, also normal. Fertilization (23+23=46) restores the number to the fertile egg that becomes the embryo. Aneuploidy refers to abnormalities, excursions from either haploidy or diploidy: 47 chromosomes, broken small extra chromosomes, etc. Cancer cells are aneuploid. Tumors form in the body at sites of chemical (nicotine, lungs) or mechanical (metal plates) irritation. The cells in those tumors tend to aneuploidy, all different kinds of aneuploidy that become more extreme as the tumor cells proliferate. Duesberg begins with these observations in his recent cancer research and ignores the kind of nonsense that Bialy exposes.

In Bialy’s “Hoofbeats on the road to the prize” (chapter 2) Bialy quotes an article by R.A. Weinberg, “The action of oncogenes in the cytoplasm and nucleus that summarized years of work and cost enormous amounts of money:

“This review attempts to synthesize much of the currently available data on these issues. It is written with the belief that much of the information about oncogenes will eventually be understandable in terms of a small number of mechanisms and that the outlines of some of these are gradually becoming apparent.” Science 230:770-776 (1985)

And Bialy, who supports Duesberg’s contention that there is as little evidence for oncogenes as there is that HIV causes AIDS, comments: “Even for those who have raised equivocal language to new standards, the escape clause in this [Weinberg's] last sentence is truly extraordinary. With promises like these it is not surprising that twenty years later we are still waiting for the first biochemical pathway whose disruption by …a [point or otherwise] mutated oncogene or genes is necessary, let alone sufficient, “for the crud to get its start”(Bialy, p. 47).

As both Bialy and Duesberg emphasize, let us see the research results of those who show that cancer is “caused by an oncogene”and that “AIDS is caused by the rapidly mutating HIV virus”. Please point us to the published evidence.

Lynn Margulis and James MacAllister, University of Massachusetts-Amherst

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

16 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

More to Duesberg than AIDS, July 12, 2006

Reviewer: Rebecca Culshaw - See all my reviews

(REAL NAME)

Many of the recent reviews posted on this page have been criticisms written by people who show no evidence of actually having read this book, but rather feel compelled to attack the book for the mere fact that it reports Duesberg’s controversial (but compelling) views on HIV and AIDS.

Although some of the book’s devastating - and fascinating - moments do indeed come when Bialy is exposing some of the more distasteful tactics behind what is surely the most politicized medical issue in history, by focusing on AIDS, many reviews will likely draw attention to a book that is equally important for what it reveals regarding the politics, and the science, of cancer research.

Beginning with Peter Duesberg’s unwelcome criticisms of the single gene mutation theory of carcinogenesis and leaving the reader with an introduction to the current theory of aneuploidy on which Duesberg now focuses his attention, Bialy weaves a tale of the man and his mission, which is simply to find out truth. Would that so many scientists have similar motives.

Bialy does his readers the service of never insulting their intelligence, so be warned that this book does get technical at times, but it’s worth the effort. Unexpectedly, it’s also quite funny and had me laughing aloud at times.

(hide)

With the result of John Moore’s attempted slander on Amazon a total rout, Cornell’s Times Op-Ed writer and favorite son of David Ho and John Maddox has a further humiliation to worry about in the form of a defeat at the hands of Hank Barnes, anti-HIV blogger extraordinaire.

Lawyer uses Padian to defeat all comers, routs Moore

For last week Hank Barnes of Barnesworld, the alter ego of a busy lawyer in real life, reeled in his biggest fish to date, and it was none other than John Moore of Cornell. Moore seemed unable to escape Barnes’ net, and the blogger has been happily spearing this thrashing porpoise of HIVâˆ«AIDS at will in their email/blog exchange, apparently now concluded, with Moore retired injured:

July 24, 2006
Curtain Call for the Moore Follies! (Say Goodnight, Gracie)
With the 4-part installment of the Amazon Wars, (also known as the “Moore Follies,”) we have taken a rare glimpse into the mindset of the modern-day, AIDS scientist activist. Specifically, we have engaged (or, more precisely, been engaged by) the haughty, insufferable, highly perturbable John P. Moore from Cornell University, by way of Cambridge, by way of H.Salt Fish & Chips.
So, what did we learn? Well, it’s hard to say. Ignoring his television drama-show gaffes, sarcasm, poorly attuned sense of wit , and overall dyspeptic demeanor, we learned one salient feature:
We have a scientist, who refuses to “discuss or debate” science.
Is this not a rarity on par with the finding of an offspring of a Dodo Bird?
If he were alive today, would Einstein be ducking simple questions about relativity?
Anyway, NO, we are not comparing the great Albert Einstein, to the not-so-hot, John P. Moore - we are illustrating the absurdity of self-professed “Colonels” in the AIDS War, who get awful shy and tempermental when asked to explain their opinions, bases for said opinions, and references to the scientific literature (not gov’t websites, John) that support these opinions.
Instead, all we get is a strange repetitive mantra: “HIV causes AIDS. You’re a denialist. HIV causes AIDS. You’re a denialist. HIV causes AIDS…..”

Moore must be unused to having his efforts at email putdown kicked out of the way with such despatch. Barnes will not let up. He is cleverer than Moore, wittier, and merciless - and a good deal bouncier. Moore struggles to keep up, while Barnes is behind him kicking his butt in between chortles and pirouetting 360 degrees before sinking another boot in:

Out of good cheer and perhaps a bit of devilish mischief, right before the weekend, I e-mailed Moore with the links to the aforementioned “Moore Follies.”
It was a nice e-mail. It was very short. It consisted of 6 words in the subject heading:
“John & Tara, Check out Barnesville”
So, how do you think he responded? A polite “f@%@ off, Hank”? A non-response? No, he again tried to engage with meaningless, pitiable, self-abasement. Here’s his response, in full:
Moore: I don’t waste my time reading your Blog myself, Hank, but we do monitor them, and sometimes we do pick up some useful information from there that helps us counter more influential AIDS denialists in areas where WE think it matters (trust, me the Blogsphere is not where the real fight is being played out). This particular exchange will probably not lead to any useful information, as we’ve already got enough on the kinds of people who have the time to read and respond to your Blog postings. But hey, you never know, so thanks for trying on our behalf, even if you don’t realize what you’re doing (or, more to the point, what WE’RE doing). We don’t publicize our successes, but if you did you would be surprised at how helpful you and your fellow Bloggers have been to us. In reality, as I say, the real fight is being fought elsewhere. You guys just don’t realize it - yet.
And I really don’t give the proverbial rat’s ass if the kind of people who read your Blogs have a laugh at what they think is my expense. If I cared about what you and your internet buddies think, I would never have entered into any email exchange with you (nothing in emails ever stays private unless they’re between close and trusted friends, in academia or in any other walk of life; you think I maybe don’t realize that at my age?????).
So, post away, do whatever you like. If I think there’s something useful to be gained from communicating with you, I’ll let you know. In the mean time, what’s the phrase? Knock yourself out, buddy!
John

Nicely disdainful and cavalier, but a big mistake when dealing with pit bull Barnes, who rips it into small chunks and chews it up item by item:

Moore: “I don’t waste my time reading your Blog myself, Hank,…”
Hank: Well, you DO waste time reading and writing Amazon reviews of Duesberg’s biography, right?
You DO waste time writing a whole buncha letters and e-mails to the editor of Harpers’ right?
You DO waste time lurking at Aetiology, right?
What’s the difference?
Moore: but we do monitor them, and sometimes we do pick up some useful information from there that helps us counter more influential AIDS denialists in areas where WE think it matters (trust, me the Blogsphere is not where the real fight is being played out).
Hank: Who is this ubiquitous “WE” you keep blabbering about? The same incompetents who wrote that unreadable, unpublishable “grid” rebuttal to the Harpers’ piece?
Why not simply stand alone - like a man. Why do you need a buncha AIDS sychophants and lapdogs around you at all times to “monitor” people? This ain’t the goddam Soviet Union, you know?
Moore: This particular exchange will probably not lead to any useful information, as we’ve already got enough on the kinds of people who have the time to read and respond to your Blog postings.
Hank: Yes, but it’s quite witty and enjoyable.
Moore: But hey, you never know, so thanks for trying on our behalf, even if you don’t realize what you’re doing (or, more to the point, what WE’RE doing). We don’t publicize our successes, but if you did you would be surprised at how helpful you and your fellow Bloggers have been to us. In reality, as I say, the real fight is being fought elsewhere. You guys just don’t realize it - yet.
Hank: What successes? The vaccine success. The success with Mbeki. The success in spiking the Harpers’ piece. The successful strategy to scare and kill a lotta gay men with AZT in the 80’s? Your only success has been to waste a lot of tax-payer $$, shut down scientific discussion, and hornswoggle a small claque of gays into joining the bad guys to oppress the vulnerable guys. This ain’t gonna last forever, John. The Berlin Wall came tumbling down. Big Tobacco came tumbling down. Merck is a bit wobbly over Vioxx. You’d best be thinking of an exit strategy, when it gets ugly, my friend.
Moore: And I really don’t give the proverbial rat’s ass if the kind of people who read your Blogs have a laugh at what they think is my expense.
Hank: Well, the mirth-meter is pretttttty high today, I must say. As for the kind of people, do you care whether Dr. Lynn Margulis and her colleagues read the blog. If you had ANY cojones whatsoever, you’d call them “Denialists” in public. In fact, by now, you’ve read (or had your flunkies read to you) the Margulis review of Bialy’s book. A salient excerpt for you: “We find the paucity of evidence published in standard peer-reviewed primary scientific journals that leads to the conclusion that “HIV causes AIDS” appalling. No amount of moralizing censorship, rhetorical tricks, consensus of opinion, pulling rank, obfuscation, ad hominem attacks or blustering newspaper editorials changes this fact. The conflation “HIV-AIDS” may be good marketing but is it science? No.”
Any written response to her, or just that same awkward silence, when you get flustered?
Moore: If I cared about what you and your internet buddies think, I would never have entered into any email exchange with you (nothing in emails ever stays private unless they’re between close and trusted friends, in academia or in any other walk of life; you think I maybe don’t realize that at my age?????).
Hank: Well, I don’t know your age (late 40’s?), but that’s not what you said Wednesday at 2″13 p.m. Do you remember this:
Moore: “Yes, I object to you publishing what I believed was a private exchange. John”
Hank: You’re a wily fellow, John. We should play chess sometimes. I didn’t go to Cambridge, but I bet $500 bucks I’d whip ya. Even with black.
Moore: So, post away, do whatever you like. If I think there’s something useful to be gained from communicating with you, I’ll let you know. In the mean time, what’s the phrase? Knock yourself out, buddy!
Hank: This is the second time you’ve utterly wasted 7 good words with a meaningless, tautological platitude. Post away, do whatever I like? Well, gee, John, don’t I always?
Best,
Hank.
p.s. I construe your statement “So, post away, do whatever you like” as permission for me to publish this exchange too. You don’t mind, do you:)
This concludes the Moore Follies. The curtain is down, the lights are on. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here. Good day, my gentle readers.

As Barnes, says, this exchange (there are three previous postings in the saga, with a selection from other mail today ) was an unprecedented look inside Moore’s mind and rather revealing. In the comments Moore’s “we” versus “you” framing of the discourse was highlighted, since it suggests so clearly that Moore views the debate not as scientific but as a political battle, with patients’ needs rather low on his list.

This particular exchange will probably not lead to any useful information, as we’ve already got enough on the kinds of people who have the time to read and respond to your Blog postings. But hey, you never know, so thanks for trying on our behalf, even if you don’t realize what you’re doing (or, more to the point, what WE’RE doing). We don’t publicize our successes, but if you did you would be surprised at how helpful you and your fellow Bloggers have been to us. In reality, as I say, the real fight is being fought elsewhere. You guys just don’t realize it - yet.

“Got enough on the kinds of people….the real fight is being fought elsewhere….” Does Moore realize the extent to which such phrasing gives the game away to onlookers? It is certainly not science or medicine.

(show)

Comments

“We don’t publicize our successes, but if you did you would be surprised at how helpful you and your fellow Bloggers have been to us. In reality, as I say, the real fight is being fought elsewhere. You guys just don’t realize it - yet.”

Hank, who are the “WE” Mr. Moore refers to? Fellow scientists? If so, he mentions them fighting…fighting for what? And what are these “successes”? Are they medical successes? It would be obvious if there were. I’m guessing if they exist at all, he’s talking about PR successes.

So, this is about a FIGHT. Strange, I thought it was about helping people. He and his “WE” can fight all they want. I want to help people, help them out of this horrible medical nightmare.

Posted by: Dan | July 24, 2006 at 10:17 AM

Dan,

Exactly. They are fighting to get more drugs to more people. Period. However, they are oblivious to the notion that more drugs may make matters worse.

Hank

Posted by: HankBarnes | July 24, 2006 at 12:37 PM

Stop being cruel to AIDS babes, Hank. At least leave them a shred of tattered dignity.

He certainly is a faithful reader of your blog. Cannot imagine why he would want to deny it. The reason is surely that those who stand on a deep fault line must pay attention to know when the quake comes.

The rumbling seems to be getting louder and louder, John. Well, just cling to Bob. He is good in emergencies. We were once stuck in an elevator with him for 40 minutes and he behaved very well.

Posted by: TS | July 24, 2006 at 01:10 PM

Nice going, Hank. What do you think, could we get as much mileage out of Tony Fauci?

Hatchet Day is drawing near, you know.

Posted by: Wilhelm | July 24, 2006 at 03:37 PM

I recently heard from a student of a former colleague the following explanation for why the (often strenuously) peer-reviewed papers of Duesberg must be wrong: If they were not, then they would have persuaded the majority of scientists.

Simple. Incontrovertible. Idiotic.

Perfect for Moore to add to his “Johnny One Note” arsenal of argument.

Posted by: George | July 25, 2006 at 08:05 AM

I wonder what Moore has in store for us. Are we all going to be rounded up as terrorists for attempting to spread a virus we don’t believe exists? (or maybe we really do believe it exists, but being scientific psychopaths, we’re trying to encourage people to spread it around). I just hope when the big shot dissidents get arrested that I do too because, after all, this is only an attention getting device (questioning AIDS, that is) and I’d hate not to get the attention of others!

Posted by: David Crowe | July 25, 2006 at 01:22 PM

David Crowe,

Hah! I have 2 good friends at home who ain’t gonna let ole’ Hank get rounded up by nobody!

Posted by: HankBarnes | July 25, 2006 at 01:35 PM

(hide)

Moore apparently has finally learned better than to tangle with Barnes, and now disappeared for good. This is a great pity, since Barnes’ feisty, barnyard style (he knows how to take advantage of a pseudonym) allows him to make fast, pithy points which nail HIVâˆ«AIDS escape artists before they can say “We don’t debate denialists”.

After starting a ThinkPad blog in December last year, Barnes has upset the hens in the HIVâˆ«AIDS coop with shot after shot. One nailed David Baltimore:

February 19, 2006
Irony Meter!
“It’s no accident that we are seeing such an extensive suppression of scientific freedom. It’s part of the theory of government now, and it’s a theory we need to vociferously oppose.”
Strong words, No?
Who said this and where, I ask?
Well, golly gee, it’s Dr. David Baltimore at the New York Times.

But the first was the most brilliant. It brought up the Padian study, which he has since repeatedly used as a bazooka to blast the squawking chickens of HIVâˆ«AIDS into clouds of feathers at every opportunity.

Anyone who is unfamiliar with the Padian study should read Barnes’ deft, hilarious lead in and summary of this remarkable mainstream HIVâˆ«AIDS project, which all by itself is enough to defeat the global HIVâˆ«AIDS pandemic and expose it as utterly specious, since it removes its main pillar. Nancy Padian showed that HIV positivity is not transmitted by heterosexual sex. (In fact, her results indicate that it isn’t a homosexually transmitted virus either, if its logic is pursued).

Mebbe, Fumento is only half-right. Mebbe, it ain’t a heterosexually transmissible disease, nor a homosexually transmissible disease.
Mebbe, this damnable disease has not a damn thing to do with sex — of any kind!
Enuf, sez ‘ole Hank. We gotta get to the bottom (no pun intended) of this mystery
I need to see some epidemiology.
No, I don’t want dumb-ass reports by gov’t bureuacrats at the CDC, NIH, FDA.
No, I don’t want dumb-ass literature from the local Planned Parenthood.
No, I don’t even want to take Fumento’s word as gospel.
I want the source. I want to see the peer-reviewed published literature. ‘Ole Hank spends a fair amount of time reading, the New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. This boy ain’t a rookie.
But, where is the American Journal of Epidemiology? Ahh, here it is.
Padian, Heterosexual Transmission of HIV in Northern California: Results from a Ten-year Study, Am. J. Epidemiol., Vol 146: 350 - 357. (1997)
(Note to my friend, Dale aka Daf9: The title says Ten!)
So, what did Dr. Nancy Padian find? Well, lemme offer a few salient quotes:
1. “To our knowledge, our study is the largest and longest study of heterosexual transmission of HIV in the United States. The consistency of results over the 10-year duration argues for the validity of our results.” (Padian, page 354.)
2. “We followed 175 HIV-discordant couples over time for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow-up.” (Padian, page 354.) (Discordant couple means one is HIV+, one is HIV-)
3. “We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study.”(Padian, page 354.) Huh, run that by me again?
4. “Forty -seven couples who remained in follow-up for 3 months to 6 years used condoms intermittently, and no seroconversions occurred among exposed partners.”(Padian, page 354.)
So, lemme understand this, Nancy:
1. Over 10 years, a lotta HIV+ folks had the audacity to continue having sex with their beloved uninfected partners, ……and none contracted HIV;
2. Some used condoms, ….and none contracted HIV
3. Some refused condoms, ….and none contracted HIV
4. Even some â€“ about 38% â€“ had anal sex, ….and still none contracted HIV. (See Table 3, pg 355.)
So, Nancy, I gotta ask: How do you have a sexually transmitted disease, that ainâ€™t transmitted by sex?
I mean when you write, “We observed no seroconversions,” doesnâ€™t that mean, ahem, no seroconversions?

(show)

February 15, 2006

Cargo Cult Science: AIDS & Sex

“Yikes,” says the casual reader, “I like sex, but I’m afraid of AIDS. Better use a condom. Better yet, let’s just not talk about it.”

For 25 years now, we’ve been taught that AIDS is caused by a virus, mostly transmitted by sex.

Millions of people believe this. Aren’t folks dying in Africa from all this sex and all this AIDS? Shouldn’t we help them? Shouldn’t we send them billions of $$ for medicine?

Slow down, Pal.

Take it easy.

Take a breath.

Fact: The human species is at least 500 million years old. That means……shhh…… people have been having sex for a long time. Not decades, not centuries, not millenia, but millions of years. China has a population of 1 billion people. So, ahem, that means — a heckuva lot of fluids being exchanged!

Even my Grandma from Salzburg, Pennsylvannia — unpleasant imagery notwithstanding — was once having sex.

I was taught that sex is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I was taught that sex breeds life, not death. Ask my wife and 2 beautiful children, if you don’t believe me.

So, in addition to right-wing nuts Jerry Falwell and Phyllis Schafly preaching to me about the dangers of sex, this little left-wing twit at the Public Health department is gonna lecture me about the “life-or-death” decision to use condoms?

Huh?

So, how did a supposedly fatal virus (HIV) emerge from the bath houses of the Castro and Greenwich Villiage circa 1981 to kill multitudes of innocent people and, more importantly, wreck our sex lives?

Well, the first crack in this fog of propaganda came from Michael Fumento in The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. He simply looked at the numbers, and found that 95% of the AIDS victims in USA were (a) homosexual males and/or (b) drug users. Less than 10% of said victims were women.

Hmmm. How can a stupid, little 9 kilobase virus (HIV) discriminate between men and women? That makes no sense. Don’t women get the flu, herpes, chicken pox, too?

So, Fumento says, Hey, you heterosexuals out there — don’t worry, you can enjoy sex again! It’s mostly a “gay” disease!

“Hmm,” says ‘Ole Hank. This don’t sound right. Mebbe they have been exaggerating the risk of heterosexual transmission, but for good motives — they don’t want to stigmatize gay folks. Hell, I don’t wanna stigmatize gay folks. Hell, I don’t wanna stigmatize anyone. The Fumento book refutes all this hype and exaggeration about hetero sex, but sheesh, does that really make it a “gay” disease? I mean, on a purely numerical basis, there are millions of more straight women, (about 141 million) than gay men (4.5 million). If only 1/10 women enjoy a good bugger every now and then, that would still exceed the frequency of anal sex by homosexuals.

Yeah, it’s a little awkward to ask, but I will: Why aren’t many more women contracting AIDS thru anal sex?

Mebbe, Fumento is only half-right. Mebbe, it ain’t a heterosexually transmissible disease, nor a homosexually transmissible disease.

Mebbe, this damnable disease has not a damn thing to do with sex — of any kind!

Enuf, sez ‘ole Hank. We gotta get to the bottom (no pun intended) of this mystery

I need to see some epidemiology.

No, I don’t want dumb-ass reports by gov’t bureuacrats at the CDC, NIH, FDA.

No, I don’t want dumb-ass literature from the local Planned Parenthood.

No, I don’t even want to take Fumento’s word as gospel.

I want the source. I want to see the peer-reviewed published literature. ‘Ole Hank spends a fair amount of time reading, the New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. This boy ain’t a rookie.

But, where is the American Journal of Epidemiology? Ahh, here it is.

Padian, Heterosexual Transmission of HIV in Northern California: Results from a Ten-year Study, Am. J. Epidemiol., Vol 146: 350 - 357. (1997)

(Note to my friend, Dale aka Daf9: The title says Ten!)

So, what did Dr. Nancy Padian find? Well, lemme offer a few salient quotes:

1. “To our knowledge, our study is the largest and longest study of heterosexual transmission of HIV in the United States. The consistency of results over the 10-year duration argues for the validity of our results.” (Padian, page 354.)

2. “We followed 175 HIV-discordant couples over time for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow-up.” (Padian, page 354.) (Discordant couple means one is HIV+, one is HIV-)

3. “We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study.”(Padian, page 354.) Huh, run that by me again?

4. “Forty -seven couples who remained in follow-up for 3 months to 6 years used condoms intermittently, and no seroconversions occurred among exposed partners.”(Padian, page 354.)

So, lemme understand this, Nancy:

1. Over 10 years, a lotta HIV+ folks had the audacity to continue having sex with their beloved uninfected partners, ……and none contracted HIV;

2. Some used condoms, ….and none contracted HIV

3. Some refused condoms, ….and none contracted HIV

4. Even some â€“ about 38% â€“ had anal sex, ….and still none contracted HIV. (See Table 3, pg 355.)

So, Nancy, I gotta ask: How do you have a sexually transmitted disease, that ainâ€™t transmitted by sex?

I mean when you write, “We observed no seroconversions,” doesnâ€™t that mean, ahem, no seroconversions?

Oh, Câ€™mon Hank, just because the fact in this large, epidemiological studycontradicts our theory on HIV, doesnâ€™t mean we have to jump ship. Hell, we estimate that heterosexual transmission is merely low, male-to-female is 1/1000, and female-to-male is 1/10,000. We wonâ€™t even mention the lack of seroconversions in the abstract — Hell, most folks donâ€™t even read these damn papers anyway.

And, more importantly, Hank, wear a condom for goodness sake!

Joking aside, in my humble opinion, the findings of this one paper obliterate almost 75% of most of the AIDS dogma we’ve been taught for over 25 years. Some (all?) of those of folks should have become infected over the 10 years of the study. None did. No explanation is offered by the authors. Further, the authors note that 38% of the people engaged in anal sex, but no explanation is given as to why these women did not contract HIV.

There is only one reasonable, logical, scientific conclusion: The retrovirus HIV isn’t transmissble by sex of any kind.

Much obliged

Posted by HankBarnes on February 15, 2006 at 12:35 PM

(hide)

Since February Barnes has been using this study as it should be used - to whack into stunned silence anyone who suggests that there is a global pandemic (or, as he has noticed, anyone who suggests that “HIV” is sexually infectious among gays either).

He has played especial havoc with Aetiology, the popular blog on the SEED magazine blog site run by Tara Smith, a young epidemiologist and curvaceous brunette (judging from her picture in what looks like a swimsuit or the equivalent form fitting attire) with too ready a faith in the mainstream view. Barnes has since March confounded her utterly with the Padian study, despite much waffling escapism in response.

Barnes won the latest round ten days ago, reducing the unfortunate Tara to what looks like quivering jelly:

[Partially] Banned at Aetiology!
Our favorite Science Babe, Dr. Tara Smith, has banned my ass at her blog. Here’s the recap:
1. Smith wrote this typical, ignorant throw-away line — straight outta AIDS talking points memorandum:
One of the major scourges in the countries they’re targeting is AIDS, and one of the most successful prevention strategies is regular condom use.
2. I needled her a bit about the Padian Paper, reminding her that the longest American study of heterosexual transmission of HIV found “no seroconversions.” This carries frightful implications for AIDS Cult members. If the risk of HIV transmission is ZERO, then obviously condoms add nothing to the equation.
So I asked her:
If Padian remains the “largest and longest study of heterosexual transmission of HIV in the United States” (Padian, pg 354), How come none of the HIV+ folks having sex without condoms transmitted HIV to their partners?
3. Smith got mad, responding:
Hank, all that was extensively covered in the post and comments of that discussion. I didn’t dodge anything–you just keep misrepresenting both the paper’s intent, and the very data within it. I’m sick of it. Stick to the topic here, please–you have your own blog if you want to continue discussion of the Padian paper. Otherwise, I’ll treat them as spam.
“I’M SICK OF IT.” — yelps the frazzled Sorority Girl of Epidemiology:). I love that!
4. I continued needling her, she deleted a few of my posts, I accused her of dodging, she accused me of lying and misrepresenting Padian, then, finally, she answered with some long-winded tripe, which contained these nuggets:
I didn’t dodge anything. For those of you who didn’t read the prior post (which apparently includes Hank), I addressed that in the post: [Blah, blah, blah]
Seroconversion was found in the retrospective study. For the prospective portion, there were a number of limitations that reduced their ability to find seroconversions:
Attrition was severe.
Couples were counseled to use condoms and avoid risky sex practices (and indeed, condom use went way up and anal sex went down).
The vast majority of couples were followed for only a short time (~ a year).
There was a low rate of infection with other STIs in the study population.
And finally, Hank, if this study disproves sexual transmission of HIV, why isn’t the author in your camp? Maybe you can answer this at your own blog; don’t bother to here. Go ahead and cry “censorship,” but I’ve allowed you to repeat yourself on here dozens of times already. Bring something new to the table and I’ll retain the comment
5. Then I wrote a tour de force (which was deleted and got me banned:)
Reduced their ability to find seroconversions?!!? I’m laughing my ass off:) You sound like one of those Bush flunkies trying to explain a “reduced ability to find” non-existent weapons of mass destruction:)
Look, Tara, the prospective study was the whole ball of wax.
Let me remind you that the authors wrote:
“To our knowledge, our study is the largest and longest study of heterosexual transmission of HIV in the United States.” (Padian, pg 354.)
Let me remind you that the authors wrote:
“We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study.” (Padian, pg 354.)
Let me remind you that the authors wrote:
“Nevertheless, the absence of seroincident infection over the course of the study cannot be entirely attributed to significant behavior change. No transmission occured among the 25 percent of couples who did not use condoms consistently at their last follow-up nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up” (Padian, pg 356.)
The authors found “no seroconversions,” tried to attribute this surprising result to increased condom use, but didn’t know what to do with the 25% of HIV+ folks who refused condoms, but still did not transmit virus.
So, Why did all these reckless, condom-free, HIV+ sex maniacs not infect their partners in the study?
The problem, Tara, is that the FACTS of Padian, conflict with your THEORY.
Honest Hank Barnes
New rule: Whenever you hear some B.S. artist yap about AIDS and condom use, remind them that the largest epidemiological study of sexual transmission of HIV in America, showed that NOBODY got HIV. The HIV+ folks with condoms didn’t spread the virus, but neither did the HIV+ folks without condoms. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.NIL. Surely, after at least 6 years of condomless sex with an HIV+ person, you’d expect at least ONE person to have contracted the virus. But none did. Oops. There’s goes the paradigm!

(show)

July 13, 2006

[Partially] Banned at Aetiology!

Our favorite Science Babe, Dr. Tara Smith, has banned my ass at her blog. Here’s the recap:

1. Smith wrote this typical, ignorant throw-away line — straight outta AIDS talking points memorandum:

One of the major scourges in the countries they’re targeting is AIDS, and one of the most successful prevention strategies is regular condom use.

2. I needled her a bit about the Padian Paper, reminding her that the longest American study of heterosexual transmission of HIV found “no seroconversions.” This carries frightful implications for AIDS Cult members. If the risk of HIV transmission is ZERO, then obviously condoms add nothing to the equation.

So I asked her:

If Padian remains the “largest and longest study of heterosexual transmission of HIV in the United States” (Padian, pg 354), How come none of the HIV+ folks having sex without condoms transmitted HIV to their partners?

3. Smith got mad, responding:

Hank, all that was extensively covered in the post and comments of that discussion. I didn’t dodge anything–you just keep misrepresenting both the paper’s intent, and the very data within it. I’m sick of it. Stick to the topic here, please–you have your own blog if you want to continue discussion of the Padian paper. Otherwise, I’ll treat them as spam.

“I’M SICK OF IT.” yelps the frazzled Sorority Girl of Epidemiology:). I love that!

4. I continued needling her, she deleted a few of my posts, I accused her of dodging, she accused me of lying and misrepresenting Padian, then, finally, she answered with some long-winded tripe, which contained these nuggets:

I didn’t dodge anything. For those of you who didn’t read the prior post (which apparently includes Hank), I addressed that in the post: [Blah, blah, blah]

Seroconversion was found in the retrospective study. For the prospective portion, there were a number of limitations that reduced their ability to find seroconversions:

Attrition was severe.

Couples were counseled to use condoms and avoid risky sex practices (and indeed, condom use went way up and anal sex went down).

The vast majority of couples were followed for only a short time (~ a year).

There was a low rate of infection with other STIs in the study population.

And finally, Hank, if this study disproves sexual transmission of HIV, why isn’t the author in your camp? Maybe you can answer this at your own blog; don’t bother to here. Go ahead and cry “censorship,” but I’ve allowed you to repeat yourself on here dozens of times already. Bring something new to the table and I’ll retain the comment

5. Then I wrote a tour de force (which was deleted and got me banned:)

Reduced their ability to find seroconversions?!!? I’m laughing my ass off:) You sound like one of those Bush flunkies trying to explain a “reduced ability to find” non-existent weapons of mass destruction:)

Look, Tara, the prospective study was the whole ball of wax.

Let me remind you that the authors wrote:

“To our knowledge, our study is the largest and longest study of heterosexual transmission of HIV in the United States.” (Padian, pg 354.)

Let me remind you that the authors wrote:

“We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study.” (Padian, pg 354.)

Let me remind you that the authors wrote:

“Nevertheless, the absence of seroincident infection over the course of the study cannot be entirely attributed to significant behavior change. No transmission occured among the 25 percent of couples who did not use condoms consistently at their last follow-up nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up” (Padian, pg 356.)

The authors found “no seroconversions,” tried to attribute this surprising result to increased condom use, but didn’t know what to do with the 25% of HIV+ folks who refused condoms, but still did not transmit virus.

So, Why did all these reckless, condom-free, HIV+ sex maniacs not infect their partners in the study?

The problem, Tara, is that the FACTS of Padian, conflict with your THEORY.

Honest Hank Barnes

New rule: Whenever you hear some B.S. artist yap about AIDS and condom use, remind them that the largest epidemiological study of sexual transmission of HIV in America, showed that NOBODY got HIV. The HIV+ folks with condoms didn’t spread the virus, but neither did the HIV+ folks without condoms. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.NIL. Surely, after at least 6 years of condomless sex with an HIV+ person, you’d expect at least ONE person to have contracted the virus. But none did. Oops. There’s goes the paradigm!

UPDATE!

Anticipating the rhetorical response — What about Africa? — I commend y’all to read the great work of Dr. Gisselquist on the subject. He’s way more diplomatic than I’d be!

UPDATE: II

Tara has arrived to scold me in the comments. As if I don’t get enuff hen-pecking at home from the missus….

Posted by HankBarnes on July 13, 2006 at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (25)

Comments

The Padian study is the paradigm-killer.

I think that’s why there’s so much anxiety coming from the paradigm promoters whenever Padian is brought into the conversation.

Posted by: Dan | July 13, 2006 at 12:46 PM

Hey Dan the Man,

My sole ally at Tara’s blog!

Have you ever seen that woman squirm and worm and weasel as she did?:)

Ask often:

How come NONE of HIV+ folks tranmitted the virus?

It bugs ‘em!

HankB

Posted by: HankBarnes | July 13, 2006 at 12:51 PM

Actually, Liam showed up with a righteous, ass-whooping comment as well. So I had 2 allies!

Hank B

Posted by: HankBarnes | July 13, 2006 at 12:55 PM

COMMENTS

Hank,

Even if you accept that the tests are able to determine infection with something called HIV, the fact that there were no seroconversions effectively kills the paradigm.

Liam also makes a broader observation that includes Padian:

“Nowhere in Padian is the algorithmic/subjective/non-standardized methodology for so-called HIV test interpretation discussed. The results are accepted, a priori, as they are throughout AIDS eugenics.”

Posted by: Dan | July 13, 2006 at 01:12 PM

Tara, huh? Wasn’t that Scarlet O’Hara’s summer home and didn’t she routinely hide her head in the sand too. I see a connection here.

Posted by: Lawstud6 | July 13, 2006 at 01:14 PM

Dan,

That’s exactly right. Padian ASSUMES that there is a virus HIV, and it can be detected, by reliable tests.

So, that’s why its so effective (in my view).

Lawstud6,

Our Tara is more like Scarlet O’Horror!:)

HankB

Posted by: HankBarnes | July 13, 2006 at 01:50 PM

Hank,

You are correct David Gisselquist challenges the empirical evidence linking HIV to sexual behaviors and belief that sex is the primary mode of hiv transmission in sub-saharan Africa.

But you make a HUGE error in thinking or announcing that Gisselquist supports the notion that HIV CANNOT be heterosexually transmitted. Gisselquist claims no such thing.

â€For more than a decade, most experts have assumed that more than 90% of HIV in African adults results from heterosexual transmission. In this exercise, we show how data from studies of risk factors for HIV can be used to estimate the proportion from sexual transmission, and we present our estimates. Calculating two ways from available data, our two point estimates - we do not estimate confidence intervals - are that 25-29% of HIV incidence in African women and 30-35% in men is attributable to sexual transmission; these estimates assume 10% annual epidemic growth..â€ David Gisselquist Int J STD AIDS. 2003 Mar;14(3):162-73.

Posted by: McKiernan | July 13, 2006 at 03:29 PM

“But you make a HUGE error in thinking or announcing that Gisselquist supports the notion that HIV CANNOT be heterosexually transmitted. Gisselquist claims no such thing.”

McKiernan,

it doesn’t look like Hank is making the error you accuse him of at all. I’m willing to bet that he’s pointing this out for those critical thinkers out there to ponder.

I think Padian slays the paradigm all on its own, playing by the paradigm’s own rules. If heterosexual transmission is non-existent for white folk, then it’s non-existent for darker-skinned folks…unless “HIV” harbors some kind of racism? I’ve heard “HIV” described as “angry” and “furious” before, so who knows?

Posted by: Dan | July 13, 2006 at 03:40 PM

I may have to retain Dan as my alter ego on these matters:)

McK,

I know this is difficult for you, but, jeez, stop making up claims. Gisselquist has done heroic work in Africa. He, like others before him, have been stonewalled and ignored.

He thinks HIV is not spread sexually in Africa, but mostly by dirty needles and sloppy hospital practices. He probably saw what happened to Duesberg — so he’s not gonna jump on that same limb to be sawed off.

He’s trying, valiantly, to be diplomatic — on this one discreet issue. I doubt he has examined the entire enchilada of HIV causation. If he has, he probably sincerely believes HIV causes AIDS. I haven’t claimed otherwise, you old goat!

If you read his papers, you would learn something. Try Google Scholar — type in “Gisselquist”

HankB

Posted by: HankBarnes | July 13, 2006 at 03:59 PM

Hank, can you ever be straightforward? You’re not banned; I simply said I’d send your repetitive, incorrect, off-topic, many-times refuted posts on Padian into the spam box. Note your comments on the obesity post from today are still up. Not that I’d expect honesty from you, I suppose.

Posted by: Tara | July 13, 2006 at 04:20 PM

Ack!

It’s like a surprise visit from my grade school principal to further scold me!

Well, I was banned on the topic that mattered!

Hey, I have a suggestion, Scarlet O’Tara. Why not let me interview you about science and stuff here by e-mail and let me publish here?

I promise to behave!

HankB

Posted by: HankBarnes | July 13, 2006 at 04:30 PM

“Hey, I have a suggestion, Scarlet O’Tara. Why not let me interview you about science and stuff here by e-mail and let me publish here?”

I think you may only get the sound of crickets chirping from asking that question, Hank.

You might want to go back and check out Tara’s blog. Looks like the place to be today!

Posted by: Dan | July 13, 2006 at 05:24 PM

Hank, I wonder when they will ever get it? If HIV truly causes AIDS, I don’t think that my husband could sleep at night as we have had unprotected sex for many years. Why doesn’t he have HIV or AIDS? The answer is simple, because AIDS is due to immune deficiency of the person. AIDS cannot be passed to anyone any more than a toothache can be passed to another.

Posted by: noreen martin | July 14, 2006 at 06:16 AM

If anyone is up to it at the moment, I could use some help with Tara, Jefferys, and a few others on the Aetiology blog, under the post “The boredom of debating Denialists”.

Posted by: Michael | July 14, 2006 at 12:17 PM

66 Responses to “Anti HIV campaigners winning on all fronts”

Dan Says:
July 26th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Truthseeker,this looks like the various good news you had mentioned last week which would be coming our way.When Dr. Culshaw “came out” not too long ago, I pointed out to some of the paradigm’s supporters that this is just the beginning, a trickle that will turn into a flood when the dam bursts. With Dr. Margulis’ Amazon review, it looks like my prediction is being realized. With the examples of Culshaw and Margulis, others will be emboldened to publicly question the paradigm’s fatal flaws.Hank has had a lot of fun with Dr. Moore, much like a cat tossing around a mouse for a while before devouring it. Hank keeps hammering home the important questions, never letting go, and pointing out to everybody that the people who are adamantly defending the paradigm refuse to answer such basic questions. He’s not letting them get away with it, nor should he. Padian - no seroconversions. It doesn’t get any more basic.
Truthseeker Says:
July 26th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Thanks, Dan, yes, Padian is the giantkiller. Since you note that, it’s back in the headline.
McKiernan Says:
July 26th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Padian is the giantkiller. Ermmh. Only Barnes’s dumbed down version, thereof. One doubts there is a scientist on planet Earth, that believes Padian is either the alpha,omega or the only word on hiv seropositivity.When writers or critics that aren’t held to any higher standard they can get away with such nonsense as well as reward themselves and their choirs a victory, howsoever, pixelated it might be on their own blogs.Error numbero dos. Dr. Margulis never wrote a book review for the Oncogenes book. Seems it was all ghost writ by a persona known as a documentarian by some bloggers, unless of course one can present, the actual words of Dr. Margulis that cannot be attributed to other than hearsay.My apologies. This critique only covers the first three sentences of your 12,531 word post.
Robert Houston Says:
July 27th, 2006 at 3:01 am
As usual, McKiernan attempts to support the HIV house of cards with some sleight-of-hand. “One doubts there is a scientist on planet Earth that believes Padian is either the alpha, omega or the only word on hiv seropositivity.” The point, McK, is that the Padian study was the major U.S. study on the subject, i.e., the largest and the longest (see N. Padian et al. Heterosexual transmission of HIV in Northern California: results from a ten year study. Am. J. Epid. 146:350-7, 1997). In the prospective part of the study, no seroconversion was observed in any of the partners in up to six years of monitoring. Extrapolating from the retrospective data, Padian et al. calculated that the rate of HIV transmission from male-to-female was 1 per 1100 encounters, and from female-to-male was 1 per 9000 encounters. McK also misrepresents the Margulis book review. “Dr. Margulis never wrote a book review for the Oncogenes book. Seems it was all ghost writ by a persona known as a documentarian by some bloggers…” This was McK’s misinterpretation of a post by Hank Barnes at Barnesville. The term “documentarian” that Barnes used referred to the fact that James MacAllister, the second author of the review, is an award-winning writer and director of documentary films in medicine, science and high technology. (He collaborated with Dr. Lynn Margulis, professor of biology at the Univ. of Mass., in making the video “Eukaryosis” about her evolutionary theory.) Dr. Margulis is listed as the first author of the book review, which, as Barnes points out, MacAllister helped to edit.
Truthseeker Says:
July 27th, 2006 at 3:11 am
My apologies. This critique only covers the first three sentences of your 12,531 word post.

Well, feel free to address more of them if you wish, McK.

If Margulis shared the writing/editing on the Bialy review she put her name to, can you explain how this is different from Gallo, for example, becoming the world’s most referenced scientist in the 1980s when he was spending most of his time traveling? We suggest no difference - except that what Margulis puts her name to as co author on Duesberg she thinks and she means what she helped write/edit. We know this since we discussed Duesberg with her years ago and fondly believe we were among the first to encourage her to follow her instinct in the matter, and confirm it. Believe me Margulis knows what is going on, McK, and you can easily imagine why.

The Padian study does what Barnes said it does, and as we said earlier in this blog, having shown nil transmissability it utterly confounds the paradigm that sexually transmitted HIV is the cause of AIDS. Parse it any way you like, McK, that’s the bottom line. Having spoken to Nancy Padian only a few months ago we can confirm that we were told nothing to contradict that conclusion, though it was of course unspoken at that time or any other. At that level of scientific discourse bread does not fall buttered side down.

We are curious. We doubt that you have read the Padian study carefully, but if you have a correction to make to its conclusion pray tell.
john Says:
July 27th, 2006 at 5:45 am
Here a review from Dr. Anant Pant, from the Free University of Berlin (nov 1999)http://web.fu-berlin.de/presse/fup/fup99/fup_99_226.html (at the bottom of the page) :(badtranslating by Reverso)Dr. Hans Anand Pant is trying to clarify the question, in his thesis ” HIV-Infektionen bei iv Drogenkonsumenten. Sozialepidemiologische Befunde zur Ã„tiologie durch Metaanalysen und PrimÃ¤rdatenanalysen”, why the transmission ways of HIV considered as certain with intravenously injecting drug-takers - use of unsterile syringes and unprotected sexual intercourse - frequently did not allowed istelf to prove in social-epidemiologic studies. To follow systematically this conspicuousness, Pant planed for all studies of the last 15 years and submitted them to a statistic analysis (Metaanalysis). The results remained surprising also afterwards : Unsterile syringes turned out against expectation only in less than half of 68 studies appeared world-wide with altogether 40.000 interviewed and tested bears and female bears as a statistically remarkable risk factor. Possibly every tenth study showed even that the HIV rate lies with these so-called Needle-Sharern low than with the interviewees conscious of prevention who inject sterilely. Still more paradoxical the findings fell out for the sexual transmission risk which 20 studies have in simultaneously just 12.000 drug-takers and drug-taker’s consumers anlaysed. Three quarters of all studies come to the result that sexually active condom users and female condom users showed much higher infection rates than condom non users. But Pant think that these datas are nonsense (LOL!), and that the basic statistics shouldn’t be used in these metaanalysis.(ReLOL!)
Dean Esmay Says:
July 27th, 2006 at 8:37 am
One of these days I’ll figure out what McKiernan’s actual motives are in this whole thing. His actual background on the subject would help a lot.
McKiernan Says:
July 27th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Dean, McK is merely an observer of the scenery in life. Suffice to say re: this posts context, the notion that the Padian Study clarifies the be all and end of all hiv seropositivity studies is beyond science and beyond stupidity. How can you buy into that Mr. Houston ?Fearless blog matador is free to dumb the science down as much as he so chooses. Apparently it meets NAR science standards. TS. The 175 discordant couples in which there were no seroconversions represent a minority of 39.5 % of the total study group of 884 people. None of the hiv + people were in an active stage of HIV infection. Barnes skill in dumbing down the science while referring variously to Dr. Moore as “Smuck” of the week or “Sir Smuckface” doesn’t exactly do credit except to the formers own intelligen?e. Ignored as well is Padian study (1991 JAMA) in which seroconversions were found in heterosexual couples. RESULTS.â€”We observed one probable instance (1%) of female-to-male transmission compared with 20% transmission rates in the female partners of infected men. CONCLUSION- The odds of male-to-female transmission were significantly greater than female-to-male transmission. The one case of female-to-male transmission was unique in that the couple reported numerous unprotected sexual contacts and noted several instances of vaginal and penile bleeding during intercourse.
Truthseeker Says:
July 27th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Beyond science and beyond stupidity Try not to be insulting, McKiernan, since there is no need to be if you are right. There is no one here who will not recognize that and salute if you can show it clearly. Nor is Robert Houston anything less than the best PubMed pilot we know, and a prominent Manhattan TV reporter on cancer and other medical topics confirmed this impression of extraordinary reliability today at lunch, having known and used Houston’s advice and research for decades. In fact, his eyes lit up at the mention of Houston’s name. You can argue the details to death as has been done many times before with this one but give us a straight answer. What transmission rate of HIV positivity do you claim supports the grand heterosexual global pandemic, based on what studies? And what modus operandi do you imagine, given that antibodies are as infectious as a toothache, in Noreen’s apt phrase, and the amount of virus around in between initial infection and, years later, “AIDS”, is negligible whether you take medications or not? Man to woman is x per 1000 copulations. Woman to man is y. What is x and y, according to which study or studies, and explain how either or both is sufficient to spread “AIDS” and generate an epidemic. “Earlier” Padian study, 1991, 1% and 20%, is that it? And that overrides the “later” Padian study, it that it?And while you’re at it, please explain why Gisselquist acknowledges both x and y are insufficient, in his own entirely mainstream papers, and thus they force him to search for some other vector. Is he “beyond stupid”? Rumor has it that you are a retired pharmacist gaining easy credit for taking armchair potshots at the heretics in HIVâˆ«AIDS, since you have nothing better to do. We certainly hope you can correct this impression if it is false. If it is true, please don’t be a spoiler here. This discussion is open only to those genuinely searching for the scientific truth.
McKiernan Says:
July 27th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Okay,Lets try this again, scientifically. Padian study. 175 people didn’t convert to seropositivity whilst having sex with 175 people who had previously converted to seropositivity but did not have any active hiv infection during the time of the study. Meanwhile the other 544 people in the study (60.5%) had results unknown, left the study, were subject to attrition or weren’t around ten years later. Conclusion:Non-scientist lawyer with beef with Big Pharma announces Padian study is the ONLY study one will ever need to disprove HIV=AIDS. He further announces in his internet meanderings that he doesn’t know if hiv causes AIDS and that he doesn’t exactly have the science right. This is our paradigm killer in action.Does McK have that part right so far ?
Truthseeker Says:
July 27th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
No. “Active HIV infection” is a concept which is a diversion.

Answer the questions you were asked. Including the retired chemist issue.
McKiernan Says:
July 27th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Active HIV infection is not a diversion.

Anecdotal isn’t generally my style. My friend’s son entered the US military and was hiv negative in all physical examinations. His duty assignment Hawaii. He did spend some 7 months on TDY (temporary duty) in the southern hemisphere. Several months upon returning to Hawaii, he had an hiv infection process of six weeks. Initially he did well but later had to be sent to CONUS for further treatment. He died seven months later of an acquired immunodeficiency disorder.

In reviewing his medical history, all of his prior sexual contacts in Hawaii and the other TDY nation proved to be hiv negative except for one person with whom he lived for 4 months while on duty in the TDY nation. That contact was a former sex worker from Thailand. She proved to be HIV +.

If you insist on believing Barnes analysis that the Padian study represents incontrovertible proof that hiv is unrelated to sexual activity and therefore is the paradigm killer par excellence which you so dearly seek, well, I feel sorry for your conclusions. They are not based in all the science.

This is a brick and mortar statement. Your questions are irrelevant as you have most likely been over them dozens upon dozens of times.

So why does anyone, even a science writer defend a dumbed down version of Padian ?

Sorry, I am not a retired chemist.
SA Says:
July 27th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Your wasting your time, McK, which is sad. But arguing with TS is just like arguing with a wall. Of course it’s sexually transmitted. And you don’t have to be a retired chemist to know it. Not easily transmitted, but yes, transmitted all the same.
Michael Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 2:02 am
To SA:

Yo, SA.

You stated “Of Course it’s sexually transmitted”. I don’t think you can back that statement up with proven science around here, SA. Not only that, but I would bet it would be rather easy for the re-thinkers community to punch a hundred plausible holes in anything you tried to back your statement of SUPPOSED FACT up with, so you better come up with something that has also eliminated every one of the 60 plus factors known to cause HIV tests to go false positive as not being what was actually transmitted. And you better make sure the HIV virus was actually isolated from both of the supposed individuals that transferred it sexually. And don’t worry, I won’t make it overly hard on you to prove your supposed truth, such as to make sure your piece of supposed proof of sexual transmission has a legitimate EM of both persons supposed HIV. Matter of fact, you can’t find a sexual transmission study that passes any of those three!

You know SA, it is alright to say your opinion, maybe tell us that you personally believe HIV is sexually transmitted. But it is not OK to ram your beliefs, which I believe to be full of it, down the throat of the rest of us or tell us your belief is a fact. At least not without being corrected.

Essay,I previously believed that you might have actually been, as Michael David had claimed, “a beacon of sanity”. With this last post of yours, seems to me that the beacon has dimmed considerably. More like a dim bulb. Also seems, that just your wording of “arguing with TS is just like arguing with a wall” leads me to believe that you have experience in such argumentation and are someone whom has done this repeatedly. Do you have a habit of arguing unprovably lame points and calling your beliefs facts?

I can’t help but wonder what other supposed names you have used in posts on this site! Just who is hiding behind those foster grants?

Yo Mick,

McKy boy, it is a really good idea not to use anecdotes around here either, because it also proves absolutely nothing. You say your friend died of “acquired immunodeficiency disorder” which tells us absolutely nothing about the exact cause of death. For all I know he made himself sick over the diagnosis and died of the common flu turned into common pneumonia. Can you verify he or his supposed contact actually had HIV? Doubt it. Can you eliminate all of the 60 plus factors that are written in the science journals, that are proven to make HIV tests go false positive? Doubt it. Can you show us the viral isolation from your unfortunate friend? Doubt it!

Can either of you two boneheads prove that I am wrong with the following statement of fact:

Every single person who ever died of AIDS did so not because of a virus, but died because of the bodily reactions to their own beliefs, combined with the bodily reactions of overwhelming emotions of apathy, and basically because they scared themselves to death, and their body and immune system simply reacted to their beliefs and their fear until they developed fatal diseases, or they hastened their fear filled beliefs by taking HIV drugs and died due to weakening their bodies with said drugs, or by complications of the drugs.

Gonna prove that wrong? Didn’t think so. Science can not prove or disprove anything having to do with the mind/body connection.

How bout disproving this one then?

Every person that died of AIDS died at the exact moment at which their death was predetermined at the moment of their birth.

How bout disprovin this one?

Every person has a personal subconscious hand in bringing about their own death.

Mck and SA, maybe you guys should just stick with Moore’s AIDStruth site, and believe whatever you are told to believe. You obviously do not yet possess the ability to be critical thinkers, and critical thinkers will be exactly whom you are going to be butting heads with every time you guys print such lame drivel on this site as you did in your posts. And if you guys are just looking to find something to argue with someone, either get a wife or a boyfriend and argue with them. Either way, please don’t waste our time. And if you are going to follow this site, maybe you should just shut up and “keep observing” unless you have something more intelligent to contribute than your above posts. I pray to God neither of you are or have been involved with science. Your 2 cents worth this time around really isn’t worth a plug nickel.

(hey everyone, watch these two whiners post some more drivel in response, and more ignoring whatever question you pose or information you point out. They just can not help themselves. Notice how indignant the responses will be. Ego problems of self esteem I think. Their ego’s are incapable of admitting they are mistaken.)
Truthseeker Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 3:17 am
Can either of you two boneheads prove that I am wrong with the following statement of fact:

such lame drivel on this site as you did in your posts

Well, of course, these words are insulting but are they ad hominem? Do we have to object to them as lowering the tone of the blog? We think not. There comes a time for blunt talk. There is a moment when any man however rational loses patience. This moment, in our opinion, is one of them. They are well timed. Now we realize this is arguable, but any appeal will be turned down, because the overriding principle is that if an insult is sufficiently well aimed, then according to the rules of this blog it stands unopposed.

Your wasting your time, McK, which is sad. But arguing with TS is just like arguing with a wall. Of course it’s sexually transmitted. And you don’t have to be a retired chemist to know it. Not easily transmitted, but yes, transmitted all the same.

SA, we are not sure if this is well aimed because we are not sure whether you are not speaking tongue in cheek. Is it in fact satirical, or heartfelt?

If heartfelt, we would like to check your assumptions. You have evidence for the transmission of HIV, do you? Could we hear what that evidence is, which is not open to the objections of Michael above, that positivity itself is questionable in nature or detection, and that if anything is transmitted it has to be virus, and not antibodies to it?

Put another way, do you believe that antibodies are transmissible? Or do you believe that undetectable virus is transmissible? If the latter, at what rate do you believe undetectable virus is transmissible? Is that rate high enough to allow an epidemic, let alone a pandemic? Is the frequency of copulation of normal people enough to allow transmission at a high enough frequency to engender any kind of epidemic, or any spread at all? Did you read our previous posts on the sexual athleticism necessary to transmit at the 1 in 1000 level?

If not, why do you have to believe in any transmission at all, and not simply accept the Padian study?

Several months upon returning to Hawaii, he had an hiv infection process of six weeks. Initially he did well but later had to be sent to CONUS for further treatment. He died seven months later of an acquired immunodeficiency disorder.

McK, your story is questionaable as a basis for your belief in the transmissibility of HIV. It involves more assumptions without evidence than a religion. Besides which, it contradicts your religion, if that is what your belief in HIV is, in the face of our evidence. For your bible states that there is a delay of average 12 or 15 years before the onset of immunodeficiency after catching the Virus. You state your friend’s son died within the year. This realistically only happens in HIVâˆ«AIDS fairyland when the patient has been stuffed to the gills with drugs prior.

Your understanding of the basic bones of the HIVâˆ«AIDS paradigm is so limited? Perhaps you had better bone up at NIAID. See list of Misleading Sites/Pages bottom right in margin. NIAID Fact Sheet

Are you shy of saying what role in life you do play, if not retired chemist? Retired general? That’s our next guess.
Robert Houston Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 4:20 am
Michael, really! Please calm down. Although I share some of those beliefs, the style of that last comment was way over the top - rude and inappropriate. Must this discussion degenerate into bar room outbursts?

SA, please accept our sincere apologies for the uncivil remarks of our friend Michael, who may have had a bit too much vino tonight. Reading your comments, I know that you are a very wise and intelligent person, SA, and I hope that you will disregard silly rants such as we just heard. I for one welcome and appreciate your participation on this website, and I’m sure that Truthseeker feels the same way. It was especially kind of you to share some of your unique knowledge and insights regarding the Gates Foundation.

All that SA said that Michael found so upsetting was that, “Of course it’s sexually transmitted… Not easily transmitted, but transmitted all the same.” This is a standard view, and quite defensible. In fact, there’s no formal AIDS dissident position that HIV cannot be sexually transmitted. David Rasnick and Hank Barnes may hold that view, but there are a range of possible opinions. Actually, SA expressed the research results quite well: “Not easily transmitted.”

Mr. McKiernan has raised pertinent points which are worth discussing - not maligning. Briefly, the 1991 Padian study that McK cited was a cross-sectional survey (i.e., a snapshot in time) and not a prospective study. The percentages referred to the proportions of couples with one HIV-positive individual in which the partner was also HIV-positive. The percentages given were about the same as in the 1997 Padian study, but did not tell us much about rates of transmission per unit of time or per coital act.

Padian et al. first reported prospective follow-up results in 1993 (J. AIDS 6:1043-8, 1993). They wrote, “Data from 144 couples who were discordant for HIV serostatus are reported… We observed no seroconversion after 193 couple-years of follow-up.” This does not mean that HIV can’t be sexually transmitted, but that such didn’t occur in the year or so of monitoring.

Padian’s final estimate of a transmission rate of about one in 1000 acts is actually the standard mainstream view. McK tried to give the impression that Padian’s conclusions were unusual, unconfirmed, or “dumbed down.” A recent medical editorial summarizes the research conundrum: “Although several studies of HIV epidemiology…have described heterosexual transmission as occurring in ~1/1000 coital acts, this number seems far too low to explain the magnitude of the HIV pandemic.” (M. Cohen and C. Pilcher, J. Inf. Dis. 191:1391-93, May 2005.)

Why is the transmission rate so low? Because there’s little infectious virus in HIV-positive individuals due to effective neutralizing antibody production, as I documented in a recent comment.
SA Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 10:01 am
As far as I knew, I was expressing Peter Duesberg’s position when I stated that it was not easily transmitted. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m looking at some of hte stats he uses in his 91 and 93 papers that pretty much support “not easily transmitted.” Thanks, Robert. I appreciate your defense, but in general, I ignore rants like Michael’s as being baseless and defensive.
McKiernan Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Mr. McKiernan has raised pertinent points which are worth discussing - not maligning. We observed no seroconversion after 193 couple-years of follow-up (Padian) This does not mean that HIV can’t be sexually transmitted, â€¦ McK tried to give the impression that Padian’s conclusions were unusual, unconfirmed, or “dumbed down.” Robert HoustonMr. Houston,Thank you, the only disagreement I can find is not that Padianâ€™s conclusions were unusual, unconfirmed, or â€œdumbed down”, rather that Hank Barnes distorts the facts of Padian, dumbs them down, to derive his own reading of the matter inconsistent with Padianâ€™s conclusions. At worse, it is intellectually dishonest, at best itâ€™s a distortion of the data. The point is he gets away with it because he isnâ€™t held to any higher standard. So, a careful and accurate understanding of Padian as you pointed out is precisely that her data and her conclusions does not mean HIV cannot be sexually transmitted.
Michael David Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Can we get real SA? A “transmission rate” of 1 per 1000 contacts (XY ab+ x XX, the generally accepted guesstimate … XX ab+ x XY is officially 10x lower!) is, for all intents and purposes, 0. It cannot be the basis for a sexually transmitted epidemic — anywhere.
Dan Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 11:20 am
SA,have you been banned here under your actual name?I noticed that despite the fuss you’ve made over others not using their names here, you openly acknowledged at AME that you’ve used a pseudonym here. Are you the same SA that was commenting on a Larry Kramer thread?
Michael Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 11:23 am
SA and McK.I hope you will accept my apologies for being so emotionally over the top in my post to the point of obvious rudeness. I think all of us at times have beliefs that we consider to be facts. It is often difficult for our own selves to see and accept this. That is just the way our very human minds operate. It is understandably especially difficult to look at what we construe to be facts as a mere belief in an issue such as HIV/AIDS, where the belief has been drilled into our heads as a fact for 25 years. I do intend to do my best in the future, to point these things out as beliefs, not facts, in a kinder way in the future. Again, my apologies.
SA Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Michael — no need for apologies. Really. Everyone goes over the top at times — it’s tough crap we’re trying to find a way through.Dan, I don’t know what you’re talking about. And even if I did, I woudn’t respond, because I’m trying to stay on topic, not become a private investigator, or respond to one.Michael David — and Odds Ratio is an Odds Ratio — it’s a statistical average. 1 in 1000 is in average than includes the ratio 1 in 10, 1 in 100 and 1 in 100000, etc. If it were zero, no chance, the average ratio would be much closer to 1 in 1,000,000 for instance. If you don’t understand statistics, don’t comment on them. Epidemiology is all statistics, nothing else, and the Padian study is just one set of statistics, as are the stats P.D. uses in his papers, which do not include the Padian stats by the way. Stats are estimates that rely on families of distributions. They have not much to do with reality. 1 in 1000 does indeed imply that it can and does happen, sorry. I stand by, with much statistical support, my statement that is it indeed transmissible, but hard to transmit. Of course, if you support Perth, that’s all garbage to you. But if you think HIV is a real retrovirus, then this is the truth. End of the stats tutorial.
Dan Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
SA,that’s ok, you don’t have to “fess up”. I’ll just note your lack of integrity regarding use of pseudonyms.
Michael David Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
But is an odds ratio of 1/1000 (1/10,000) sufficient to promulgate an epidemic? Pedantry regarding statistical analysis misses the only real point. Would you care to “fumigate your wisdom” on this aspect of my comment?
SA Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Now you’re just back peddling MD, so why should I respond? You decide what odds ratio is enough to promulgate an “epidemic.” That’s not even a scientific question — it’s a policy decision. I was just defending McK, and I used statistics to do it, and you can’t refute what I’ve written, so you claim it’s irrelevant anyway. Fine. If you don’t think it’s relevant, fine. Then why not switch the direction of the discussion to something that pleases you more.And Dan — when have you ever used your full name here? Where in the world do you get off talking to anyone about integrity on this site? So — touche — I’ll note your lack of integrity as well. Happy? Are we even now? Can you get back on topic and not be so very obsessed with who you think I am? It’s kind of pathetic. You’re acting like a creepy stalker. Does it matter who I am, or really, does it matter more what I say? Make up your mind. I think the answer is obvious.Anyone with something constructive to add? Please?
Dan Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
SA,I’m not the one who’s berated others for using a pseudonym. So, I don’t see where I lack integrity.My point is that you have made a fuss over people using pseudonyms, and now you’re using one. That’s all. You have my word, this is my last post on the pseudonym subject.
SA Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Okay Dan. Thanks for the lecture 3 times over. You’ve always lacked integrity, but I used to have it, is that it? If so, good point. Yes. Couldn’t agree more. No integrity here at all, especially now that you’ve gone so far to alert others to who I am. In fact, you’ve done such a spectacular job, Dan, don’t you think I’ve gotten all my integrity back by now? How silly this was, don’t you think? What a miserable waste of time focusing on WHO is posting, rather than WHAT they’re saying. If everyone else doesn’t get it, perhaps Dan you’ll do me the kindness of making one more post on this topic and tell all the sports fans watching what my REAL identity is.
SA Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Well, can’t wait for Dan to actually do it, apparentlly. Really Dan, you’ve made such a big deal out of this — why can’t you actually pull the trigger? Go ahead. Really. Now I’ll just have to kill off SA, anyway. So, aim for him, okay? Oh wait, you’re not gonna do that. Right. A lack of integrity or something. Anyway — Dan’s found me out! Wow! And who knows what will happen next? Maybe I’ll come back using the name I first used here, or maybe I’ll invent another and see how long it takes Dan to figure it all out. Fun. Ciao for now. SA signing off.
Truthseeker Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
You decide what odds ratio is enough to promulgate an “epidemic.” That’s not even a scientific question — it’s a policy decision

SA, that is in fact the key, the crux of the matter. Padian in fact found a zero rate in 1997, as we reca

Science Guardian

Power and politics in science and health

Cool examination of hot debates

More Quotations on Science and Belief

Best viewed in current Safari, Firefox or Chrome in Mac. Guide to blog layout is at the bottom of the home page.

Anti HIV campaigners winning on all fronts

66 Responses to “Anti HIV campaigners winning on all fronts”