Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

News, views and reviews measured against professional literature in peer reviewed journals (adjusted for design flaws and bias), well researched books, authoritative encyclopedias (not the bowdlerized Wiki entries on controversial topics) and the investigative reporting and skeptical studies of courageous original thinkers among academics, philosophers, researchers, scholars, authors, filmmakers and journalists.

Supporting the right of exceptional minds to free speech, publication, media coverage and funding against the crowd prejudice, leadership resistance, monetary influences and internal professional politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, HIV(not)AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, information technology, religions and cults, health, medicine, diet and nutrition.

***************************************************

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Halton C. Arp wki/obit/txt/vds/txt/txt/bk/bk, Henry Bauer txt/blg/ blg/bks/bk/txt/bk/vd, John Beard bk, Harvey Bialy bk/bk/txt/txt/rdo/vd, John Bockris bio/txt/ltr/bk, Donald W. Braben, Peter Breggin ste/fb/col/bks, Darin Brown txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/vd, Giordano Bruno bk/bio/bio, Frank R. Buianouckas, Stanislav Burzynski mov, Erwin Chargaff bio/bk/bio/prs, James Chin bk/vd, Nicolaus Copernicus bk, Mark Craddock, Francis Crick vd, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw txt/bk, Roger Cunningham, Charles Darwin txts/bk, Erasmus Darwin txt//bk/txt/hse/bks, Peter Duesberg ste/ste/bk/txt/vd/vd, Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman bio, John Fewster, Rosalind Franklin, Bernard Forscher tx, Galileo Galilei, Walter Gilbert vd, Goethe bio/bk/bio, Nicolas Gonzalez tlk/rec/stetxt/txt, Patricia Goodson txt/bk/bk, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Etienne de Harven bk/txt/vd, Alfred Hassig intw/txt, Robert G. Houston txt, Steven Jonas vd, Edward Jenner txt, Benjamin Jesty, Adrian Kent vd, Thomas Kuhn, Fred Kummerow, Stefan Lanka txt/txt/vd, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen vd, Paul Lauterbur vd, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, James Lovelock, Andrew Maniotis, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, Christi Meyer vd, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Luc Montagnier txt/txt/vd, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling prs/vd/vd, Eric Penrose, Roger Penrose vd, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick bio/vd/bk, Robert Root-Bernstein vd, Sherwood Rowland, Otto Rossler, Harry Rubin, Marco Ruggiero txt/txt/intw/vd, Bertrand Russell Carl Sagan vd, Erwin Schrodinger, Fred Singer, Barbara Starfield txt, Gordon Stewart txt/txt, Richard Strohman, Thomas Szasz, Nicola Tesla bio/bio, Charles Thomas intw/vd, Frank Tipler, James Watson vd/vd, Alfred Wegener vd, Edward O. Wilson vd.

ACADEMICS, DOCTORS, AUTHORS, FILMMAKERS, REPORTERS AND COMMENTATORS WHO HAVE NOBLY AIDED REVIEW OF THE STATUS QUO

Jad Adams bk, Marci Angell bk/txt/txt/txt, Clark Baker ste/txt/rdo/vd, James Blodgett, Tony Brown vd, Hiram Caton txt/txt/txt/bk/ste, Jonathan Collin ste , Marcus Cohen, David Crowe vd, Margaret Cuomo, Stephen Davis BK/BK,/rdo, Michael Ellner vd, Elizabeth Ely txt/txt/ste, Epicurus, Dean Esmay, Celia Farber bio/txt/txt/txt/vd, Jonathan Fishbein txt/txt/wk, T.C.Fry, Michael Fumento, Max Gerson txt, Charles Geshekter vd, Michael Geiger, Roberto Giraldo, David Healy txt, Bob Herbert, Mike Hersee ste/rdo, Neville Hodgkinson txt /vd, James P. Hogan, Richard Horton bio/vd/vd, Christopher Hitchens, Eric Johnson, Claus Jensen vd, Phillip Johnson, Coleman Jones vds, William Donald Kelley, Ernst T. Krebs Sr txt, Ernst T. Krebs Jr. txt,/bio/txt/txt/ltr, Paul Krugman, Brett Leung MOV/ste/txt/txt/tx+vd/txt, Katie Leishman, Anthony Liversidge blg/intv/intv/txt/txts/txt/intv/txt/vd/vd, Bruce Livesey txt, James W. Loewen, Frank Lusardi, Nathaniel Lehrman vd, Christine Maggiore bk/ste/rec/rdo/vd, Rouben Mamoulian txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/doc/flm/flm, Noreen Martin vd, Robert Maver txt/itw, Eric Merola MOV, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Michael Moore bio/MOV/MOV/MOV, Gordon Moran, Ralph Nader bk, Ralph Moss txt/blg/ste/bks, Gary Null /txt/rdo/vd, Dan Olmsted wki, Toby Ord vd, Charles Ortleb bk/txt/bk/intw/flm, Neenyah Ostrom bk, Dennis Overbye, Mehmet Dr Oz vd, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos ste/vd, Maria Papagiannidou bk, Thomas Piketty bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk, Robert Pollin txt/vd/bk, Jon Rappoport bio/bk/bk/ste/bk/bk/vd, Janine Roberts bk/bk, Luis Sancho vd, Liam Scheff ste/txt/bk/bk/rdio/vd, John Scythes, Casper Schmidt txt/txt, Joan Shenton vd/vd, Joseph Sonnabend vd, John Stauber, David Steele, Joseph Stiglitz bk/txt, Will Storr rdo Wolfgang Streeck, James P. Tankersley ste, Gary Taubes vd, Mwizenge S. Tembo, John Tierney vd, Michael Tracey, Valendar Turner rec, Jesse Ventura bk, Michael Verney-Elliott bio/vds/vd, Voltaire, Walter Wagner, Andrew Weil vd, David Weinberger bio/bk/blg/blg/BK/bk/pds, Robert Willner bk/txt/txt/vd, Howard Zinn.

*****************************************************
I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing that ever interfered with my learning was my education. I am Freeman Dyson, and I approve of this blog, but would warn the author that life as a heretic is a hard one, since the ignorant and the half informed, let alone those who should know better, will automatically trash their betters who try to enlighten them with independent thinking, as I have found to my sorrow in commenting on "global warming" and its cures.
Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

The progress of science is strewn, like an ancient desert trail, with the bleached skeletons of discarded theories which once seemed to possess eternal life. - Arthur Koestler

One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison. – Bertrand Russell

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. - Samuel Johnson

A sudden bold and unexpected question doth many times surprise a man and lay him open. – Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626)

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. – Mark Twain

Although science has led to the generally high living standards that most of the industrialized world enjoys today, the astounding discoveries underpinning them were made by a tiny number of courageous, out-of-step, visionary, determined, and passionate scientists working to their own agenda and radically challenging the status quo. – Donald W. Braben

An old error is always more popular than a new truth. — German Proverb

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself. – Mark Twain

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

A clash of doctrines is not a disaster, but an opportunity. - Alfred North Whitehead

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. – Samuel Johnson

Man’s mind cannot grasp the causes of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul. And without considering the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, he snatches at the first approximation to a cause that seems to him intelligible and says: “This is the cause!” – Leo Tolstoy

The evolution of the world tends to show the absolute importance of the category of the individual apart from the crowd. - Soren Kierkegaard

Who does not know the truth is simply a fool, yet who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal. – Bertold Brecht

How easily the learned give up the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of ideas in their imagination. – Adam Smith

Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned. – Mark Twain

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. If we watch ourselves honestly, we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. – Arthur Koestler

Whenever the human race assembles to a number exceeding four, it cannot stand free speech. – Mark Twain

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith

There isn’t anything so grotesque or so incredible that the average human being can’t believe it. – Mark Twain

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. – Voltaire

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.- Blaise Pascal.

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

The applause of a single human being is of great consequence. – Samuel Johnson

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Human Nature)

Important: This site is best viewed in LARGE FONT, and in Firefox for image title visibility (place cursor on pics to reveal comments) and layout display. Click the title of any post to get only that post and its Comments for printing. All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited, typically the original journal studies. Full guide to site purpose, layout and how to print posts out is in the lower blue section at the bottom of the home page.
---Admin AL/E/ILMK---

Larry Altman’s Guide to AIDS Conferences


25 years of mental inertia on parade

Does the HIV meme ever leave?

Now we have the Toronto AIDS conference upon us. Dissenters must feel enormous conflict as they contemplate this monstrosity. On the one hand, the biggest and best target audience in the HIV∫AIDS world, assembled right on their doorstep, and easily accessible from New York, San Francisco, San Diego, Alberta and other locations of key dissenters, especially Toronto, where CBC-associated Colman Jones has been operating for years.

But on the other, the sheer size of this planetary sized snowball of nonscience is forbidding, to say the least. What hope have sense and reason, those frail levers of the individual mind, of moving this mountain? This great agglomeration of communal fantasy will gather 45,000 believers, all told, if all the 20,000 public tickets are sold at the $20 million event. They will include great names in celebrity and politics, including the world’s greatest disease philanthropist, Bill Gates, who will give the opening address, having just handed over another half billion to the Global AIDS, TB and Malaria Fund, Bill Clinton, co-chair of the International AIDS Trust with Nelson Mandela, the Canadian Health Minister Tony Clement and even Elton John will turn up, so they say. Alicia Keys will perform Sunday night.

For some reason the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is unable to participate owing to pressing business elsewhere, but this doesn’t seem to be the result of being tipped off that the whole thing is a giant mistake, predicated on a false reading of the scientific literature. That’s about as likely as the vision of Thabo Mbeki mentioning his realistic view of HIV∫AIDS to George W. Bush at the White House on Thursday, when our President cut short his vacation to hear what he had to say.

The crowd is so thoughtless that even mainstream scientists of any accomplishment no longer bother to turn up to this circus, according to Larry Altman, who gave us a reassuring rundown of what to expect in the Tuesday Science Section of the New York Times, the newspaper of record in HIV∫AIDS.

So comfortably conventional was Altman’s piece that despite close examination we could not detect one single glimmer of independent thought in the entire lengthy exercise, which covered Larry’s attendance at 13 of the 15 World AIDS Conferences that have taken place since 1985. Larry’s account did not veer from the conventional wisdom in any respect, however wide the gap between the scientific literature and what he was saying. It is now quite clear that the medical correspondent of the New York Times is nothing less than the propaganda partner of Dr Anthony Fauci, head of NIAID.

For what his deft rundown reveals is that even at the tippy top of the ladder, media reporters have been coopted for years into becoming the chief cheerleaders for the paradigm. In fact, Altman’s account is that of an activist, who gets “sad and angry” when he meets with an African leader who rejects the news he brings.

What precisely does Larry Altman get paid for?

This is the question that came to mind as one ploughed through this homily. Is not Altman meant to be an independent reporter, independently assessing what he is told by scientists? Is it not reasonable to expect independent thought from the mind of a senior medical correspondent of the paper of record when he tackles a disputed field where lives of millions are at stake?

Let’s deconstruct what Larry has learned after twenty years tracking AIDS with the HIV∫AIDS meme firmly entrenched in his brain. Has the meme now finally paralyzed all movement in his neural networks? It looks dangerously close to doing so, if it hasn’t already.

August 8, 2006

The Doctor’s World

Talking About AIDS, With All the World Watching

By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, M.D.

Perhaps we have a clue straight away in the title A Doctor’s World. Apparently Larry is a doc, an MD – not a scientist, educated at Tuft and trained at the University of Washington, and then the CDC, and now teaching at NYU. If so, then by nature he is not in any position to challenge science, since he is well trained to absorb established knowledge in medicine, not to question. He is more like an auto mechanic learning a manual. He has been learning, and teaching, the manual of AIDS for twenty years. But why does he not read the mainstream literature?

The 16th International AIDS Conference opens in Toronto on Sunday a huge arena for many groups to share the now huge body of knowledge.

Indeed, the manual is now huge, it is too long to allow any independent thought whatsoever.

I have attended all but two of the conferences since 1985, and I have watched the meetings change, reflecting one of history’s worst pandemics.

Larry, we understand. With barely time to read all the press releases and attend the press conferences and catch one or two people in the corridors in 13 Conferences, and with access to all the key people and covering the medical story throughout the year, in twenty two years you have never had time to think about whether the pandemic made any sense, or notice that for a decade the mainstream literature has been saying that the global pandemic is based on a false assumption, that “HIV positive status” is sufficiently infectious.

They have also have played a major role in lowering the price of antiretroviral drugs in poor countries.

Larry, are you an activist or a reporter? Activists may have continually made the mistake of assuming that all new drugs are good, but what excuse has an MD and CDC graduate got for not examining this assumption? This is the man on whom the Times and its readers are relying for an accurate and balanced report on the most politically charged and commercially profitable area of HIV?AIDS. Has he ignored Harper’s March issue, or read it and dismissed it – if so on what grounds?

In the last six years, the conference has been held in South Africa and Thailand… to give scientists in modern laboratories and hospitals their first view of the challenges in delivering antiretroviral therapy in developing countries, where a vast majority of the world’s H.I.V. infected people live.

But has what you and they ‘see” been interpreted through distorting lenses? Is it not better that they first read the literature thoroughly, so that they have a more sophisticated interpretation of what seems obvious in front of their eyes? Is this not the difference between “anecdotal” and “scientific” evidence?

In 1988 The mainstay of therapy then was AZT, which cost about $8,000 a year. Additional drugs were needed to treat the many and often fatal opportunistic infections that developed when the number of a patient’s CD-4 immune cells fell too low.

And why were additional drugs needed? AZT was a drug that was abandoned after it was discovered and tested as too damaging to the patient, even as it killed cancers. Before the dose was reduced, it evidently killed a lot of people earlier (2-3 years) than they were expected to die of the Virus (10-20 years). By some estimates 300,000 patients were lost to AZT, a catastrophe which is the crux of the new book, Wrongful Death, by Stephen Davis. Maybe, Dr Altman, you should read it, if this enormous debacle hasn’t yet triggered some skepticism in your mind?

King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden attended the conference in Stockholm. Former presidents, including Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela of South Africa, have attended. Both have said they wished they had done more to prevent AIDS when they were in office.

The tendency of celebrities and politicains to cloak themselves in virtue by unwittingly supporting the paradigm in this field against review is a propaganda success for its promoters, but is all the more reason to ensure that the factual basis for their concern and attention should be gotten very, very straight.

The Toronto conference will be the third held in Canada. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney opened the 1989 meeting in Montreal, but his successor, Jean Chrétien, did not appear at the Vancouver meeting in 1996. The current prime minister, Stephen Harper, has not accepted an invitation to appear in Toronto, disappointing the organizers. But as Dr. Helene D. Gayle, the president of the International AIDS Society, an independent professional group that is chief organizer of the meeting, said, “AIDS conferences can sometimes be hard on politicians.”

Maybe Harper has been talking to Mbeki? But more important, is it not the professional duty of Altman as the Times guide to the field to note the interlocking career paths of key players in the arena? Gayle, who has just moved from the Gates Foundation, was at the CDC for years, as noted in an earlier post.

The conferences have also had their more startling moments. In a speech at the Durban conference in 2000, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa refused to acknowledge H.I.V. as the cause of AIDS. Minutes later, he walked out of a televised forum as Nkosi Johnson, 11, spoke of being born with H.I.V. He wished, he said, that the government would “start giving AZT to pregnant H.I.V. mothers to help stop the virus being passed on to their babies.”

What precisely was it that told Larry Altman not to take Thabo Mbeki’s response seriously, and proceed to investigate what lay behind Thabo Mbeki’s judgement? Did Larry ever do a lengthy, respectful interview with Mbeki, then or later? Why not? We can’t find one listed at the Times. Would he not have jumped at the chance to do one with Tony Blair, if he had shown such a reaction? Mbeki is a world leader of stature, involved in top international negotiations in G8, for example, and leading peace initiatives in Africa and elsewhere. Why doesn’t he rate?

In 1996 in Vancouver, the audience cheered after a grandmother told the conference: “How did I get infected? The answer is very simple: It just doesn’t matter.”

Really? Does the AIDS meme paralyze all thought in Larry’s brain? Wouldn’t this have triggered some faint response in your mind? Do grandmothers usually serve as VD vectors?

There was a growing understanding that the AIDS virus, which had yet to be named H.I.V., had been spreading silently for at least a decade before the disease was first detected in 1981.

Silently stealing over minds everywhere, the AIDS meme…but Larry, all the evidence is that the “AIDS virus” spreads only with the maximum of effort, and not in the general population, and this has been the case from the beginning. And the evidence from the CDC’s estimates of prevalence in the US (roughly 1 million for the duration, once the artificial changes due to altering assumptions are removed) is that it has not spread at all. In fact, evidence from the testing of Army recruits suggests that not only has it not spread among the general population but that its prevalence is probably twenty times less than the CDC estimate.

Dr Altman, you are writing fiction and passing it off as fact, according to the mainstream literature.

At the time, there were no effective antiretroviral drugs. Some doctors were shunning AIDS patients. Hospital workers left meal trays at patients’ doors. Many people feared that they might become infected from casual contact despite epidemiologic evidence to the contrary.

And now they fear they might be infected through heterosexual sex, despite all evidence to the contrary. Larry, read the literature, where this question has been discussed for years, how exactly is HIV spreading in Africa and Asia if the largest studies show it cannot be transmitted between man and woman?

The cases in the United States, then fewer than 10,000, were mostly among gay men, intravenous drug users and hemophiliacs. But the totals were doubling every six months. In one presentation, Dr. Peter Piot, a researcher who is now the executive director of the United Nations AIDS program, reported a cluster of heterosexual cases in Africa. But few knew how wildly the disease was spreading there.

No inkling yet that this may not have happened? No inkling yet that the whole case for this wild spread has fallen apart, and that it was merely a wild expansion of estimates, which took conventional disease and placed it under a new umbrella, “AIDS”?

Activists proclaimed “No test is best” because of the stigma linked to the disease and the lack of effective therapy. Now the federal government wants all Americans to be tested.

Tested and then given dangerous drugs for a virtually non infectious agent for a disease which the literature shows is caused by toxic substances, including the very drugs they will administer – according to the unrefuted reviews in the literature of the mainstream studies in that literature?

Maybe the activists are saving the world from mass HIV testing and mass ARV taking, since the latest theory demands that ARVs should best be given “within a few days” of infection. So if the Feds do succeed in getting us all tested, then at least one million people will have to suffer the side effects of ARVs on the dubious basis of counteracting HIV, which has been demonstrated to be efficiently overcome by a normal immune response.

Conceivably, it might be argued that with HIV “spreading” silently no one can be tested in time to catch the “first few days” unless everybody is given HAART prophylactically. The ‘market’ would then expand to the entire US population, and then to the world.

By 1988, when the meeting was held in Stockholm, there were more discouraging findings for H.I.V. patients: a vast proportion would develop full-spectrum AIDS within a decade of being infected, countering earlier suppositions that a relatively small percent would be struck down by its debilitating complications.

Did this not correlate with AZT, later reduced drastically in dosage since even HIV∫AIDS scientists could see it was killing people in three years or less, when the Virus was supposed to kill them only in ten to twenty years, a supposed benefit never explained?

The Montreal conference in 1989 made me sad — and angry — when President Kenneth D. Kaunda of Zambia delivered an apology for his indifference to the epidemic, saying he had lost a son to AIDS in 1986.

A year earlier, denying my request to interview Mr. Kaunda about AIDS in the Zambian capital, Lusaka, his press secretary scolded me for going to Africa to report on an American disease. The president had more important things to do, the aide said.

Sad and angry – what are you, Dr. Altman, an activist or a reporter?

At the meeting, Mr. Kaunda pleaded with governments to support scientists to find a cure for AIDS, saying failure would turn the epidemic into “a soft nuclear bomb on human life.” But in the years of Mr. Kaunda’s silence, hundreds of thousands of Africans had become infected.

How responsible were you, Dr Altman, for selling this story? How had these thousands of Africans become infected, now we know they weren’t infected sexually?

Organizers moved the 1992 conference to Amsterdam from Boston to protest the new United States’ policy of denying visas to H.I.V.-infected people. Since 1990, no conference has been held in the United States.

Superstitious even by the rules of the paradigm. But nothing compared with the vile injustices forced on mothers who must give their children AZT or lose their custody. David Crowe has pointed to the scandal of a recent case in an August 7 letter to the Globe and Mail, which Dr Altman should read, if he wishes to ponder the consequences of blind faith in the current science.

The Berlin conference in 1993 was my dreariest. The epidemic was worsening, and the outlook for major scientific advances seemed bleak. A European study, presented at the meeting, showed that AZT alone did little good over the long term.

Well, well. And why was that a surprise for you, if you were familiar with its toxicity, as advertised on its label? And have you covered the possibility that protease inhibitors and HAART are following exactly the same pattern? See Lancet last week, where HAART was revealed as not yet having improved the death rate one iota in ten years.

For years, scientists said they had learned more about the AIDS virus than about any other microbe. But skeptics were numerous because therapeutic advances were few.

Skeptics are more numerous than that, since no good justification for the theory that HIV was the correct target was offered then or since, with all evidence was against it and no explanation for it.

Then, in 1996, reports at the Vancouver conference showed that a combination of new antiretroviral drugs, called protease inhibitors, and older ones could successfully treat AIDS, extending the lives of many people. Some patients got up from their deathbeds to live more normal lives in what seemed like Lazarus.

Otherwise known as HAART, based on a theory of David Ho that even his colleagues soon laughed at, and which has produced horrendous side effects and no reprieve from death since, see Lancet last week (Vol 368 Aug 5, 2006 p 427). Does nothing arouse your curiosity, Dr Altman? Does nothing vibrate your antennae? Since 1996, what has happened? Have deaths declined? Are there not other reasons for the initial benefits that the narrative of HIV∫AIDS claims prove that HIV is the correct target of HAART?

If Coca-Cola could deliver its product in Africa, an AIDS expert said in Vancouver, then the world could deliver AIDS drugs to poor countries. The drug cocktails, which cost about $20,000 a year, reduced the amount of H.I.V. detectable in the blood and increased the number of T cells, a crucial component of the immune system. The startling turnarounds in patients confirmed, in their own way, the causal role of H.I.V. in AIDS and refuted claims to the contrary.

Right. The initial improvement, often quite striking in seriously declining patients in Africa, which is the only “proof” offered now of the “Virus which causes AIDS” phrase which is part of the Times stylebook now. The current argument is that HAART cocktails produce immediate turnarounds in patients, therefore they must be directed at the right target. This supposedly refutes myriad arguments to the contrary, otherwise unanswered in the literature. But eventually, side effects, and death at the same rate as before. Some turnaround, Dr Altman. Is your curiosity not aroused as to whether there might be some other interpretation of the magical initial effect? Should you not cover the issue, constantly raised even by patients, as to whether they really do feel better for long?

Exuberant leaders talked about curing AIDS by ridding the body of H.I.V. Later, experiments showed that a cure remained beyond reach because the virus found hiding places in the body to escape the drugs.

So now drugs have to be taken forever. Based on keeping the presence of the virus as negligible as it would be anyway with a functioning immune system, which is then burdened by the drugs, which eventually cause what the virus is then blamed for, decline and death. Meanwhile, those who do not take drugs flourish with a normal immune system until some other threat overtakes them.

That year, as the treatments began to emerge, the United Nations created its AIDS program. In the years since, its director, Dr. Piot, has stressed that the political will of top world leaders is necessary to turn the epidemic around.

At the Geneva conference in 1998, the first country-by-country estimates of H.I.V. infections and AIDS deaths underscored the devastating impact of the epidemic in the developing world.

Did overall deaths rise? At least check that, Larry. Were populations decimated? Have predictions of disease and death proved out, except where “life saving” drugs have been added to the burden of poverty, hunger and malnutrition, and their associated conventional diseases? Or have populations expanded, sometimes by huge numbers (in sub Saharan Africa, for example) that make a nonsense out of claims that HIV has brought illness and death that will decimate whole societies. Look at the population statistics, Dr Altman, before retailing all these claims without examination.

And enthusiasm about promising reports of effective treatments was dampened by the recognition of unexpected complications. In the case of the drug cocktails, it was lipodystrophy, a side effect of protease inhibitors that causes fat to disappear from some areas of the body and redistribute in other areas, changing the body’s shape in peculiar ways.

Hideous side effects but sold to patients as worth the sacrifice to avoid the unproven depredations of the invisible Virus.

The Durban meeting, in 2000, was the first international AIDS conference held in a country with such widespread poverty. Speakers directly attributed the magnitude of the epidemic to the failure to advocate protective measure and to provide effective treatments to vast populations in Africa and elsewhere.

And you put on the spectacles they gave you to wear, rather than use your own?

A session was scheduled to announce what organizers thought would be favorable research findings: that a spermicide, nonoxynol-9, could be an effective microbicide against H.I.V. A microbicide, any substance that kills germs, can be formulated as a cream, gel, film or suppository. But the plenary session became a surprising disappointment: the product had failed.

And is now the subject of heavily funded research, to support the defense of women in under developed countries against their abusive men who will not wear condoms, and thus infect them from visits to prostitutes, although studies show that women infect men at a rate of 1 in 9000.

In Barcelona in 2002, Dr. Bernhard Schwartlander, a W.H.O. epidemiologist, provided the outline of what has become the agency’s efforts to treat millions of people. Though the plan has failed to meet its target, health officials say it has fundamentally changed attitudes about what can be done in poor countries.

What can be done in poor countries is deliver Western drugs and persuade the otherwise uninformed population that they need to take them, rather than the medicines normally prescribed for their ailments, you mean? Do you not have some responsibility as a prominent reporter and opinion maker to check out the questions surrounding the basis of this policy, as far as you reasonably can?

The last conference, in 2004, was held in Bangkok to focus attention on AIDS in Asia. Yet the Thai government had to cancel a summit meeting of 10 invited heads of state at the conference because only President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda accepted.

Is it at all possible that heads of state, like some domestic critics, might finally feel in their intuitive political bones that something is out of whack with the HIV∫AIDS story, as Mbeki has signaled, though they don’t quite know what it is?

This year in Toronto, to accommodate the disparate interests of the 24,000 participants, the sessions will cover a wide range of topics. Over six days, the presenters are to deliver 4,500 reports — and hundreds more in satellite meetings before and after the main event.

As an index of the busywork that the paradigm has generated, this is truly impressive. Alas, if the basic premise is inaccurate, it is also a demonstration that in modern science, failure to examine the premise critically does not prevent the expansion of research to infinite size if funding is available.

A few major advances have been announced at the international meetings over the years, but most gains have been incremental, as is true for meetings in other fields.

Does it not appear that research in this field has been unusually unfruitful, given that the advances at the fundamental level amount to disproving almost all early speculation about the modus operandi of the Virus, as well as finding no way of accounting for its supposed lethality after two decades, and no cure yet discovered, and with a vaccine now said possibly never to be achieved?

For these and other reasons, a number of leading scientists have stopped attending, choosing to present their findings elsewhere…some supporters complain that the quality of the scientific presentations has declined at recent conferences. Recognizing that criticism, Dr. Gayle, the president of the international society, said that the organizers had focused on strengthening the meeting’s scientific component.

But will they include any scientific review of the basic assumption, or will they and Dr Altman continue to ignore the unanswered review papers of Duesberg et al as if they didn’t exist? Don’t bother to answer. After all, no one involved would benefit from any revision, especially those paying for the show.

The conferences have come to attract a wide array of institutional sponsors and commercial exhibitors, who together are paying about half the $20 million cost of the Toronto conference, about the amount for similar meetings.

The spirit is in the opposite direction: implementing current belief as globally as possible:

Scientists have come far in the 25-year history of AIDS. Some infected patients now need to take only one pill a day. Only a few years ago, many regimens involved a dozen or so pills, taken several times a day. But scientists and political leaders still have much further to go. In the decade since the drug cocktails were introduced, 20 million people have become infected, underscoring that the need to build a system to deliver effective health care is as urgent and essential a need as lowering the cost of antiretroviral drugs.

That is why “Time to Deliver” is the theme for the Toronto conference. So many lives — and so much money — is now at stake, organizers say, that everyone involved in fighting the AIDS pandemic must be held accountable.

Thanks very much for the rundown, Larry. Now just one question: when you say, everyone must be held accountable, does that include the medical correspondent from the Times?

Talking About AIDS, With All the World Watching:

(show)

August 8, 2006

The Doctor’s World

Talking About AIDS, With All the World Watching

By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, M.D.

The 16th International AIDS Conference opens in Toronto on Sunday and will vastly differ from the first meeting, in Atlanta in 1985, four years after AIDS was discovered.

What began as a relatively small forum for 2,200 scientists to share their embryonic knowledge has evolved into a huge arena for many groups, including patients infected with H.I.V., their advocates, social workers, economists, lawyers and policy makers to share the now huge body of knowledge.

I have attended all but two of the conferences since 1985, and I have watched the meetings change, reflecting one of history’s worst pandemics. In some cases, they have helped shape the response to the epidemic, influencing attitudes, politics, policy and treatment. They have also have played a major role in lowering the price of antiretroviral drugs in poor countries.

In the last six years, the conference has been held in South Africa and Thailand. This was done in part to give scientists in modern laboratories and hospitals their first view of the challenges in delivering antiretroviral therapy in developing countries, where a vast majority of the world’s H.I.V. infected people live. These two conferences also helped doctors in developing countries get up to speed on AIDS and encouraged scientists to conduct research on AIDS problems peculiar to their geographic area.

Many AIDS experts point to the last decade as the beginning of efforts to narrow the gap between rich and poor countries in providing fairer distribution of treatment and care for H.I.V.-infected people. But the efforts started earlier. In 1988 at the Stockholm conference, I heard discussions about ways that people in poor countries might be given access to the same care and drugs as patients in rich ones. The mainstay of therapy then was AZT, which cost about $8,000 a year. Additional drugs were needed to treat the many and often fatal opportunistic infections that developed when the number of a patient’s CD-4 immune cells fell too low.

Besides the scientists, patients and advocates, heads of state and royalty have also attended some of the conferences.

King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden attended the conference in Stockholm. Former presidents, including Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela of South Africa, have attended. Both have said they wished they had done more to prevent AIDS when they were in office.

The Toronto conference will be the third held in Canada. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney opened the 1989 meeting in Montreal, but his successor, Jean Chrétien, did not appear at the Vancouver meeting in 1996. The current prime minister, Stephen Harper, has not accepted an invitation to appear in Toronto, disappointing the organizers.

But as Dr. Helene D. Gayle, the president of the International AIDS Society, an independent professional group that is chief organizer of the meeting, said, “AIDS conferences can sometimes be hard on politicians.”

In Barcelona in 2002, demonstrators drowned out a talk by Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services in President Bush’s first term. In San Francisco in 1990, protesters prevented Dr. Louis Sullivan, the secretary of health and human services under the first President Bush, from delivering a closing speech.

The conferences have also had their more startling moments.

In a speech at the Durban conference in 2000, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa refused to acknowledge H.I.V. as the cause of AIDS. Minutes later, he walked out of a televised forum as Nkosi Johnson, 11, spoke of being born with H.I.V. He wished, he said, that the government would “start giving AZT to pregnant H.I.V. mothers to help stop the virus being passed on to their babies.”

In a K.G.B. disinformation campaign in 1986, a Soviet official told the conference in Paris that H.I.V. had been genetically engineered and that it had escaped from a government laboratory in the United States.

In 1996 in Vancouver, the audience cheered after a grandmother told the conference: “How did I get infected? The answer is very simple: It just doesn’t matter.”

The sessions at the first conference, in 1985, filled only a few rooms in a convention center in Atlanta. There was a growing understanding that the AIDS virus, which had yet to be named H.I.V., had been spreading silently for at least a decade before the disease was first detected in 1981.

At the time, there were no effective antiretroviral drugs. Some doctors were shunning AIDS patients. Hospital workers left meal trays at patients’ doors. Many people feared that they might become infected from casual contact despite epidemiologic evidence to the contrary.

The cases in the United States, then fewer than 10,000, were mostly among gay men, intravenous drug users and hemophiliacs. But the totals were doubling every six months. In one presentation, Dr. Peter Piot, a researcher who is now the executive director of the United Nations AIDS program, reported a cluster of heterosexual cases in Africa. But few knew how wildly the disease was spreading there.

A new H.I.V. test was about to be approved to protect the blood supply, but there was intense debate over its use in testing people. Activists proclaimed “No test is best” because of the stigma linked to the disease and the lack of effective therapy. Now the federal government wants all Americans to be tested.

Dr. Kevin M. De Cock, who now directs the World Health Organization’s H.I.V./AIDS program, recalled the audience’s silence at that first conference as pathologists described brain damage from the virus.

“The realization was sinking in that you were going to see dementia and terrible neurological disease,” Dr. De Cock said, and “everything we were learning about AIDS in those days was, This is worse than we thought.”

Two years later, on the eve of the 1987 conference in Washington, President Ronald Reagan gave his first speech on AIDS. At that conference, demonstrators protesting the slow drug approval process claimed that they were being denied potentially lifesaving treatments as scientists conducted lengthy clinical trials.

Dr. Jonathan Mann, then the leader of World Health Organization’s AIDS program, said the global epidemic had entered a stage in which prejudice about race, religion, social class and nationality was spreading as fast as the virus.

At the conference’s end, the mood was restrained, but there was real optimism that the widespread problems were not so awesome as to be beyond control.

By 1988, when the meeting was held in Stockholm, there were more discouraging findings for H.I.V. patients: a vast proportion would develop full-spectrum AIDS within a decade of being infected, countering earlier suppositions that a relatively small percent would be struck down by its debilitating complications.

The Montreal conference in 1989 made me sad — and angry — when President Kenneth D. Kaunda of Zambia delivered an apology for his indifference to the epidemic, saying he had lost a son to AIDS in 1986.

A year earlier, denying my request to interview Mr. Kaunda about AIDS in the Zambian capital, Lusaka, his press secretary scolded me for going to Africa to report on an American disease. The president had more important things to do, the aide said.

At the meeting, Mr. Kaunda pleaded with governments to support scientists to find a cure for AIDS, saying failure would turn the epidemic into “a soft nuclear bomb on human life.” But in the years of Mr. Kaunda’s silence, hundreds of thousands of Africans had become infected.

Organizers moved the 1992 conference to Amsterdam from Boston to protest the new United States’ policy of denying visas to H.I.V.-infected people. Since 1990, no conference has been held in the United States.

In Amsterdam, researchers presented a study showing that young American doctors were more reluctant to care for AIDS patients than comparable groups of doctors in Canada and France.

The Berlin conference in 1993 was my dreariest. The epidemic was worsening, and the outlook for major scientific advances seemed bleak. A European study, presented at the meeting, showed that AZT alone did little good over the long term.

For years, scientists said they had learned more about the AIDS virus than about any other microbe. But skeptics were numerous because therapeutic advances were few.

Then, in 1996, reports at the Vancouver conference showed that a combination of new antiretroviral drugs, called protease inhibitors, and older ones could successfully treat AIDS, extending the lives of many people. Some patients got up from their deathbeds to live more normal lives in what seemed like Lazarus.

If Coca-Cola could deliver its product in Africa, an AIDS expert said in Vancouver, then the world could deliver AIDS drugs to poor countries. The drug cocktails, which cost about $20,000 a year, reduced the amount of H.I.V. detectable in the blood and increased the number of T cells, a crucial component of the immune system. The startling turnarounds in patients confirmed, in their own way, the causal role of H.I.V. in AIDS and refuted claims to the contrary.

Exuberant leaders talked about curing AIDS by ridding the body of H.I.V. Later, experiments showed that a cure remained beyond reach because the virus found hiding places in the body to escape the drugs.

That year, as the treatments began to emerge, the United Nations created its AIDS program. In the years since, its director, Dr. Piot, has stressed that the political will of top world leaders is necessary to turn the epidemic around.

At the Geneva conference in 1998, the first country-by-country estimates of H.I.V. infections and AIDS deaths underscored the devastating impact of the epidemic in the developing world.

And enthusiasm about promising reports of effective treatments was dampened by the recognition of unexpected complications. In the case of the drug cocktails, it was lipodystrophy, a side effect of protease inhibitors that causes fat to disappear from some areas of the body and redistribute in other areas, changing the body’s shape in peculiar ways.

The Durban meeting, in 2000, was the first international AIDS conference held in a country with such widespread poverty. Speakers directly attributed the magnitude of the epidemic to the failure to advocate protective measure and to provide effective treatments to vast populations in Africa and elsewhere.

A session was scheduled to announce what organizers thought would be favorable research findings: that a spermicide, nonoxynol-9, could be an effective microbicide against H.I.V. A microbicide, any substance that kills germs, can be formulated as a cream, gel, film or suppository. But the plenary session became a surprising disappointment: the product had failed.

In Barcelona in 2002, Dr. Bernhard Schwartlander, a W.H.O. epidemiologist, provided the outline of what has become the agency’s efforts to treat millions of people. Though the plan has failed to meet its target, health officials say it has fundamentally changed attitudes about what can be done in poor countries.

The last conference, in 2004, was held in Bangkok to focus attention on AIDS in Asia. Yet the Thai government had to cancel a summit meeting of 10 invited heads of state at the conference because only President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda accepted.

This year in Toronto, to accommodate the disparate interests of the 24,000 participants, the sessions will cover a wide range of topics. Over six days, the presenters are to deliver 4,500 reports —and hundreds more in satellite meetings before and after the main event.

As in previous years, noisy protests are likely to punctuate the conference, adding to a circuslike atmosphere and making it seem more like a convention and social gathering than a scientific meeting.

The AIDS conferences are not intended to set agendas or to pass resolutions — like conferences on the environment, for example — or even to reach a consensus on how to fight the disease. A few major advances have been announced at the international meetings over the years, but most gains have been incremental, as is true for meetings in other fields.

For these and other reasons, a number of leading scientists have stopped attending, choosing to present their findings elsewhere. The United States is paying for about 175 people — government employees and representatives of nongovernmental agencies — to attend.

Some scientists continue to go wherever the conferences are held to attend refresher courses, learn of new findings and listen to reports from disciplines to which they are rarely exposed.

These scientists say they believe the activism and diversity of the participants are critical to keeping AIDS in the news. Still, some supporters complain that the quality of the scientific presentations has declined at recent conferences.

Recognizing that criticism, Dr. Gayle, the president of the international society, said that the organizers had focused on strengthening the meeting’s scientific component.

For journalists and participants, the conferences are challenging. A participant can listen only to a small fraction of the presentations, and at best has time to digest the material. All too often, presentations that a participant wants to hear are scheduled a few minutes apart in different areas of vast convention halls. Also, the race between meeting rooms is often interrupted by chance encounters with other participants who want to stop and talk.

The conferences have come to attract a wide array of institutional sponsors and commercial exhibitors, who together are paying about half the $20 million cost of the Toronto conference, about the amount for similar meetings. The other half of the cost comes from registration fees that range from $150 to $995, depending on the participant’s country. (Those from poor countries pay the least, and some receive scholarships.)

Scientists have come far in the 25-year history of AIDS. Some infected patients now need to take only one pill a day. Only a few years ago, many regimens involved a dozen or so pills, taken several times a day.

But scientists and political leaders still have much further to go. In the decade since the drug cocktails were introduced, 20 million people have become infected, underscoring that the need to build a system to deliver effective health care is as urgent and essential a need as lowering the cost of antiretroviral drugs.

That is why “Time to Deliver” is the theme for the Toronto conference. So many lives — and so much money — is now at stake, organizers say, that everyone involved in fighting the AIDS pandemic must be held accountable.

406 Responses to “Larry Altman’s Guide to AIDS Conferences”

  1. McKiernan Says:

    So you coulda gone to Toronto for this event. Like it was announced months and months ago and seating was advailable and likely still is.

    Like it coulda been better than asking theoretical questions to your cyber audience.

    Did Ms Farber go ? or H.Bialy ? Or whomever ?

    You guys coulda had some representation there even if outside the convention center.

    You gotta put some beef on the bones occasionally, TS.

  2. Truthseeker Says:

    You want to feed the Christians to the lions do you, McK? Well, been there, done that. Attending these events would only have one worthwhile aim – to introduce a large spanner into the works of the lead bandwagon of the parade.

    That, obviously, is a project hardly worth a subway token, let alone airfare, hotel, meals, and entrance ticket. Unless someone else is paying for a press assignment, and even then, the spectacle and what is said is entirely worthless except as a study of what Rupert Everett calls the lunacy of faith, transplanted to science.

    Do we detect you share a delightfully old fashioned faith in intelligent discourse and exchange of ideas over coffee or dinner in our distinguished poster? Alas, McK, we are dodos, living in a world of the past where Peter Medawar and Francis Crick and Edward Wilson and Edwin Chargaff are pursuing a vocation, not a professional career.

    This is just a herd of baaing sheep being shepherded by their leaders over a cliff. What good would it do to stand in the way and point in the opposite diection?

  3. Chris Noble Says:

    The point is that Farber, Bialy etc know that it is much easier to convince lay-people than scientists that are actually aware of the data.

    It is a good indication of pseudoscience if the proponents choose to direct their attention to a lay-audience rather than a scientific audience. Creationism is another example.

    Funnily enough, “Creation science” proponents also claim that they are censored and that “orthodox” scientists blindly follow their leaders like a herd of baaing sheep. Coincidence? I don’t think so,

    It is also a indication of pseudoscience if they constantly revert to political or sociological justifications of why they can’t manage to convince more than an insignificant minority of scientists that they have anything useful to say.

    The reason why the vast, vast majority of scientists do not take the “rethinkers” seriously is because the “rethinkers” do not put forward any data to support their claims.

  4. German Guest Says:

    @ Chris Noble:

    “The reason why the vast, vast majority of scientists do not take the “rethinkers” seriously is because the “rethinkers” do not put forward any data to support their claims.”

    well, why not have a look at the data?:

    is this pseudoscience?

  5. Dan Says:

    Chris,
    you’re a broken record. Same old arguments. Comparing rethinkers to creationists…yawn.

    Farber, Bialy and others speak to a lay audience because that’s where the real power lies. The power lies with the people, Chris. For instance, had gay men originally not bought into this crap, it never would have gotten off the ground. Gays were the perfect jumping off point, being a marginalized group with a deep vein of victim-mentality, defined by sexuality and (unfortunately) readily sold on the idea that sex equates with death.

    A very big mistake was made in 1984 (I’m being kind). Journalists, scientists, doctors and gay men ran with it. This “mistake” has continued to grow and convolute. No matter how illogical, or how fantastic the claim, we follow along. We do so even though it makes no sense. “AIDS” runs on emotion and faith, not reason and logic.

    Some of us have seen through this charade though, and refuse to literally roll over and die just so you and your cowardly lot can “save face”.

  6. pat Says:

    Chris,
    I try to make that point as often as I can on Tara’s blog but it runs off you guys like water on a duck. Bringing up comparisons to The ID or flat-earther crowd (whoever “they” are) makes you look dumber then you actually are. Surely you’ve heard of the “Hitler Zombie”.

  7. McKiernan Says:

    Alas, McK, we are dodos, living in a world of the past where …

    See, it’s this way, my friend:

    Yeah, you cudda had class, you cudda been a contenda, you cudda ben somebody

  8. Truthseeker Says:

    Alas, McK, that suggests that you do not see what we were talking about. We were saying that the world of the past was superior in quality. Truth was put before ambition – even Jim Watson managed to combine both. It is the horde that came after that confused the two, eventually replacing the top with the bottom value.

    Sad if this is true of yourself, our most gentlemanly poster. But we still have faith that truth is rewarded more permanently than ambition. When we contemplate the picture of Dr Gallo, grand old man of nonscience, we sense the inner tragedy of gaining the world and losing your own soul.

  9. McKiernan Says:

    Well, for sure the world of the past is not very sure it is/was superior in quality. I suspect that is profoundly wishful dreaming by some academics. Like True Science is not likely to rear its slouched head towards Bethlehem, or Mecca or Berkeley, since science doesn’t exist in real life, only people do.

    They didn’t accept Dr. Fleming’s finding of penicillin in a mold in his laboratory and it took some years for Fleming to receive accolades. That of course doesn’t mean Gallo or Duesberg is correct either under those criteria. And it does mean that jspreen’s contention that bacteria are innocent bystanders in disease processes is also incorrect.

    Dr. Gallo is but one person and he is certainly not bigger than HIV/AIDS. What I do find problematic with the HIV∫AIDS paradigm if there is one that actually exists and will soon replace another, is the notion that individuals need to be set aside and or attacked as though they are the problem both personally and politically. That comes directly from camp Bialy. See Oncogenes page 61 quoting Duesberg:

    “It was largely a personal matter…”

    That comes with the Bialy theses and apparently it is axiomatic that one needs to personally attack a bunch of people individually as the evil blob engulfing humanity whether one knows said person or not. I see that as a major hindrance to your proposed HIV∫AIDS alternative.

    That is a serious discredit to many of the positions NAR and the soreheads attempt to de-construct. You guys have some legitimate beliefs but haven’t a clue how to present it.

    Truth is not nessarily rewarded permanently in this life.

    I cannot speak as to whether Dr. Gallo will lose his own soul, although you apparently have other information.

    It seems to me, that if you want to hit the nail on the head, you don’t go to your neighbors to bang on his drums, nor to the internet to play victimology.

    Now you’ve had a chance to directly confront your adversaries in Toronto, and who went ?

    Answer: nobody.

  10. Chris Noble Says:

    German Guest,
    The articles you cite are not pseudoscience.
    The act of claiming that they support Duesberg when they do not is.

    Creation Science proponents/IDers do no reasearch of their own. They do comb through “orthodox” papers and look for articles that they can misinterpret and claim “look these papers support creationism/ID”. It is a common feature of most pseudosciences.

    HIV “rethinking” is no exception. Truthseeker has already claimed that Anthony Fauci suggests that “HIV may be the antidote to itself” when the actual book chapter says nothing of the kind. He also claims Gallo’s 1984 paper proves that “HIV is not the cause of AIDS” when it clearly does not. Ha also claimed that a recent Lancet paper acknowledged that HAART had not improved the death rate when the paper quite clearly stated that HAART had dramatically reduced mortality rates.

    The Perth Group do the same thing as does Duesberg. Duesberg’s mythical 4621 HIV free AIDS cases are a product of his misinterpretation of the literature.

  11. Truthseeker Says:

    Truthseeker has already claimed that Anthony Fauci suggests that “HIV may be the antidote to itself” when the actual book chapter says nothing of the kind. He also claims Gallo’s 1984 paper proves that “HIV is not the cause of AIDS” when it clearly does not. Ha also claimed that a recent Lancet paper acknowledged that HAART had not improved the death rate when the paper quite clearly stated that HAART had dramatically reduced mortality rates.

    Chris, with respect, with these repetitive posts you drive us to say that if you continue to post you must avoid misstating fact as a result of not understanding the posts you are discussing. Otherwise you will be in danger of having your posts removed, because they simply fail to respond to others and only fill the Comments with immobile material which obstructs the discussion.

    Nothing personal, for we like your style, but this site is for the edification of those seeking truth in this matter, and we cannot keep allowing repetitive posting which simply misunderstands blog posts or comment replies and fails to respond to corrections, apparently out of a failure to appreciate irony and to participate in a level of analysis sharp enough to allow this blog to make a contribution.

    This doesn’t just apply to you, of course, but any others who are not primarily interested in advancing the discussion. (You know who you are :-). If your sole aim really is to stop the advance of the dissenters in HIV∫AIDS because you cannot believe they are right on the simplest issues such as infectiousness or correlation of HIV and AIDS, then go and post on Tara Smith’s blog, Aetiology, we are sure she will welcome you there with open arms, as before.

    Meanwhile we do hope you will get that letter to Biosciences done so we can see it, just in case we can see something that you might have overlooked in making this great contribution to correcting the literature. If we cannot, we will have to make a course correction as well, and there you will have your preliminary triumph.

  12. Chris Noble Says:

    Forgive if I see things differently.

    In my view it is the “rethinkers” that keep on repeating the same refuted nonsense over and over again.

    I have attempted to get you to look at the data rather than just rely on Duesberg’s presentation/misrepresentation of it. I have failed. You aren’t really interested at looking at the science.

    The “truth” you seek has little to do with science.

  13. Chris Noble Says:

    McKiernan your statement is not entirely correct.

    Dr Beetroot was there extolling the virtues of garlic, lemon juice and african potato without the slightest scrap of scientific evidence for the efficacy of these “alternative” HIV treatments.

  14. Dan Says:

    I have attempted to get you to look at the data rather than just rely on Duesberg’s presentation/misrepresentation of it. I have failed. You aren’t really interested at looking at the science.

    Chris, you sound frustrated. Let me offer some thoughts…

    The only way this can “work” is if somebody like yourself can be my guide. But first, my actual life-experiences concerning “AIDS” have to be nullified. As many of us have encountered, when debating MDs and scientists who defend the paradigm, if what we’ve experienced with “AIDS” meets their approval, we’re given a big gold star, a pat on the head and a smile. If our life-experience runs counter to the ever-evolving dogma, we’re reminded that “AIDS” is entirely about “science”. And that we MUST remain focused (myopia, anyone?) on the “science”.

    Chris, hold my hand. I’ll forget everything that’s ever happened in my life concerning “AIDS”. Let’s start with a clean slate, from the beginning. Be my guide, and take me on this most incredible scientific journey of discovery. I won’t question ANYTHING! I’ll be your sheep.

    Hmmm. I wonder how long it will be before I’ve taken an “HIV” test (whoops, started thinking for myself for a moment, can’t have that ). Let’s start over…with Chris as my guide, I wonder how long it will be before I take an HIV test (I’m gay) and will be taking AIDS drugs?

    Help me, Chris. Keep me from thinking for myself. I’m giving over my power to you and yours. I’ve been around this thing for 25 years, and I’ve been unable to find it in myself to relent to the “information”. Please, for the sake of the paradigm (and pharmaceutical company profits), help me (and yourself).

  15. Truthseeker Says:

    In my view it is the “rethinkers” that keep on repeating the same refuted nonsense over and over again.

    Well, one of us is right.

    I have attempted to get you to look at the data rather than just rely on Duesberg’s presentation/misrepresentation of it. I have failed. You aren’t really interested at looking at the science.

    We have looked, and found it wanting. So have many, many others, ever since the inconsistent curves topic was first broached by Duesberg biographer and science accuracy freak Dr Harvey Bialy in the Web at Dean Esmay’s DeansWorld blog two years ago (a copy of the huge main thread is available at the AIDS Wiki). There has never been any attempt by the pro HIV flyboys to refute the point in any journal, although the armchair choirboys have tried to quibble endlessly that the conclusion is not what reason indicates, according to their own poor faculties, present company excepted, of course.

    You however are an exception. HIV stands convicted by your own presentation of the very Duesberg data you picked out. Rising HIV met falling AIDS, according to you, just as flat HIV met falling AIDS, according to Duesberg et al, in the last ten years.

    We don’t quarrel with you, we agree with you. Thank you for proving our point for us, Chris.

  16. German Guest Says:

    Hey Chris Noble (or whoever you are),

    you are kind of a gutless person. Whenever you are confronted with facts and details, you prefer to take a shelter and tell stories. This behaviour is quite faraway from a scientific approach.

    Look, I witnessed some odd things happening in my circle of friends and acquaintance (false positive HIV-Tests, “AIDS”-diseases without HIV, baffled docters) that simply do not correspond to the HIV=AIDS theory. This got me to do some research and then decide to question HIV=AIDS.

    Something is going wrong in this field of AIDS-research and people like you no better than confirm my point of view.

  17. Chris Noble Says:

    You however are an exception. HIV stands convicted by your own presentation of the very Duesberg data you picked out. Rising HIV met falling AIDS, according to you, just as flat HIV met falling AIDS, according to Duesberg et al, in the last ten years.

    We don’t quarrel with you, we agree with you. Thank you for proving our point for us, Chris.

    How clever of you to misreprepresent what I said and claim victory.

    Good luck with your rhetorical wordgames.

  18. Michael Says:

    Chris,

    Buck up boy! Nobody likes a sore loser. But we do thank you for letting us bounce our hockey pucks and dodge-balls off of your thick concrete wall-like head.

  19. Chris Noble Says:

    Here’s an honesty test.

    Is anybody still claiming that Duesberg’s magic 1 million flat graph is an accurate representation of the CDC estimates?

    Does the CDC think that 1 million people were infected with HIV in the US in 1985?

  20. Michael Says:

    Is anybody still claiming the CDC’s magic 1 million infected? Yep, the CDC is!

    Is anybody believing the 1 million that they still claim are infected? Well, maybe Chris Noble and the Goons of AIDS Inc.

    Strangely enough, I saw something in the papers a couple months ago from the CDC, claiming we just hit 1 million, but 300,000 of the 1 million don’t even know it. Yeh Righhhhht. Celebrate a million but a third don’t know it????

    Hey Chris. There were NEVER a million! Not then, not now, and not ever! Just a lot of Wishful thinking on the part of AIDS Inc.

  21. Michael Says:

    Here is one page from “The Body” with the CDC 2004 count stating 750,000 with 250,000 that don’t know it, and a whopping 500,000 that do and are smart enough to avoid treatment!

  22. Michael Says:

    And here is the crucial CDC info which gives me great hope for the world:

    “According to estimates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly one million individuals in the United States are living with HIV. The CDC further estimates that among this population, 250,000 are aware of their HIV infection but are not receiving regular primary medical care, and another 250,000 do not even know they are infected with HIV. In other words, half a million HIV positive people are not in care.”

  23. Chris Noble Says:

    Michael, take a deep, deep breath and read my question.

    Is the CDC claiming that 1 million people were infected with HIV in 1985?

    Do the CDC figures show a perfectly flat graph at exactly 1 million as Bialy and Duesberg claim?

    Simple questions. Can you answer them honestly?

    And Michael there are a large number of peopl in the US that are diagnosed with HIV infection when they turn up in hospital with AIDS. Ignorance didn’t save them.

  24. Dan Says:

    And Michael there are a large number of peopl in the US that are diagnosed with HIV infection when they turn up in hospital with AIDS. Ignorance didn’t save them.

    You’re certainly on the mark with that one, Chris!

    You betcha their ignorance didn’t save them…from doctors giving them an “AIDS” death sentence. They’re halfway to being dead now that the voodoo doctors have shaken their rattles and condemned these people to an untimely death (unless, perhaps, they take oodles of expensive drugs – essentially “buying” the right to live).

  25. Michael Says:

    Hey Chris. I have a special gift prize for your 600th post on a thread on aetiology.

    You can retrieve it at the last post by me of the

    Larry Kramer Billed $19,000 for drugs he never took thread.

  26. Truthseeker Says:

    Chris, give it up, old chap. Can’t you understand a simple fact? The CDC tried to whittle down the beginning of their embarrassingly horizontal line for HIV presence in the home territory by lopping a few imaginary 100,000s off their initial imaginary estimate, but the other end of the line has continued on its merry horizontal way year after year because even the CDC couldn’t find an excuse for raising it up. Though at some point they seem to have wrestled it up to 1,300,000 temporarily before new assumptions had to put it back down again.

    Result: a steady state HIV level clearly divorced from a rise and then fall in AIDS numbers.

    Conclusion: HIV has nothing to to do with AIDS symptoms.

    Get with the program, Chris!

    At long last get with the program, what does it TAKE to get it through your thoughtful head that you are wasting your time forever raising doubts about the doubts about the paradigm when the doubts about the paradigm are so well tested and seasoned and examined and reexamined and proven impossible to rebut courtesy of endless testing by brilliant analysts such as yourself that you are seriously in danger of sinking with the Titanic you believe is unsinkable, unless you realize the imbalance here, the different weight of the arguments. The doubts about the paradigm are titanic, colossal, and the doubts about the doubts that you so earnestly persevere in repeating ad infinitum are worth nothing more than the band playing on the deck as the unsinkable ship sinks.

    It is time for your brilliant mind to weigh the arguments on both sides of the issue in balanced fashion, rather than endlessly assume that one side is valid however gargantuan the pile of macaque dung that encrusts it.

  27. Chris Noble Says:

    Truthseeker once again fails to answer a simple question.

    Even the very references that Duesberg gives for the magic 1 million flat graph do not support his claim.

    Just take the first point of 1985 (actually in an early paper Duesberg had a point at 1984). The reference he gives has a range of 0.5 to 1.0 million for the estimate. Duesberg magically rounds it up to 1 million.

    So far not a single “rethinker” has had the honesty to admit that Duesberg fudged the data.

    You just can’t bring yourselves to give an honest answer.

  28. Claus Says:

    TS,
    Just keep pouring that old proven love and flattery formula into the whole. In the end CN’s massive intellect, honest willingness to discuss real issues and, not least, distinguished breeding will bring him to your side, proving you were right all along who saw the good in him.

  29. pat Says:

    Chris,

    You spend considerable time arguing that Duesberg fudges his numbers. Unfortunately for him and the world, we only have fudge to go by. It is the Aids establishment that is inconsistent with its own numbers. One day it is this and the next it is that and when someone points to one set of findings he/she is accused of cherry picking, how convenient! I’m afraid that the only people baking fudge here are the HIV/AIDS lovers like you, who, strangely enough, are paid to spend their days cyberfudging. Personally I feel you have no business demanding honest answers from others when you and your “camp” provide nothing but conflicting non-sense. We’ve had 25 years of HIV/AIDS research and all that comes out of AIDS 2006 is babble about the promise of male circumcision, microbicide creams and ape pornography. And you say Duesberg fudges his science!

  30. Truthseeker Says:

    HIV/AIDS lovers like you, who, strangely enough, are paid to spend their days cyberfudging.

    If this is true, then what hope is there? Let golden lucre meet the eye, Then Beelzebub is apple pie. (Ancient Northumberland proverb just invented here).

    Pat, you may have discovered the cofactor which allows the HIV meme to take root in the brain forever.

  31. Michael Says:

    Truthseeker.

    We have yet to isolate this meme from Chris according to Kochs, although the evidence of RT (real twerp) activity is enough proof for me.

    You say co-factor in the singular, when it is most likely multi-causal. Many most probable co-factors have been mentioned in this thread alone. Namely:

    1) Are paid, (courtesy of Pat’s analysation)
    2) lack of intellect (claus)
    3) lack of willingness to discuss issues (claus)
    4) hereditary breeding (or inbreeding)(claus)
    5) an addiction to macaque dung (TS)
    6) an addiction to fudged data filled studies(Pat)

    And there are probably more co-factors as well.

    I would recommend Chris start 1800mg per day of AZT as it may help extend his life with this otherwise incurable disease. It is not however guaranteed to cure it!

    Add to this some Highly Active AntiMeme Brain Oxidising Neurotoxic Emoters (Otherwise known as HAAMBONE Therapy).

    We also need to start him on Oral and Anal Anti-Meme Microbicides as well.

    And just to be safe, how about giving him a much more intensive circumcision (although I doubt there is much of anything there to further remove to begin with) to keep him from spreading and infecting any more of his memes to others. Perhaps a full castration might be in order.

    This meme virus hides and mutates and is quite devilish to get a grip on. Seems to be some of it hiding in the Cornell U-glands, and also hiding down under in the gutless guts of Chris where Australia is located.

    We need to start a 100 year development plan and get the funding in immediately for vaccines for the unsuspecting public. Perhaps Bill Gates could chip in as he is at high risk and threat of fully catching this disease, as he already seems to be somewhat infected, judging from the dementia displayed in Toronto.

  32. pat Says:

    Pat, you may have discovered the cofactor which allows the HIV meme to take root in the brain forever

    I’m off to the Patent Office, BRB

  33. Chris Noble Says:

    Brilliant,
    not only do none of you give an honest answer but you launch into ad hominem attacks.

  34. Truthseeker Says:

    not only do none of you give an honest answer but you launch into ad hominem attacks.

    Rather mild ad hominem, surely? And the issue of whether you get paid to cyberfudge is worth answering, isn’t it? What stake do you have in the issue apart from the joy of exercising your rapier wit on the hapless dissenters? Is anyone paying you who is on one side of this issue? Enquiring minds wish to know.

    No one is paying us but we would accept funds from anyone without prejudice. Perhaps Dr Fauci might like to contribute to a blog dedicated to comparing scientific claims to the literature, do you think? Any other contributors welcome. Just email. Anyone at Glaxo reading this?

    We can’t guarantee that the results will suit. We go strictly by what seem to be the best texts. Truth is our mistress.

  35. Chris Noble Says:

    I have already responded to your slur here:
    http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1154642038.shtml#1079

    Now will anybody answer my question?

    Do the references given by Duesberg support his magic flat 1 million graph?

    Truth is our mistress.

    Do you have any idea how pretentious that sounds?

    You consistently cherry pick data from the literature and misinterpret it to suit your dogma.

  36. Michael David Says:

    Surely Dr. Noble you are asking the wrong people to respond to your powerful data mining of the literature. As has been suggested to you a number of times, the editors of the major journals are waiting for your analysis because the epidmeiological condundrum that the flat line prevalence presents has become a major embarrassment, especially since the mathematical community has become aware of it. If you can indeed show that the data Duesberg uses is crap, and that with your better data the number of new HIV infections over the past 20 years or so in the US can be reconciled with the increasing number of AIDS cases between 1980 and 1993, I am certain you will be accorded rapid and prominent publication and an equally rapid avancement in the church, perhaps to replace the vaginal goo-smeared tar baby John Moore.

  37. Chris Noble Says:

    Do you mean that everyone here is incapable of finding the references that Duesberg gives for the magic flat graph?

    It is very simple. Look them up and see whether they give the magic 1 million. Is Duesberg fudging the data?

    You claim to be skeptics but you don’t dare question Duesberg.

    It is a very simple question and all I get are silly excuses for not answering it.

  38. pat Says:

    I am waiting for you to give it to me chris

    You consistently cherry pick data from the literature and misinterpret it to suit your dogma.

    Bang on. Make sure you dont cherry pick and give me the whole works!

  39. pat Says:

    Chris, you wet soap! If I remember correctly, I already asked YOU the 1’000’000 question. I asked you a couple of threads ago if those numbers were any different then from now but it appears you are answering my question with another question.

  40. McKiernan Says:

    Falsifying the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis: January 2005

    “Chris Noble:

    The ultimate source for the “incidence” of 1 million HIV infections in 1985 can be traced back to

    Curran et al, Science 229:2720(1985), 1352-1357.
    It can be found after much trouble hidden in “Fact no 11″ in Table 4 of Duesberg’s J. Biosci. 28:4(2003), 383-412.

    The basis of the estimate comes from the San Francisco CDC cohort study with a total of 6875 subjects.

    In this cohort the seropositivity was found to have increased from 4% in 1978 to 68% in 1984. This is hardly indicative of stable prevalence.

    In 1984 it was therefore estimated that of the 6875 subjects 4675 were infected with HIV. The cumulative number of reported AIDS cases in the cohort was 166. The ratio of HIV-infected/AIDS-cases at this point in this sub-epidemic was therefore 28:1. The clinical latency between HIV infection and progression to AIDS can be seen clearly in this cohort. The ratio is very high at the beginning of the sub-epidemic when between HIV-infection and AIDS-cases changes during the sub-epidemic.

    Curran et al assumed that in the US as a whole the ratio of HIV-infected/AIDS-cases was higher – somewhere between 50:1 and 100:1. They then took the US cumulative number of AIDS cases ~10,000 and multiplied it by the magic number to get an estimate of between 500,000 and 1,000,000

    The magic ratio could equally well be 28:1 as in the SF cohort. Why does Duesberg choose the higher estimate rather than 500,000 or 280,000?

    More noteworthy is that Duesberg is prepared to accept the estimate but apparently not the data from which it is obtained. The seropositivity in the SF cohort rose from 4% to 68%! He lists the estimate of 1 million as a fact!
    1.19.2005 8:59pm”

    [Note: correction updated on Falsifying: As originally published, the second graph, B, was published as “incidence of HIV” when it should have read “prevalence.” The fault for that is the editor’s.]

  41. pat Says:

    As to the Ad Hominem of you being paid to cyberfudge. Your response was to say that you recieve no funding from pharmaceuticals, fair enough. Who does pay you to spend your days blogging? Or rather, who pays you, period?
    I’m an unknown freelance Director of Photography who rarely gets paid for anything.

  42. Michael David Says:

    Some old habits are impossible to break: Some significant pedagogy, for “the record” like they say, follows here:

    The actual, and extremely important, scientific point underlying all of Dr. Noble’s feints can be seen at the homepage of the Rethinking AIDS website, and at this absolute url .

    What Dr. Noble continues to harp on, namely the gross uncertainty of the estimates in the early years of the numbers of antibody positive individuals in the general US population, while saying nothing about the central argument, does indicate the only scientific explanation of the prevalence curve not being compatible with the AIDS “epidemic” curve. Namely, “AIDS” in the US is a fragmented epidemic consisting of many small sub-epidemics whose actual numbers are hidden in the statistical fluctuations of the larger population estimates — exactly as Duesberg et al. argue at length in the J. Biosci. paper that Noble has read so carefully.

  43. Claus Says:

    Au contraire. That uncertainty of numbers, only initially bewildering, is what proves Dr. Noble’s point beyond questioning. Predictive power is the measure of worth of a hypothesis, and Dr. Noble has already demostrated a clear understanding of the appropriate scientific method in this context:

    At the risk of repeating myself once more – the estimates of prevalence of HIV in that JAMA paper were derived from back calculation from AIDS incidence data. If they are derived from the AIDS incidence data then they obviously cannot be incompatible with the data. Arguing that they are is just stupid.

    By using the latest available AIDS incidence figures, Dr. Noble is able to predict with great certainty any HIV incidence in the past in such a way that arguing the data would be ‘just stupid’. Since the principle of predicting the past extends to all future observations as well, we see that there was, is and forever will be perfect correlation between AIDS incidence and HIV prevalence.

  44. Michael David Says:

    Au contraire, au contraire mon ami. No matter how much back calculation is applied to the CDC estimates of HIV Ab prevalence in the general US population, the essentially constant figure cannot be reconciled with the classic shape of the AIDS “epidemic” curve. Please understand that this is in *no* way to diss your splendid comment, however, which even my caveat withstanding, is worth its weight in Thai sapphires.

  45. Chris Noble Says:

    Chris, you wet soap! If I remember correctly, I already asked YOU the 1’000’000 question. I asked you a couple of threads ago if those numbers were any different then from now but it appears you are answering my question with another question.

    I answered your question here:
    http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1154642038.shtml#1159

    Can I take it that you agree with me that Duesberg a) rounds the original estimate up to 1 million with no justification b) misrepresents the uncerntainty in that estimate and c) falsely presents this 1 million figure as the opinion of the CDC when he knows that later estimates were much lower?

    I am having trouble getting a straight answer from anybody.

  46. Chris Noble Says:

    …the essentially constant figure cannot be reconciled with the classic shape of the AIDS “epidemic” curve.

    One of the problem is that none of you including Bialy or Duesberg have managed to formulate the mathematical relationship between HIV incidence, HIV prevalence, median time to progression to AIDS and AIDS incidence.

    The following data is from this paper.
    Time from HIV-1 seroconversion to AIDS and death before widespread use of highly-active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative re-analysis., LANCET 355, 2000 p 1135

    The columns are year from seroconversion, percentage surving and AIDS incidence per 1000 person years.

    1 99.7% 6
    2 98.6% 14
    3 96.9% 24
    4 94.2% 41
    5 90.2% 59
    6 85.2% 76
    7 79.5% 79
    8 73.0% 90
    9 66.2% 102
    10 59.5% 127
    11 51.7% 137
    12 44.6% 115
    13 37.6% 123

    For a simple problem assume that 1 million people are all infected in year 0 and HIV incidence from then on is zero. Plot HIV prevalence and plot AIDS incidence for the next 13 years

  47. pat Says:

    Missed your answer in between threads 🙂
    Can u link me to a free copy of LANCET 355, 2000 p 1135 ?

  48. Michael Says:

    Chris,

    What your ignorant little chart of years and percentages with AIDS fails to tell us, is how many of your so-called “AIDS” cases were on high dosage AZT, how many had other issues such as ongoing drug addiction, how many had yeast infections due to antibiotic overuse to repeated std exposure. It also fails to tell us what faulty criteria was used to diagnose the individuals involved as AIDS. Please come back with the whole picture regarding the people “used” in your chart, and we will be glad to point out the obvious sources of your fallacious beliefs. We would poke more holes in it than your butt would have if I introduced you to my buckshot filled rifle.

    Since I realize you DO NOT have all of the information to support your claim, I would settle for you just answering as to HOW MANY WERE ON AZT? OR How many had been healthy individuals that were simply diagnosed by CD4 counts. Hello? Chris? Hellooooh. Snuck out again, didn’t you? What a weasel!

  49. Michael Says:

    Hey Chris. I just noticed that your little chart thing said it was based on the following:

    Time from HIV-1 seroconversion to AIDS and death before widespread use of highly-active antiretroviral therapy:

    BEFORE HAART???

    This means that this chart comes from a time when THE ENTIRE COHORT was on HIGH DOSAGE AZT monotherapy!!!!!!!!!

    I hope someone was prosecuted for murder Chris! Oh, I guess not. Seems they all got away with it, and the statute of limitations is past.

  50. Michael David Says:

    CN,

    Until now I have treated you with a modicum of respect. But your last nonsense convinces me that you while you *may* have the working neurons to understand the basic (o so basic) problem here, your continued insistences on introducing irrelevancy brands you as an insufferable troll.

    Will you ever pretend even to understand that the problem is how the million got infected, not in how long it takes them to die after “seroconversion”?

    I doubt it.

  51. Michael David Says:

    CN,

    Better yet. When next you return (as we all know you will)have some cogent response to the material you will find here (and do note the date young man).

    Better do it, unless you want more abuse from the readers here — your not so scientifically sophisticated parrot McK excepted perhaps.

  52. McDonald Says:

    CN, let me spare you the copy/paste part of your answer, so we can get to the relevant parts some time this side of an average HIV latency period ok?

    B-B-B-But what about Duesberg’s 1 million average, cuz that kinda like the only point I got worth making, but that’s really, you know, a haymaker too and. . . Oh no wait, there’s also the one about the German High Court and the claim Lanka never made about its decision, which also really shows that I must be right, like generally, yeah?

    Ok CN, go ahead take it from there, impress us. . .

  53. Chris Noble Says:

    McDonald, what I am trying to ascertain is whether any of you will admit to any error on the part of Duesberg. There is little point in addressing other issues if none of you will ever admit to any error. It seems that everyone just wants to change the topic.

    Michael, Duesberg’s claim is that the HIV prevalence data and AIDS incidence data are inconsistent within the “orthodox” model. What I am trying to ascertain is whether any of you can actually use the “orthodox” model to predict the connection between HIV incidence, HIV prevalence and AIDS incidence. You don’t have to accept the validity of the “orthodox” model to do this. If you are going to claim that the data are inconsistent then you need to demonstrate this.

  54. Michael David Says:

    I take it back. You are not an insufferable troll, you are an unsuffeabñe child. Go away.

  55. Michael Says:

    Chris Noble,

    I don’t believe you at all. I don’t really believe you are “trying” to ascertain anything in particular Chris.

    The points you have made as far as a one million count that was given by the CDC as being the basis of Duesberg’s HIV Rethinking is based in error are quite bazaar.

    You are the one claiming some obscure data that was inconsistant all around is inconsistant only for Duesberg when his information came from them.

    So state your point and move on. Are you obsessed or what? Is this million count thing and something Stephan Lanka said the only fault you can find with HIV rethinkers?

    These two ridiculously insignificant points, whether or not you are even correct, are the “big smoking guns” that you are going to tear down AIDS dissent with?

    Oh, Chris, come up with something better. Something such as Duesberg stole Gallo’s stolen HIV and renamed it Birdflu. OR Duesberg forged his assistant’s study results as Gallo was proven to have done, or something like Bialy was proven to have changed the actual wording that Duesberg had written of HIV does cause AIDS into HIV DOESN”T cause Aids.

    Please Chris, something as significant as Gallo’s own original study that showed only 36 percent of his AIDS patients tested pos for his HIV antibody test.

    Or something as significant as gallo having been proven to have claimed Montagniers virus as his own.

    Or something as significant as the 67 factors listed in science journals that have been proven to make the HIV tests go false positive.

    Or as significant as the Nobel Laureate inventor of PCR publicly claiming his invention is being fraudulently used to count HIV and HIV antibodies in the phony “viral load test”.

    Please Chris, something significant. Something with some meat and substance. Something, anything, as we are all just holding our breath in expectation of your Sherlock Holmes like diligence and brilliant shining intelligence.

    Your statement Chris:

    There is little point in addressing other issues if none of you will ever admit to any error.

    begs the question: In the Hours and Hours and Hours of dialogue on Aetiology, or any other blog site, will you please show me ONE example of where you have ever admitted to error? Just one? Little one? any one? Somewhere? On anything? Chris?

    Will you show us just one admission of an error by you Chris?

    Seems to me, that without some admission of error somewhere, Chris must indeed be the voice of the true GOD of unmistakeable and error free HIV/AIDS truth! Will everyone please bow down before the perfect one. Chris Noble-The great God of HIV/AIDS!

    No doubt he will uncover any year now, the proof that we rethinkers are wrong and mislead by evil scientists claiming fraudulent findings as truth and cashing in on the revenues generated by a measly 5000 copies of their books being sold.

    Playing with Chris is much like a cat playing with a mouse and tossing it everywhere. Entertain me some more Chris.

  56. McKiernan Says:

    Looks from here that Michael David and Michael just ran down the same rabbit hole or ducked in behind Monty’s door number three.

    Okay next science question:

    How many pseudonyms have either of the above used on the internet ?

  57. Chris Noble Says:

    So state your point and move on. Are you obsessed or what? Is this million count thing and something Stephan Lanka said the only fault you can find with HIV rethinkers?

    My point is that Duesbergs argument about the falt graph is deceptive and misleading because he deliberately misrepresents the “orthodox” data and deliberately misrepresents the “orthodox” model.

    Far from being the only fault I find with Duesberg’s arguments it is just one example. The problem is where to start. However, there is little point going on to other pseudoarguments unless people here admit that the magical flat graph is not based on the “orthodox” data.

    “Rethinkers” also continually attempt to frame any debate such that the burden of proof is on everyone else to prove that Duesberg is false. This is wishful thinking. In the real world Duesberg has completely failed in his attempt to convince the scientific community that his ideas have any merit. The people that do follow Duesberg are on the whole not scientists and do not bother researching the arguments but credulously accept Duesberg’s word. The magic flat graph is one example.

  58. Michael Says:

    Chris:

    My point is that Gallo’s argument about HIV being the cause of AIDS is deceptive and misleading because he deliberately misrepresents the “orthodox” data and deliberately misrepresents the “orthodox” model of Kochs Postulates.

    Far from being the only fault I find with Gallo’s arguments it is just one example. The problem is where to start. However, there is little point going on to other arguments unless you are capable of admitting that the original study with a mere 36 percent of his AIDS cases showing as positive to antigens does not prove HIV as the cause of AIDS.

    “Mainstreamers” also continually attempt to frame any debate such that the burden of proof is on everyone else to prove that Gallo is false. This is wishful thinking. In the real world Gallo has completely failed in his attempt to convince the more enlightened of the scientific community that his ideas have any merit. The people that do follow Gallo are on the whole not good scientists and do not bother researching the arguments of causation but credulously accept Gallo’s word. The original study of Gallo’s is one example.

  59. Truthseeker Says:

    However, there is little point going on to other pseudoarguments unless people here admit that the magical flat graph is not based on the “orthodox” data.

    The initial guesstimates of the CDC were accorded far too much respect by Duesberg, as is his wont, and he allowed them the upper limit of their grand claim that so many in the US were positive. This prevalence was revised downwards subequently by the CDC in an attempt to satisfy the logical requirements of an epidemic. This doesn’t make his generosity evidence of his own mendacity, for Heaven’s Sake.

    Subsequently the idiot CD guesstimates have been all over the place but have shown no reliable tendency to stray from a flat line, since almost all the time we have heard them bleating nothing but “about a million”, or “over a million” for nigh on TWO DECADES.

    Meanwhile, the rise and fall in the incidence of AIDS cases and deaths is well known. Unless you have different data to offer us and the CDC will you finally pipe down and go somewhere else to perpetrate your nonsense, and stop wasting the time of this blog and the intelligent discussants on it with it.

    If you raise this witless point one more time the post will serve as Exhibit A and be held up to public ridicule in a blog post as a prime example of being unable to see the wood for the trees, the characteristic of most HIV enthusiasts. There is only one thing this blog will censor ruthlessly and that is provocation repeated often enough that it drives the blogmaster into calling a distinguished poster plain dumb, and you are not going to be allowed to cause him to lose his manners!

    It is time for the dissenters in HIV to stop being endlessly polite and start cracking down on specious attempts to wriggle out of the obvious and this blog is going to support them in this time saving new policy by applying it here.

  60. Chris Noble Says:

    In other words none of you will admit to any faults on the part of Duesberg.

    http://www.duesberg.com/about/pdlecture.html

    On account of these tests, one million Americans were found to be HIV-positive in 1985 and one million Americans were found to be HIV-positive in 1992 and again in 1993. HIV is a totally long-established virus and on the grounds of this type of epidemiology, you can extrapolate this curve back 200 years. It’s as solid as that. You can say the virus came with the immigrants 200 years ago to this country. It’s an old, long – established virus, but AIDS is a new disease. It’s not a good candidate for a new disease.

    Duesberg asserts, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the prevalence of HIV in the US has been a constant 1 million for the past 2 centuries. His fudging of the magical flat graph is plain deception rather than “generosity”.

  61. HankBarnes Says:

    Watching Chris Noble trying to debunk Dr. Duesberg is pitiful. Like watching a bad tennis player wrecking the match for both players.

    Chris, are you a member of the National Academy of Science?

    Chris, have you published anything in Science, Nature, PNAS, Cancer Research and other prestigious journals?

    Chris, have you sent any letters to these journals, exposing Duesberg’s “misrepresentations?” Were any of these letters published?

    Chris, do you scrutinize Gallo’s work — demonstrated to be fraudulent — with the same jaundiced eye?

    More important than any of this jive, though — do you think giving daily life-time doses of AZT to AIDS patients from 1987 until 1996 was a good idea or a bad idea?

    I’ll answer for you. If you think it was a good idea, then you’re an idiot. If not, then you owe Duesberg a debt of gratitude, since he was the only one objecting to this practice at the inception.

    Hank Barnes

  62. Dan Says:

    Chris, Truthseeker, Michael,

    is this what you’ve been wringing your hands over?
    It just isn’t worth all the anxiety.

    Chris targets Duesberg because Duesberg will oversimplify at times in order to get his points across to a lay audience. Chris also seems to have some strange fixation on Duesberg that I certainly don’t understand. I’ve seen him go on and on about Duesberg at misc.health.aids even though absolutely nobody but himself was talking about Duesberg.

    Chris: believe it or not, we don’t blindly follow Duesberg or hang on his every word. He’s a scientist whose integrity should be the envy of his peers, but he’s not the last word on “AIDS”.

  63. Dan Says:

    Whoops, Hank posted before me. Anyway, I was referring to Chris’s quote.

  64. Chris Noble Says:

    Chris targets Duesberg because Duesberg will oversimplify at times in order to get his points across to a lay audience.

    That being the exact reason why he has a lay-audience following but 99.999% of the scientific community recognise what he says as bullshit.

    Some of his oversimplication is straight out lies.

    In his “reanalysis” of the Ascher paper he says … we found 45 HIV-negative men with AIDS defining conditions (according to the CDC), as listed in Table 1.

    Except when you look at table 1 none of the 45 had AIDS defining conditions according to the CDC definition.

    Herpes Zoster is not an AIDS defining condition. Why does Duesberg claim that it is? Why does Duesberg claim that this is “according to the CDC”?

    Duesberg was so desperate to find HIV- AIDS cases that he lies about the CDC definition. In the end it is completely unconvincing because the HIV+ group got extremely rare diseases like KS and PCP while the best he could come up with in the HIV- group was salmonella food poisoning and herpes zoster.

    Anyway rfeturn to your hero worship of Duesberg.

  65. Dan Says:

    Chris,
    thanks for helping to make my point about your Duesberg fixation.

  66. Chris Noble Says:

    Hank,
    Have you checked out the bibliography of John Moore?
    Have you written letters to the editors of Science, Nature etc? Have you had them published?

    Your complete lack of scientific credentials doesn’t stop you from vilifying John Moore.

    With you it comes down to the hero worship of Duesberg.

    Just to make it absolutely clear if Gallo had flown to France killed the entire Montagnier group and stolen the LAV isolate form their lab it would have absolutely no bearing on the scientific question of whether HIV/LAV/HTLV-III causes AIDS.

  67. Dan Says:

    Just to make it absolutely clear if Gallo had flown to France killed the entire Montagnier group and stolen the LAV isolate form their lab it would have absolutely no bearing on the scientific question of whether HIV/LAV/HTLV-III causes AIDS

    Um. Huh?

    Chris,
    relax. Take a deep breath. It’s going to be alright.

    Everybody worships Duesberg. uhh…sure…

    You’re helping to point that out. Ok…yeah…

    Now, a few more deep breaths. Are you feeling better yet?

  68. Truthseeker Says:

    With you it comes down to the hero worship of Duesberg.

    Hero, yes, given the way he has performed, that is, heroically, despite every handicap which his opponents have been able to visit upon him, including wasting years patiently answering foolish questions time and time again, to save the lives of ungrateful wretches in the spirit of public service at the cost of what might have been even more gigantically fruitful research on cancer, his much greater personal and professional interest. Self sacrifice and exceptional performance in the social interest = heroism.

    Worship? This is not an attitude which occurs readily to those with sufficient nouse to understand what he has done and is doing. It is the kind of thought that occurs to those that could appreciate what he is doing and should do so, even though they cannot understand how it is done, and spend hours to years trying to prove he hasn’t done it.

  69. Chris Noble Says:

    Since when do heros invent HIV- AIDS cases?

    Can anybody find herpes zoster in the CDC AIDS definition? Why does Duesberg claim that these people had AIDS defining conditions according to the CDC?

    Your hero is lying.

  70. Michael David Says:

    CN,

    Is this hero worship or vilification?

  71. Claus Says:

    The problem is where to start. However, there is little point going on to other pseudoarguments unless people here admit that the magical flat graph is not based on the “orthodox” data Chris Noble

    Dr. Noble, it seems you’ve been getting far ahead of your schedule lately. You shouldn’t get sloppy now, finish one thing before you start the next. There’s little point going on to Duesberg’s pseudo-arguments unless people here admit that Stefan Lanka lied about the German High Court decision is there?
    So let’s recap what the Lanka worshipping people here maintain: Lanka did not lie about the High Court decision –

    which makes you, Dr. Noble, the liar and slanderer.

    And since you’ve already been proven to slander Lanka, how do you expect people here to listen to anything you’ve got to say about Duesberg, since we love him even more than Lanka?

    So, Dr. Noble, do you admit you were wrong to call Lanka an ‘instigator of false rumours’, ‘crazy’, ‘crackpot’, ‘inventor of criteria that are not supported by any other scientist in the world’?
    Because if you don’t, I just don’t see how it would be possible to move on to any other topic.

  72. nohivmeds Says:

    What you should know about me is that I am no AIDS dissident. I’ve made it perfectly clear since I first arrived on the scene that:
    1. I don’t endorse any of the current models of AIDS
    2. I believe there is a possibility that HIV is both infectious and harmful.
    3. That I have seen no data that “proves” a causal mechanism for immune decline, in my opinion.
    4. That all the dead in my community died of something more than bad thoughts, poor diet, drug use, or slutting around.
    5. That it is wrong to disrespect the dead, and that is exactly what Peter Duesberg, and folks like you and Dan do. You know nothing about those men, yet you never fail to draw conclusions about them. This is called speaking unkindly of the dead by the people that raised me.
    6. That Richard Berkowitz, of all people, including Duesberg, Gallo, Moore and the Perth Group actually knows something about HIV/AIDS.
    7. That I don’t “know” anything at all about HIV/AIDS except for what my own instincts tell me.
    8. At best, I can endorse Root-Bernstein — as there is no real proof for any theory of AIDS, his everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach seems the best bet given the current status of the science, which is frankly, totally miserable.

  73. Chris Noble Says:

    Claus, I thought the only person still in doubt about the mythical German High Court decision was Stephen Davis who seems to have departed.

    Certainly Truth-is-our-mistress appeared to accept this.

    If you really think that you expressed a logical argument above then I don’t know what I can say to convince you of anything. Far from truth being your mistress logic is your whore.

  74. Claus Says:

    Chris dearest, why are you ducking a simple question?

    So, Dr. Noble, do you admit you were wrong to call Lanka an ‘instigator of false rumours’, ‘crazy’, ‘crackpot’, ‘inventor of criteria that are not supported by any other scientist in the world’?

    A mistress being better than a whore? Is that experience talking or one of Prof. Moore’s moral truths?

  75. Chris Noble Says:

    Claus,

    Lanka is an instigator of false rumours.

    He also appears to be crazy.

    His denial of all disease causing human viruses definitely makes him a crackpot.

    He has invented his own criteria for the existence of viruses. These criteria exclude influenza, poliovirus, adenovirus, ebolavirus etc.

    None of this logically contradicts the fact that Duesberg also deceives his lay audience.

  76. Claus Says:

    I’d like to see you back here with proof of those allegations – and please no obscure links to German language articles or hearsay.
    We want Lanka’s OWN words and arguments IN FULL, and then you can deliver the point for point science that refutes them them.
    Let’s start with virus isolation shall we?

  77. Truthseeker Says:

    Claus, I thought the only person still in doubt about the mythical German High Court decision was Stephen Davis who seems to have departed.

    Certainly Truth-is-our-mistress appeared to accept this.

    Absolutely. There was no German court decision, merely a statement of what the court had been informed. That was the import of the data brought forward, and the conclusion of the discussion here. Is there some new information which changes everything? Otherwise, why is this being challenged?

    Does it not occur to you, now, Noble one, that we are indeed ruled by Truth, our beautiful mistress, and therefore should be trusted when answering your endlessly repeated empty point about the early guesstimates for HIV prevalence, and not have the same point revisited as if you were deaf?

    We have just been in touch with the very reasonable spirit of Samuel Johnson, asking him for comment on the efforts of certain reflex obstructionists in this grand debate, and the challenge to Duesberg’s heroism, and he pontificated thus:

    “Such are the arts by which the envious, the idle, the peevish, and the thoughtless, obstruct that worth which they cannot equal, and, by artifices thus easy, sordid and destestable, is industry defeated, beauty blasted, and genius depressed.” (Rambler 144 Sat August 3 1751)

  78. Michael David Says:

    CN (or any of the other defenders of the faith reading this),

    As an alternative to discoursing on the mind of Stefan Lanka, I offer you the much more sanguine and intelligent and piercing thoughts of GS, a graduate student who attended the AIDS fiasco show in Toronto and whose comments can be found other places at NAR (easily if TS would ever install a site search feature,:)).

    Namely, can you explain why the constantly mutating virus never manages to out-mutate any existing anti-viral immunity as shown by the fact that the same antibodies remain neutralizing from stage I to stage IV disease, and why the proteins used in the various “HIV-ab tests” don’t change with the seasons?

    Grad students all over the world want to know.

  79. HankBarnes Says:

    Chris,

    You really are a pathetic punk.(sorry for the ad hominem TS).

    Is this your riff about John Moore or Duesberg?

    In fact, if Moore had been treated like Duesberg, I would stick up for him, too.

    Also, you’re a liar. I don’t “worship” Duesberg. I think he is a great scientist — so do the members of the National Academy of Science, who elected him, by the way.

    Duesberg could be wrong on a few points. For example, it remains unclear to me, whether the detection of anti-bodies signifies the neutralization of said virus or whether it signifies that the immune system is in “hyper-stimulation” mode from some form of microbial insult that could be harmful.

    Your turn, Chief. Tell me one signficant area where your disagree with the AIDS orthodoxy.

    I’ll help: Do you think it was good, sound, medical practice to prescribe life-time, daily doses of AZT as monontherapy? Answer this question, not with any of your feeble rhetorical jive, but with a yes or no.

    Hank B

  80. Michael David Says:

    &CN,

    Just to give you a plethora of possible worthwhile activities, I call your attention ONCE AGAIN to this, published when you were still in secondary school perhaps, and offer you yet another alternative of replying to the essay you will find there by Robert Maver.

  81. McKiernan Says:

    Namely, can you explain why the constantly mutating virus never manages to out-mutate any existing anti-viral immunity as shown by the fact that the same antibodies remain neutralizing from stage I to stage IV disease, and why the proteins used in the various “HIV-ab tests” don’t change with the seasons?

    Answer: Yes, we can explain. Because the major dissidents or spokespersons are too cheap to buy a ticket to Toronto to actually network with live scientists, attendees or the powers that bee.

    The dissidents get more satisfaction sitting in front of their computers diagnosing an apparent yawn fest.

    Dale Carnegie says if you want to gather honey, don’t kick over the beehive.

    The dissidents say, I’d rather sit in front of my computer, leave the bees alone, we can sit here and bitch in an endless game of “isn’t it awful” and collect our tradings stamps to cash in on the next blog comment section.

    A few notable examples of ‘isn’t it awful’:

    “Look what they did to Duesberg, isn’t it awful!”

    “Look what Caesar did to me, no funding. isn’t it awful!”

    “They hunted me like an animal, isn’t it awful”

    “Big Pharma is a bastard, isn’t it awful”

    “At least Thabo was for us, isn’t that awful”

    Re-thinking camp that bombs all the science departments in all the world back to all the festering sores of 78, 82, 84, 87, 92 ain’t helping either.

    As Eric Berne explained hamartic paths do not have favorable endings, therefore close the road show and put a new one on the road.

    TS. The pathetic punk announcer seems to have overridden Samuel Johnson. Of course, you’ll remain silent about that. Right ?

  82. claus Says:

    TS,
    I don’t know what to say anymore. On this particular topic – German High Court or Chris Noble, I’m not sure which, perhaps it’s this combination of English vs. German interests that still throws some people – all your faculties of intelligent discernment seem to have entirely abandoned ship – although you have finally realized that what your friend, if not ally, is serving you is largely immobile, pointless posts.

    Please read again, and please READ this time. My post is NOT about the German High Court, but about lying. Your ‘ooh ab hominem how awful’ (Mck. can add the last word to his worthwhile collection) friend is very quick to call other people liars don’t you think? And that includes some people closer to home and heart than Lanka.

    The point about the High Court ruling had already been cheerfully cleared up and conceded by myself and Henry Bauer a few comments into that infamous thread, which you let go on forever, again I can only believe because your faculties had left you, giving opportunity to all kinds of unwarranted and unchecked slander such as all the names Lanka and later Duesberg were called.

    So to conclude, High Court issue long resolved, name calling and slandering apparently still in vogue (look ca. 13 posts up from here for CN’s latest showstarter). Don’t you think it’s about time somebody called our very civilized and soft spoken Dr, Noble on this instead of dwelling on a past German issue?

  83. Truthseeker Says:

    The dissidents get more satisfaction sitting in front of their computers diagnosing an apparent yawn fest.

    Dale Carnegie says if you want to gather honey, don’t kick over the beehive.

    McK, we have to say that we are wondering if you are not writing under the influence of a chemical substance of some kind. Are you suggesting that the beehive of the AIDS Fest contained honey for the taking if only we were nice to the bees? McK, you are apparently wasting space with amiable blather when we have begged you to stop. Please, if you have another cogent point to make other than this one for the hundredth time, please make it. Otherwise, shhhh. Otherwise you will drive the other distinguished posters away, if you haven’t already. And they have much to offer. Now stop being naughty. We adults are trying to think of important topics and save lives. On the other hand we are always willing to quote Johnson even if some don’t take the point.

    Don’t you think it’s about time somebody called our very civilized and soft spoken Dr, Noble on this instead of dwelling on a past German issue?

    Probably not, Claus. Especially when your distinguished self writes posts that we cannot quite fathom, since the sentence structure has become too complex for us to follow. Are you saying you agree the Court decision was no decision but merely conveyed the statement of Court advisors? If so good.

    But as to calling our friend Noble on any point, we have already established that this simply results in zero movement, intellectually speaking, so we look forward to you simply make clear incontrovertible decisive statements on any topic and not ones which allow any escape into diversionary and trivial byways.

    As to the jibes and insults, we don’t feel that CN’s authority is sufficient to give these any weight. Do you disagree?

  84. claus Says:

    CN, Michael David has kindly offered you a plethora of choices where to take the discussion next. It is my conviction you’d much rather discuss the real issues he brings up, but which you have so far ignored, than staying forever in one place with me while we wait for ‘admissions’ as you call it.

    But if you do prefer the ‘admissions’ part, let me get you started on virus isolation and related issues:

    There is no standard ‘set of rules’ for isolating retroviruses Robin Weiss

    Now even if , which is of course not the case, but even if Lanka had made up his entirely own rules for isolation of viruses, it would seem that’s quite within normal practice, or. . .?

    If HIV does not exist, then neither did smallpox virus (variola), nor does polio virus, tobacco mosaic virus in plants, etc. etc Robin Weiss

    The existence of all viruses dependent on the existence of one retrovirus? – Who’s the crackpot?

    Yes, I do claim that visualization of HIV by electron microscopy was, in 1983/84, an important component of the collective data on virus isolation. Robin Weiss

    Same importance placed on electronmicroscopy as Lanka does, veritable madmen those English characters. (and please don’t give us the ‘yes but we have evolved since then’ routine, because it was ‘then’ isolation was proclaimed, and tests manufactured).

    But this is all irrelevant because I’m sure you’d prefer to let someone like Michael David guide you through the literature to the essential questions rather than me; seeing that blind leading blind is not likely to gain upon that exalted Mistress the fondness of whom you seem to share with the very hospitable host of this site.

  85. claus Says:

    TS,
    Yes, most emphatically: the specific document in question, which was never really in question, convinced most of us from early on that this was not a court ruling, much less a High Court ruling. Every quote attributed to Lanka I could find on the net corroborated those conclusions: 1. that this was not the relevant document 2. that Lanka himself never claimed anything about a High Court ruling.

    I’ve been advised and do agree that CN’s statements carry very little weight. Nevertheless they and the answers to them by many people that carry far more weight than my humble self clutter up these distinguished pages.

    As to your last point, it’s already been answered in my post that crossed yours: recognizing my limitations I prefer to step down and let people like Dr. David make the ‘clear incontrovertible decisive statements on any topic and not ones which allow any escape into diversionary and trivial byways.’

    Stepping down

  86. Michael David Says:

    CN,

    Perhaps this alternative will coax you out of the strange (for you) early morning, down under silence.

    The distinguished Robin Weiss (quoted to such benefit by Claus above) is distinguished, in part, for being the senior author of this paper in Nature in the first week of 1985 in which the “putative” AIDS virus lost the qualifier.

    “The CD4 (T4) antigen is an essential component of the receptor for the AIDS retrovirus.

    Dalgleish AG, Beverley PC, Clapham PR, Crawford DH, Greaves MF, Weiss RA.

    Nature , (1984) Dec 20-1985 Jan 2; 312 (5996): 763–767.”

    Can you find evidence for this exceedingly powerful claim within the brief letter? Because after this publication, HTLV-III (LAV/ARV) became forever known by that fearsome deignation, and ALL research was (re/mis)directed to investigating the properties associated with this newly crowned killer of killer viruses, and not one penny has been spent deciding if this sudden elevation to superstar status by THE EDITORS of Nature was worth the paper it was printed on.

  87. Michael David Says:

    CN,

    To make it very clear (even to you, who unlike me is not just waking after a restful and delightful night) only three years later, Jay (ARV) Levy wrote in the very same, highly esteemed journal (sic) a brief essay whose title indicates perfectly the shift in scientific perceptions and perspective that had overcome everyone in retrovirology with one noteable exception, and in which the “associated properties” above transformed into “Mysteries of HIV: Challenges for Therapy and Prevention.” ( Nature , 333:519-22, 1988)

    Nobelist Kary Mullis had it just right I think in the Harper’s article that has caused such a ruckus when he said “They made a really big mistake, and are never going to admit it.” (or something close to that).

  88. Michael David Says:

    Why not, maybe NB is still tuning in and could fumigate his wisdom on this final point, along with CN?

    Can anyone explain how the term “viral load” even approximates anything resembling the very specific image it conjures of “infectious virus”?

    This is no more than a part of the parcel of Orwellian political language that the AIDS establishment has wielded (until now) to such excessive succe$$es and unnecessary deaths, and which is also exemplified in my comments above.

  89. McKiernan Says:

    Can anyone explain how Peter Duesberg decided he was correct in stating that Kimberly Bergalis was HIV + as a result of perinatal mother-child transfer at birth ? A decision he made after 21 year old Kimberly died,

  90. Michael David Says:

    McK,

    I for one would be delighted to explain this to you, but first you must explain to me with sufficient intelligibility to pass TS and Claus review, that you have the faintest understanding of the Duesberg et al. arguments underlying their persuasion that HIV (like all other retroviruses) relies on perinatal transmission for its survival.

  91. claus Says:

    Actually McK you’d pass my test if you can show how this relates to any larger philosophical issue.

    Once when Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the greatest rethinkers the world has ever known, was reproached for his ad hominem style, he said he had never delivered an ad hominem attack in his literary career. He only named specific persons as representative of something much deeper in the spirit, ideology or historical genius of the people or institution they to his mind exemplified particularly well.

    I know that to some your post may not qualify as an ad hominem, but still: what profound spirit does Duesberg represent in the example you forward as a point whose importance apparently overrides every other point made in the past half dozen posts or so? Could it have anything to do with TS or Dr. Bialy being to cheap to buy tickets for the Toronto AIDS Conference? Or perhaps, like CN, you wonder if Duesberg is a liar? In that case I must ask you as well to forward references and suspicions in full – for the record.

    If none of this was on your mind, but instead a genuine query into the nature of the so called HI virus, I think you’ve already received a sufficient answer by Dr. D. Otherwise exercise your inquiring mind on this, admittedly technical beyond me paper: Belshaw et al. (PNAS, 101:4894, 2004)

  92. McKiernan Says:

    Sorry, I did have other time commitments. I surrender a few points. No HB is not too cheap to go to Toronto. I was being facetious. It seems to me on a purely public relations point of view, there is/was merit for my suggestion independent of any slings and arrows one side chooses to impel on the other. Is that totally unreasonable ?

    Nor am I calling Duesberg a liar re: Kimberly Bergalis. I do understand his reasoning in that approx 4+ patients out of 1100 may be naturally hiv + due to perinatal transmission. That’s his theory . And his theory is based on sexual transmission or perinatal transmission. That’s a bit glitchy.

    Claus you ask, why is it important and of what merit.

    The Acer studies indicate blood borne surgical transfer, Dr. Acer’s patients being the only practice in which 5-6 patients turn up hiv + some of which died of AIDS. It’s been documented that five of the six had the identical strains of hiv as Dr. Acer.

    Is that a coincidence ? So why should we accept Duesberg that in his theory analysis , Kimberly Bergalis became hiv + perinatally. He surely wasn’t there 22 years earlier.

    Under what specific grounds does Dueberg rule out, a blood borne transfer of hiv seropositivity ?

  93. McKiernan Says:

    PS:

    Please provide direct answer, not one of these you’re not qualified to understand, go read such and such article.

  94. Michael David Says:

    McK

    You have not even begun to demonstrate that you have even a vague idea of what the Duesberg et al. arguments re natural transmission of exogenous retroviurues are. Until and unless you can and do, no explanation re Ms. Bergalis will be forthcoming from this quarter.

    P.S.

    The Belshaw et al. article was too difficult for CN so I don’t suppose you will be able to read it either.

  95. McKiernan Says:

    Duesberg is not and never will be omniscient. His retroactive clinical analysis indicating perinatal hiv seropositivity in the 22 year old Bergalis as a fact is purely and academically speculative . You know that and so do others.

    How do you explain the other hiv + people from Dr. Acer’s office that carried the same strain of hiv ? They weren’t teenagers.

    Are we also underqualified to understand any of your astute explanations ?

    Answers with real beef and less hamburger helper are appreciated.

  96. McKiernan Says:

    Apparently the doorbell rang as you missed reading this statement:

    “Please provide direct answer, not one of these you’re not qualified to understand, go read such and such article.”

  97. Michael David Says:

    McK

    Perhaps you do not understand. I am the one with information to impart. If you wish to receive it, then do what I asked. Until now you have done nothing but blather.

    Once again MCK what do Duesberg et al. have to say about the natural transmission of exogenous retroviruses? Why are they used as quasi-genetic markers to differentiate otherwise identical inbred strains of mice? Why are there 90,000 retroviral sequences in the primate germline? How can a fatally pathogenic virus survive in the wild if it needs to rely on *highly* unlikely sexual exchanges and dirty needles? Etc…..

    And where do you get your data about the same strain? Please read the fine print of the Science paper in which this nonsense was reported. Look at the certainty with which the cladistics are presented.

    I am bone tired of trying to answer questions from people who think what they read in newspaper reports is scientific fact, and who cannot present even a resaonable facsimile of a scientific argument containing more than two elements in its logic chain.

  98. Dan Says:

    Time for the layman to ask a question.

    McKiernan,

    I see that you’re an avid reader/poster at “Barnesville”.

    Here’s a quote from a recent thread. Help me understand this, ok?

    As we recently learned at Roger Williams College from the expert physician researcher from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, AIDS is unbelievably mutagenic. It makes billions of mutant versions in just 24 hours

    I’m sure the person speaking meant HIV, not AIDS. But is this true? Is it true that HIV makes billions of mutant versions in just 24 hours?

    If so, how on earth can one strain be found in amongst all those billions of mutant versions? Does sound a bit fantastical anyway, doesn’t it? Billions of mutant versions in just 24 hours?

    So, with all that crazy mutation going on, how do they determine that Bergalis’ dentist’s other patients had the same “strain”?

    I haven’t heard of this story until now. Did all those other patients die of AIDS? If so, why did they just focus on Bergalis? If not, why not?

  99. Michael David Says:

    McK,

    You cannot answer my request, and therefore I will not waste time giving you the answer that I generally gave scientific audiences when questions about Ms. Bergalis would arise in the days I was on the lecture circuit.

    Instead I will cut to a simple chase. Go and pester the CDC about why they never checked the AB status of Kimberly’s mother. Simple to do and unequivocal. If Duesberg is correct, she is AB+. If not, then some other explanation for Kimberley’s status need be sought. The idea that she got “infected” by having her dentist bleed into open wounds in her mouth is ludicrous.

    She was also in quite good health (except for a persistent vaginal yeast infection) before she was put on AZT. Six months later, a wheelchair bound Kimberly told her sob story to the Senate, and you probably cried and were outraged at that faggot dentist along with the rest of God fearing America.

  100. McKiernan Says:

    “Perhaps you do not understand. I am the one with the information to impart. If you wish to receive it, then do what I asked”. Michael David

    Yeah, that’s what you think. As Congressman Pete Stark said to Jesse Jackson, sorry Jesse, we don’t live on your plantation.

    Now address the rest of the hiv seropositive people from Dr. Acer’s office. You won’t of course. And no, they all didn’t focus on Bergalis, Duesberg did because his talking points come from the newpaper articles you send him.

    It’s good to know though that you do have non-answers at best or else others qualified under secret rules of genuflection and adoration or go read 150,00 words and get back to me.

    You’ve been playing this game since Dec 2004. It’s time to quit. Just send the insulting photos. They work great.

    A small note. Did you know that the Falsifying the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis post on DW was 138,307 words long and your pal, CS carefully and diligently edited out 73,616 words that ended up as the Thinking the Unthinkable blurb sheet on Wiki with a mere 64,591 words.

    That’s called fair and balanced reporting.

    Sorry, you missed the internet publication of the same HIV strains from Acer’s office. Makes no difference, there isn’t any answer anyone can give you since you have ALL the answers all of which are retroactive to 1987 and 1992.

    Thank you.

    BTW, The Bergalis family disagrees with your interplanetary clinical diagnoses.

  101. Michael David Says:

    McK

    Thank you for demonstrating that your original query had nothing to do with an honest desire to understand a sceintific argument, but was simply another attempt to drag up some single case of infection “to prove” the pathogenicity of HIV. It makes no difference to you what the route of “infection” was.

    to put the cap on this roundabout typical McK lark, and for the benefit of those reading who may not know the ins and outs of KB.

    1. She died of AZT intoxication not HIV replication.

    2. Acer had more than 1000 patients that were tracked and tested. That 5 came up Ab+ is exactly the national average, and as has been pointed out to you a number of times in different ways, deciding the strains are identical or closely related or just kissing cousins is a crapshoot.

    Now GO AWAY.

  102. Truthseeker Says:

    McK, there seems to be something very artificial in the way you keep resisting what you are told, instead of acknowledging it and shifting your point of view like an honest discussant. In fact, we have to say that it appears you are a troll. May we ask why you have so much time on your hands that you view this as a worthwhile pastime? After all, it doesn’t seem the kind of thing that would endlessly amuse anyone who had a life. Are you bedridden, and able only to contact the wider world through your keyboard? What is it that makes you forget that there are thousands of lives being severely blighted and eventually ended by this scientific aberration? Do you have so little concern for your fellow human beings that you think it amusing to toy with the discussion when this may be the only lifeline they will get thrown? Or is it that you have some financial or emotional stake in spoiling the enlightenment we bring them?

    If not the last, why don’t you try arguing on the other side for a change? Not only will you find the company more intelligent but you won’t find yourself incapable of coming to a permanent conclusion in your efforts to think it through. There is only one side where everything fits. That is why you are continually reduced to nibbling at the scraps which fall off the table instead of sitting with the grown ups and enjoying the whole meal, that is, subscribing to a world view which works.

    On the one hand you have an unnatural house of cards propped up only with the help of political threats and on the other side you have a coherent picture without inconsistencies.

    Or is it that you cannot see the wood for the trees?

  103. claus Says:

    McK,

    Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps I can also clarify.

    The fundamental issue you wished to address was this:

    Under what specific grounds does Dueberg rule out, a blood borne transfer of hiv seropositivity ?

    If that means you ask how Duesberg rules out that HIV could ever be transmitted via blood, I think that’s an interesting question too, and I’d like your reference for this.

    If, however, the point you wished to make, based on the specific case you mention, was this:

    Duesberg is not and never will be omniscient. His retroactive clinical analysis indicating perinatal hiv seropositivity in the 22 year old Bergalis as a fact is purely and academically speculative.

    it is of no interest. None whatsoever, since even in the unlikely event you should succeed in demonstrating that Duesberg is not omniscient, it does not impact in any way, shape or form on his general theories regarding the nature and behaviour of the HI retrovirus.

    It is of course the last that’s of interest and not an inquiry into whether Duesberg thinks he is Napoleon.

    Therefore it was entirely helpful and appropriate of Dr. D to answer you the way he did, telling you that the prerequisite for an informing, serious answer is an informed, serious question, and furthermore suggesting to you how to educate yourself.

    If you feel this impinges on your personal rights, it’s only to follow his sage advice and direct your questions to more service minded authorities. Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t like it either, that’s why I never ask him any questions myself (-;

  104. McKiernan Says:

    If that means you ask how Duesberg rules out that HIV could ever be transmitted via blood, I think that’s an interesting question too, and I’d like your reference for this.

    Phylogeny Friday

    Molecular evidence of HIV-1 transmission

    pssst, Claus don’t ask any questions.

  105. Dan Says:

    I find it frustrating that some of you don’t seem capable of questioning things that sound quite fantastical, even unbelievable to the ordinary person.

    First, that there was this gay “HIV positive” dentist who was so sloppy in his work that he somehow managed to bleed “HIV-infected” blood into his patients and “infect” them really pushes the limits of believability. I would find it more believable to hear a story of a dentist that fornicated with his patients while they were sedated (and somehow “transmit” “HIV”). Why didn’t they go with that story? Oh, yeah, he was gay. Well, sometimes a hole is a hole.

    Since nobody has refuted the claim that “HIV” produces billions of mutant versions in just 24 hours, I’ll assume that this is a “fact”. Is everybody here willing to go along with this one? If so, we’ve got to stick with it.

    I really can’t go with some of you folks down your dark, narrow tunnels of scientific minutiae. As a layman, I look at this from many other angles: psychological, sociological, experiential, political, and the basic “science”. All of them lead to the same place, individually and collectively. And all of them are valid in ascertaining if this “AIDS” thing is what it’s promoted to be.

  106. Michael David Says:

    Dan,

    I thought you realized the “billions of mutants” claim was as nonsensical as the infection route of Ms. Bergalis.

    A retrovirus, any retrovirus, can make a maximum of 1-2000 copies per cell per day. The polymerase has an error rate of 1 in 10E5 per nucleotide. You do the arithmetic.

  107. Dan Says:

    I thought you realized the “billions of mutants” claim was as nonsensical as the infection route of Ms. Bergalis.

    I do. That’s why I put fact in quotation marks.

    For the defenders of the faith though, I’d like to get them on the record concerning this “fact”.

    If it is indeed a fact, according to them, then this fact is an integral part of the “AIDS” equation. Not something to be trotted out only in case of emergency, i.e. when backed into a corner.

  108. McKiernan Says:

    The sloppy gay Florida dentist that died of AIDS prior to some of his patients dying had law suits against him. His insurance company was required to pay out three separate settlements of one million dollars each.

    One judgment might be that the lawsuits brought on behalf of the dead patients was not frivolous, not withstanding any science behind it or certain molecular biologists choosing to duck the issues.

  109. Dan Says:

    How about it, McKiernan?

    HIV produce billions of mutants in 24 hours?

  110. Michael David Says:

    Duck issues? Pot and kettle “methinks” McK.

    1. *You* bring up the long dead Bergalis pretending to wish some edification as to how it is that many think her Ab+ status had nothing to do with her dentist.

    2. When asked to demonstrate that you had a minimal understanding of the scientific arguments behind the claim that the majority of HIV infections must occur via perinatal transmission, you failed woefully and changed the subject at least 3 times.

    3. You ducked completely the VERY important tangential point you then raised, namely that Kimberley MUST have died of AIDS and therefore infection with HIV is deadly.

    When it was stated that Bergalis obviously died of the complications of AZT intoxication as PROVED by her bald head and wasted limbs six months after she began this treatment as an othrerwise (except for an itchy crotch) healthy young woman, you have NOTHING to say.

    Remember that these symptoms were presented to the world as her ‘AIDS disease’, and NOBODY in the press or on the senate floor (all of whom had first hand experience probably with relatives or friends on cancer chemo) raised the slightest doubt that they were witnessing the ravages of rapid onset HIV pathogenesis, and not the “side effects” of her magic, life-extending bullet.

    Does this not deeply disturb you?

  111. McKiernan Says:

    Let’s see if we got the science right.

    Perinatal HIV tranmsssion can occur in utero when the virus passes across the placental barrier when the infant is esposed to maternal blood and vaginal secretions but HIV transmission cannot happen in a surgical setting nor with injecting drug users using dirty needles.

    Go figure.

  112. Dan Says:

    I have a feeling McK may not want to answer the billions of mutants question. It could definitely throw a big wrench into the “AIDS” machinery.

    Well, I’ll just have to remind the AIDS pushers that according to some of their peers, HIV is producing billions of mutant versions every day. Now, that’s a fact that will need to be plugged into every “AIDS” discussion.

  113. Michael David Says:

    No McK you do not have the “science” right (as usual)

    You may recall (big maybe) that I mentioned to you above that retroviruses were used as quasi-genetic markers to differentiate otherwise genetically indistinguishable inbred strains of mice. A developing embryo is exposed to the blood of the mother for the entire term of gestation. During this extended exposure cells of the embryo can become infected. Retroviruses are so tame that INBRED strains of mice maintain the same ones generation after mousy generation. This is what is known in scientific circles as a natural route of transmission.

    But I guess the points I made above about AZT and Ms. Bergalis leave you cold you heartless, old bastard.

  114. McKiernan Says:

    During this extended exposure cells of the embryo can become infected.

    And that is a blood-borne transmission. Correct ?

    BTW, thank you for your last response. And, yes, I am aware of the misuse of AZT in 1986.

  115. Michael David Says:

    McK,

    Either your refusal to understand density quotient is off the scale or you are the troll of all trolls.

    YOUR original question had to do with the NATURAL ROUTE of HIV transmission and NOT some investigation of the semantic straw man that HIV was not transmissible via the blood.

    You are still a heartless bastard as evidenced by your careful restating of the AZT disaster without, ONCE again, linking it in any way, shape or form to the poor dead Ms. Bergalis.

  116. McKiernan Says:

    Excuse me again,

    My original question did not have to do with your natural route of hiv transmission.

    It had to do with how Dueberg determined he was correct in assuming Kimberly’s hiv status was via perinatal transmission 22 years after her birth. It had nothing whatsoever to do with density quotients /mutations/AZT etc…Nor did I ask how she died. His answer is an assumption. As is his assumption that hiv+ is distributed equally between sexes.

    The question was:

    “Can anyone explain how Peter Duesberg decided he was correct in stating that Kimberly Bergalis was hiv + as a result of perinatal mother-child transfer at birth ?”

    You have satisfactorily explained what you call the natural transmission AND have implicitly endorsed that hiv is blood-borne and transferable .

    The discussion is important because the Dr.Acer office HIV/AIDS cases are the ONLY publically known cases of AIDS in an oral surgery setting. This spawned the Universal Precautions industry, a multi-million dollar enterprise.

    You may not give a crap if one can get AIDS or HIV from blood but others are.

    And give up the heartless bastard/troll crap as well.

  117. Michael David Says:

    QED. Troll of trolls it is. In the typographical style of your hero NB.

    “bye :)”

  118. Kafka's Ghost Says:

    Mr. McKiernan,

    Whilst I am loathe to enter the dispute of whether or not your various comments constitute troll-like behaviour or no, I am more than amused by your last posting for the following reasons:

    You write that The discussion is important because the Dr.Acer office HIV/AIDS cases are the ONLY publically known cases of AIDS in an oral surgery setting. This spawned the Universal Precautions industry, a multi-million dollar enterprise .

    Are you suggesting that politically-inspired laws, and economically-inspired business ventures are a substitute for scientific proof?

    Do you seriously think that Ms. Bergalis did not succumb to AZT?

    Do you seriously think that if the Acer case had been brought now that a vigorous defense would not be mounted on behalf of the deceased dentist?

  119. McKiernan Says:

    I believe that the Acer cases constitute a core set of NIH science values, the dissidents could have used to over turn NIH/CDC pronouncements as to the severity of hiv/aids in health care settings. Consider, Acer cases are the only HIV cases from a dental surgery setting since 1986. Like over 1 million health care surgical procedures, no hiv transmissions. There is more than enough ammunition there for the dissidents to score huge PR gains.

    Unfortunately, that is hindsight and the efforts of Dr. Duesberg and others were limited, unheard, and squashed. The message didn’t get out, the Randy Shilts/gay politics/media era bombarded the headlines.

    I still think the Acer cases merit discussion. I appreciate Michael David’s willingness to dialogue. But he’s a hard guy to squeeze any information out of. Like every approach is a personal insult already.

    Ms. Bergalis may well have succumbed to AZT. I had two sisters that died due to breast cancer at ages 42 and 46 in the 1980’s. The latter died first and I know she volunteered for experimental chemo’s. It was very sad. A week before her death, sister number two was diagnosed with a lump. Same result two years.

    I see NAR and the venue he represents entrenched to the point of unwilling isolation and non-communication. I’m not a writer, I cannot express these things clearly. I don’t understand why for example the AZT, chemotherapy, big pharma discussions cannot be isolated from hiv/aids. God knows there is more than enough insult to the human health condition in that arena.

    My skirmish with Michael David is of no real consequence except to point that hiv is in fact a blood-borne pathogen . It’s virulence defines the debate. It antibodies indicate it is not user friendly.

    Does that help or is it I’m just too stupid to meet the qualifications required for dialogue ?

  120. Kafka's Ghost Says:

    Mr. McKiernan,

    My amusement has turned to “quasi”-shock, and this is *not* bad I assure.

    As a frequent, if not avid reader of the various AIDS blogs, I have often encountered your name and writings and I must say that this is the first time I have been able to not only fully understand what you have written, but even find myself (as I am sure many reading this also do) in substantial agreement.

    I, for one, would never have deduced from your previous postings that the *real* point behind them was to demonstrate that you believe that the Acer cases constitute a core set of NIH science values, the dissidents could have used to over turn NIH/CDC pronouncements as to the severity of hiv/aids in health care settings. Consider, Acer cases are the only HIV cases from a dental surgery setting since 1986. Like over 1 million health care surgical procedures, no hiv transmissions. There is more than enough ammunition there for the dissidents to score huge PR gains.

    Unfortunately, that is hindsight and the efforts of Dr. Duesberg and others were limited, unheard, and squashed. The message didn’t get out, the Randy Shilts/gay politics/media era bombarded the headlines.

    This is both perceptive and well written IMHO from a very distant and strange perspective as the ghost of a man who is best remembered as a giant insect.

  121. Kafka's Ghost Says:

    And Mr. McKiernan,

    I will even give you the italics about HIV is a blood-borne pathogen .

    Indeed, its full pathogenic potential appears to be realised in the few documented cases of a mild-flu like illness accompanied by acute lymphadenopathy and a very brief, real (not PCR) viremia, as Dueberg and others have pointed out in peer-reviewed journals, and other venues, for nearly two decades.

    So, well done for precisely defining such an important facet of the not-so-great, but somehow still around, cause-of-AIDS debate.

  122. McKiernan Says:

    Well, you got half of it right.
    Give my love to Eccles.
    And offer him half a poem :

    A moral lesson this might teach,
    Were I ordained and called to preach;
    For men are prone to go it blind,
    Along the calf-paths of the mind;

    And work away from sun to sun,
    To do what other men have done.
    They follow in the beaten track,
    And out and in, and forth and back,

    And still their devious course pursue,
    To keep the path that others do.
    They keep the path a sacred groove,
    Along which all their lives they move.

    But how the wise old wood gods laugh,
    Who saw the first primeval calf !
    Ah! many things this tale might teach –
    But I am not ordained to preach.

    Sam Walter Foss like 1889 or something.

  123. Kafka's Ghost Says:

    Mr. McKiernan,

    To paraphrase a famous ex-president of your republic – “There you go again”, and just when I accused you of making sense.

    If the “offer of half a poem” is addressed to my most highly esteemed (if insubstantial) being, I cannot imagine what you intend.

    The only two Eccles I am in contact with are Sir. John, the eminent neurophysiologist, who may have followed in the footsteps of Sherrington, but otherwise was widely considered an extremely novel thinker, so much that he was awarded a Nobel in 1963, and “Eccles the Idiot”, a radio persona of Spike Milligan, who *nobody* ever accused of following a beaten track.

    Therefore I am left to conclude that you must have intended your “half a verse” for the extended community of HIV/AIDS researchers to which it fits like the proverbial “t”.

  124. McKiernan Says:

    No subliminal messages intended. I could have pasted the entire poem but was too lazy. I read it occasionally and still try to figure it out. Your perception re: the extended community is quite accurate.

    The part I don’t like is no one has any say since big brother rules.

    It was the Calfpath, written around 1890 over 100 years ago.

    That poem has been floating around my family since the 1940’s.

    I think it means whatever the reader decides conditional to the days circumstance.

    Sometimes given half a chance, McK does make a valid point. I would hope today was that exception.

    Thank you.

  125. McKiernan Says:

    TS,

    A well earned green border please:

    “You have satisfactorily explained what you call the natural transmission AND have implicitly endorsed that hiv is blood-borne and transferable .”

  126. Chris Noble Says:

    The Bergalis case is another example where Duesberg blatantly lies.

    Bergalis was severely ill before she took AZT. She had PCP and a CD4 count of 41 before she took AZT. Duesberg claims she was perfectly healthy before she started AZT. This is a bald faced lie.

    Duesberg’s mathematical analysis is also bullshit. Testing of army recruits and blood donors shows that prevalence in the general population is 0.03% or less. So in a cohort of 1100 random people in the US you would not expect any people outside of risk groups to be infected by chance. Bergalis was not in a risk group.

    We have already agreed (I hope) that according to the CDC estimates by far the majority of people infected with HIV have been in specific risk groups and are not infected perinatally. The surveys of army recruits and blood donors showed that at most perhaps 5% of people infected with HIV had been infected perinatally. Duesberg’s claim that HIV is spread predominantly by perinatal transmission is refuted by his own arguments.

    Nobody has responded to Duesberg casually reclassifying herpes zoster as AIDS in a feeble attempt to salvage his precious theory from the scrapheap of scientific failure.

  127. GS Says:

    Mr. Noble

    Do you think you could provide a scientific reference which discusses Ms. Bergalis’ health prior to her starting AZT?

    At least Dr. Duesberg is a good enough academic to provide references for his claims.

    Mck

    You said you could answer Mr. David’s question regarding why the same HIV proteins have been used for “HIV tests” for the last 20 years. Not surprisingly, however, you dodged the question. Do you think it is possible for you to answer that question with a referenced response?

    Answers would be much appreciated. We need your help, because it appears we are blinded to your “truth”!

    GS

  128. Michael David Says:

    Noble,

    Where do you get your data? According to this apparently comprehensive report, at the time of the Bergalis case the incidence of HIV Abs among Army recruits was 10x higher than you claim. You are the one who is a deceit.

    “J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003 Feb 1;32(2):215-22

    HIV-1 infection among civilian applicants for US military service, 1985 to 2000: epidemiology and geography.Sateren WB, Renzullo PO, Carr JK, Birx DL, McNeil JG.
    Division of Retrovirology, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, U.S. Military HIV Research Program, 1 Taft Court, Suite 250, Rockville, MD 20850, USA. WSateren@hivresearch.org

    … Between October 1985 and December 2000, a total of 5,340,694 individuals applied to join one of the armed service branches of the US military. Overall, HIV-1 prevalence was 0.80 per 1000 applicants (95% CI: 0.78-0.82), with 4276 applicants testing positive for HIV-1 infection. Prevalence declined over the 16-year period from a high of 2.89 per 1000 applicants in 1985 to 0.36 per 1000 applicants in 2000.”

    More interesting, however, is this from your golden finger tips: The surveys of army recruits and blood donors showed that at most perhaps 5% of people infected with HIV had been infected perinatally

    . If even 5% of the “infected” recruits (ages 17-19) are infected perinatally, then HIV is not a uniformly fatal pathogen as is widely believed.

  129. Michael David Says:

    But come on Noble, why are you so desperately fearful of confronting the simple (and maybe even simple-minded) epidemiological analysis by a health insurance professional actuary that (for the THIRD) time I put in front of your dim eyes, here?

  130. Michael Says:

    Mck!

    I think you have stumbled onto something important here! Is your subconscious trying to tell you something with that awesome poem of the wayward calf?

    Was that calf by any chance named Gallo?

    A moral lesson this might teach,
    Were I ordained and called to preach;
    For men are prone to go it blind,
    Along the calf-paths of the mind;
    And work away from sun to sun,
    To do what other men have done.
    They follow in the beaten track,
    And out and in, and forth and back,
    And still their devious course pursue,
    To keep the path that others do.
    They keep the path a sacred groove,
    Along which all their lives they move.
    But how the wise old wood gods laugh,
    Who saw the first primeval calf!
    Ah! many things this tale might teach –
    But I am not ordained to preach.

  131. Chris Noble Says:

    Do you think you could provide a scientific reference which discusses Ms. Bergalis’ health prior to her starting AZT?

    At least Dr. Duesberg is a good enough academic to provide references for his claims.

    Did Duesberg quote from Bergalis’ medical records?

    Some people did look at Bergalis’ medical records

    http://www.radioliberty.com/aiduntld.htm

    The actual sequence of events (compared to Duesberg’s confabulations) are also available in newspaper articles.

    http://tinyurl.com/pu3nq

    Not until she came home at Thanksgiving 1989, drawn and coughing, did her parents begin to worry. A week later, after going back to Gainesville, she was in the hospital with a life-threatening bout of pneumonia. Only when the crisis passed and tests revealed that she had pneumocystis pneumonia, typical of AIDS patients, did the doctors treating her suggest she be tested for HIV infection. The first test was tentatively positive.

    Do you get the sequence of events now?

    Candidasis
    Hair loss
    PCP
    Diagnosis with HIV infection
    AZT

    AZT came after. It could not cause things that happened earlier in time. Bergalis was severely, severely ill before she was diagnosed with HIV infection and before she took AZT.

    The way that Duesberg has revised history is disgusting.

    Why don’t you ask Duesberg for the references that support his bizarre version of events?

  132. McKiernan Says:

    GS,

    We’all just got the Michael David/alter-ego spin again. This is how the AIDS wars go. Pay attention. It gets good and it gets bad.

    To the point,

    GS,

    “At least Dr. Duesberg is a good enough academic to provide references for his claims.”

    The claims are not specific to the Bergalis case. Those are his theories . In baseball as in life theory and practice are different. Duesberg is guessing on his assumption that Kimberly was perinatally hiv +. He is assuming she was hiv +. That is not an atomic fact he can support by clinical or diagnostic evidence, even 22 years after her birth. So he made the claim without any clinical knowledge of the situation. He did the same thing in the Eliza Jane case and as well the Arthur Ashe case. He does LATimes diagnoses, then writes letters to the editor. That ain’t science. Sorry.

    I asked only,

    “Can anyone explain how Peter Duesberg decided he was correct in stating that Kimberly Bergalis was hiv + as a result of perinatal mother-child transfer at birth ?”

    That’s all I asked. Mr. David is responsible for his own questions and answers. Get it. Mr. David allowed that I was correct in that he affirmed this statement :

    “You have satisfactorily explained what you call the natural transmission AND have implicitly endorsed that hiv is blood-borne and transferable .”

    That is the sole qualitative transaction that has occurred on this thread regarding anything transactions between Mr. David, his alter-ego co-respondents and McK.

    Michael,

    The poem is a mirror. Go look in the mirror and read the poem aloud or read it aloud to your housemates. It can be interpreted anyway you wish but you cannot interpret it to how I think and be accurate in that assessment. How could it be, it was written 100 years ago.

  133. Michael David Says:

    Duesberg’s account of the Bergalis affair as given in Inventing the AIDS Virus is quite a bit better documented and compelling than the internet sources you like to cite.

    But you will believe as you choose, and continue to flout your ignorant biases. They don’t fly here, boy. Take em to Aetiology where you have a peanut gallery that believes as you do.

    What about your admission that the deadly virus ain’t so deadly Christopher laddie?

    How ’bout taking on deceitful Mr. Maver with your advanced degrees in epidemiology?

    Did someone here call you a punk?

  134. GS Says:

    Mr. Noble

    You have provided me with non-peer reviewed documents. Unlike the documents you have provided, duesberg’s work was peer reviewed.

    Mck

    Great job of avoiding the question I was asking. Can you, or can you not, tell me why the same HIV proteins have been used to test for HIV for the last 20 years? If you do not have an answer, do not feel obligated to write!

    GS

  135. McKiernan Says:

    GS,

    “We must start where all the ladders start in foul rag and bone shop of the heart.”

    Who the hell was that T. S. Eliot or W. B. Yeats ?

    Anyhow start here unless you’ve already sold your ass soul to paradigm a, b, c, or unk. Let us know when you’ve read at least 500,000 words. Then ask me a question.

    Scientific Dissenters

  136. Michael Says:

    Chris and McK.

    HIV does not cause Hair loss.

    Diet and Candidiasis are proven to create rapid hair loss, fevers, thrush, and about 25 other symptoms. Shame they did not just treat her for that. Most ignorant doctors still don’t.

    It was quite obvious that she had candidiasis. 3 out of 4 women experience candidiasis yeast infections at some point in their lives. Usually connected to a high sugar diet such as that found in a 21 year old college student such as herself.

    Was she treated for it and her diet adjusted for it, or was she just quickly put on AZT? Back in the early 90’s, we both know the answer to that. Her candidiasis was untreated and she was quickly put on AZT at 1500mg per day.

    Symptoms of Candida infections due directly to stress and diet are identical to what is called “symptoms of HIV infection”. Rampant systemic Candidiasis is 100% fatal unless it is diagnosed early enough to kill the yeast overgrowth and regenerate the Immune System.

    Researching “Sudden Hair Loss”, you will find:
    Stress, Trauma, Diet
    Other causes of hair loss could be surgery, medication, high level of work or family related stress and diet or nutrition changes all these can contribute to hair loss. These causes of hair loss are generally short lived and hair growth is restored once the situation normalizes. In any case, the above mentioned causes of hair loss rarely contribute to baldness.

    There are several theories on what can cause candidiasis. Candida is a normal resident of the bowel. In certain situations, the amount of candida in the bowel can increase, resulting in an overgrowth. Conditions in the bowel must be favorable for the fungus to grow.

    Alcohol.
    Chemicals and toxins.
    Chemotherapy.
    Chronic constipation or diarrhea.
    Diabetes.
    Diets high in sugars.
    Excessive stress
    Having a repressed immune system due to medication or disease.
    Intestinal parasites
    Multiple pregnancies.
    Oral antibiotics kill off the “good” bacteria in the intestine, which allows candida to proliferate.
    Steroids.
    Thyroid disease.
    Use of oral contraceptives, steroids, antacids, and anti-ulcer medications.

    Dohhhhh Chris, you have proved another case of murder by AZT.

    One more AZT death that could have been better treated with a change in diet and a break from the stress she had at college and with her boyfriend. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Oh, I forgot, we already told you it was the AZT when the issue was first brought up by McK!

    Dohhhh

  137. GS Says:

    Mck

    You are a prime example of why AIDS should be renamed – Acronym Indicating Discredited Science.

    GS

  138. Michael Says:

    Hey Chris,

    What was that trash you were so intent on feeding us about Duesberg’s take on Bergalis?

    Don’t you think you should have typed:

    The way that Duesberg Chris Noble has revised history is disgusting.

  139. Chris Noble Says:

    You have provided me with non-peer reviewed documents. Unlike the documents you have provided, duesberg’s work was peer reviewed.

    Duesberg has no evidence for his invented version of events.

    Inventing the AIDS virus is not a peer reviewed work. It is a book targetted at a lay audience.

    Where is the evidence for Duesberg’s assertion that Bergalis was perfectly healthy before she took AZT? Can you provide the peer reviewed references that support Duesberg’s version of events as given in his book?

    She was only diagnosed with HIV infection because she came down with opportunistic infections such as systemic candidasis and PCP that are indicative of severe immune deficiency. She was only treated with AZT after becoming severely ill.

  140. GS Says:

    Forgive if I am wrong, but did Duesberg not mention this case in the Bioscience paper?

  141. McKiernan Says:

    GS

    The only person I know that spells my name Mck is Hank Barnes.

    Thanks for the clue.

    So the whole Toronto stuff was phoney. That’s a laugher.

  142. Michael Says:

    Chris,

    please show us the nonexistant study to back up your claims of HIV being necessary for Rampant Systemic Candida Albicans infection or death, because the vast majority of Candida sufferers are HIV negative, and those that are untreated and HIV negative still can die from it, and many times have.

  143. GS Says:

    Nice try. You guessed the wrong guy.

  144. Laura Says:

    Michael

    Systemic yeast infections in those who are not immuno compromised are highly controversial. I suggest providing links other than advertisements disguiesed as medical information. Many of the anti yeast supplements have been investigated such as Garden of Life. This would also apply to your link regarding hair loss as it is from an herb seller. Maybe you should stick to reputable sources to prove your point.

    Not to disagree with your statement that the yeast infection should have been treated and high sugar diets can lead to yeast overgrowth. However that does not eliminate the fact that she also had PCP and a positive HIV test which stongly suggest that the yeast infection was probably caused by immune suppresion.

  145. Michael Says:

    Mck.

    Although I will take the comparison to Hank as a compliment, are you as dumb as you sound? You are quite capable of emailing me at the link provided. I would even be glad to conference call with you and Mr. Barnes and GS, so we can all tell you personally where to stuff it.

  146. Chris Noble Says:

    Forgive if I am wrong, but did Duesberg not mention this case in the Bioscience paper?

    I forgive you.

    Duesberg stopped mentioning the Bergalis case when it came out that his version of events were complete bullshit. This hasn’t stopped it living on as an internet myth that is continuously regurgitated.

    When it was stated that Bergalis obviously died of the complications of AZT intoxication as PROVED by her bald head and wasted limbs six months after she began this treatment as an othrerwise (except for an itchy crotch) healthy young woman, you have NOTHING to say.

    The hair loss and weight loss came before the HIV diagnosis which came before treatment with AZT.

    “Rethinkers” obviously want us to think that the effects of AZT can travel backwards in time.

  147. GS Says:

    Mr. Noble

    Your non-peer reviewed documents do not become fact because duesberg’s account of this situation was also a non-peer reviewed document.

  148. Laura Says:

    Michael

    I would also be interested to see the statistics of death in healthy people (without HIV or immuno compromised from chemo or anti rejection drugs) from Candidiasis infections. From a reputable source not someone trying to sell some antifungal vitamins.

  149. Chris Noble Says:

    please show us the nonexistant study to back up your claims of HIV being necessary for Rampant Systemic Candida Albicans infection or death, because the vast majority of Candida sufferers are HIV negative, and those that are untreated and HIV negative still can die from it, and many times have.

    This is getting very tedious. I have never said that all cases of systemic candidiasis are caused by HIV. There is also a big difference between the average candida infection and systemic infection. Systemic candidiasis is an indicator for immune suppression.

    It wasn’t until Bergalis also came down with PCP that doctors eventually checked for HIV infection. PCP is extremely rare and is found almost exclusively in the immune compromised. Bergalis did not have any other causes for immune suppression. She was HIV positive.

    None of this is my main point. My major point is that Duesberg was obviously threatened by the case and invented an alternative scenario that was completely unsupported by the available evidence. He claimed that Bergalis was completely healthy before taking AZT. He euphemistically refers to PCP as a “transient pneumonia”. It was only “transient” because Bergalis spent 2 weeks in hospital being treated for PCP otherwise it probably would have been a fatal pneumonia. This was all before treatment with AZT.

    You cannot blame AZT for illnesses that occured prior to treatment.

  150. Michael Says:

    Thank you Laura,
    I am sure that everyone here is quite capable of googling Candida Yeast Infection or symptoms from any one of a great number of studies, and making their own determination of what is applicable. The listed studies even disagree with each other and are not necessarily listing all observed causes or symptoms. It does not change the fact that many sufferers of Candida overgrowth are HIV negative and the symptoms and effects, including a lowering of immune function, are vast.

    PCP is also not dependent on HIV and there are many cases of non-hiv PCP.

    By the way, are you the same Laura that believes that cats get FeLV?

  151. Michael Says:

    Laura, You said:

    I would also be interested to see the statistics of death in healthy people (without HIV or immuno compromised from chemo or anti rejection drugs) from Candidiasis infections. From a reputable source not someone trying to sell some antifungal vitamins.

    Well, good luck finding a good study or set of statistics, as many doctors are not even checking most patients for Candidiasis. This seems to be a big problem that is still too much ignored. More doctors are onto it than there were 15 years ago, but the track records are still dismal. And there is not a whole lot of money to be made for pharma in doing any comprehensive study either, so I would not expect one any time soon. After all, it took many years for Linus Pauling and his well observed benefits of vitamin C to get any kind of recognition from the mainstream, although the benefits of vitamin C became fairly common knowledge eventually anyway.

  152. Chris Noble Says:

    PCP is also not dependent on HIV and there are many cases of non-hiv PCP.

    This getting ridiculous. The attack of the zombie strawmen.

    Nobody has ever said that PCP is exclusively caused by HIV infection. PCP is an indicator of sever immune deficiency.

    Table 1 in the reference you provided gives the major non-HIV causes of immune suppresion leading to PCP. They include organ transplant (anti-rejection druds), and leukemias and lymphomas.

    Bergalis had none of these risk factors. She did have HIV.

  153. Laura Says:

    Why yes Michael I do believe cats get FeLV. I have seen cats die from the infection. Not to say all cats will but many do.It is more serios than FIV infection in cats althouhg FIV is a lenti virus like HIV. I think it is important to note that cats that live rather healthy lives are kept in a vacuum. In a house away from all of the potentially deadly pathogens that could harm them in there immuno suppressed state.Not a lifestyle I can see many people accepting.

    Just one question rumor has it that you are Lincoln. Is this true? If not your arguments are remarkably similar and I found it odd you mentioned me on this board. No worries though noone has stopped me from continuing to read up on the subject.

  154. Michael David Says:

    CN,

    What happened to your disastrous admission about the non-deadliness of the deadly virus?

    Clearly Mr. Maver is too much for you so I won’t bother sticking that in front of your dimmer than dim eyes and snotty, punk nose yet a 4th time.

  155. Michael Says:

    Oh my god, you guys and your rumors. One minute I am Hank, the next minute I am lincoln, next thing someone will think I am Thabo Mbeki or Truthseeker or Dr. Bialy or Duesberg. Well maybe I am and I just don’t know it or maybe I blog in my sleep! I did however read that whole thread and found it very fascinating. I here Lincoln has moved to South Africa to help out Thabo Mbeki and the ANC lately in their ongoing civil war against the TAC Treatment Action Campaign. He is probably over there duking it out with Richard Jefferies as we speak!

    Laura,

    Are you sure, Laura, that you are not just an overly protective cat-owner, whom is keeping your poor kitty cat locked away from fun and adventure in the neighborhood due to the hopefully not too contagious O-PCP (Overly Protective of Cats Paranoia)?

  156. Chris Noble Says:

    What happened to your disastrous admission about the non-deadliness of the deadly virus?

    The strawmen keep on coming and coming. Wave after wave.

    I assume my “disastrous admission” was when you wrote:

    More interesting, however, is this from your golden finger tips: The surveys of army recruits and blood donors showed that at most perhaps 5% of people infected with HIV had been infected perinatally

    .If even 5% of the “infected” recruits (ages 17-19) are infected perinatally, then HIV is not a uniformly fatal pathogen as is widely believed.

    As I stated before surveys that look at the general population rather than specific risk groups show much lower prevalence rates. From this information alone it is not possible for the number of people perinatally infected to be more than about 5%. This already refutes Duesberg’s claims. In addition to this information we have also seen what happens to babies that are perinatally infected with HIV. Very few live to be old enough to join the army. This absolutely destroys Duesberg’s hypothesis. In 2006 the number of babies that are born HIV+ in the US has dropped to essentially zero thanks to MTCT prevention.

  157. Michael Says:

    Besides, Laura, if I was lincoln, I would be calling Chris Noble by lincoln’s favorite name for him: Krisp Noodle!

  158. Laura Says:

    No Michael I am not an overly protective cat owner I worked as a vet tech at a shelter in order to prepare to go to vet school. Hovever my passions have changed and I am now studiying neuroscience and immunology. It just seems to me that many rethinkers are quick to dismiss the value of animal models in learning about human disease.Granted its not perfect but it is the best option we have. I certainly don’t think ignoring the problem will make it go away.

  159. Michael Says:

    Chris,

    You said

    In addition to this information we have also seen what happens to babies that are perinatally infected with HIV. Very few live to be old enough to join the army”.

    Especially after being put on AZT and the other well known toxic treatments!

    and you said

    “In 2006 the number of babies that are born HIV+ in the US has dropped to essentially zero thanks to MTCT prevention”.

    Especially since they they woke up and realized that most children testing as HIV pos at birth are negative within just a few months afterward.

  160. Chris Noble Says:

    Especially after being put on AZT and the other well known toxic treatments!

    The same results were seen before ARVs were introduced and are still seen in cohorts where ARVs are not available. Babies born HIV+ have a much higher mortality rate than HIV- siblings.

    Especially since they they woke up and realized that most children testing as HIV pos at birth are negative within just a few months afterward.

    The persistence of maternal antibodies was not suddenly realised it was known before HIV. That is why antigen and nucleic acid tests followed by antibody tests after 12 months are used. Which ever way you look at it the number of babies born infected with HIV in the US is close to zero.

  161. Michael David Says:

    CN

    Are you really as stupid as you appear?

    IF EVEN 1% OF 17-19 YEAR OLDS WITH HIV INFECTIONS ARE DUE TO PERINATAL TRANSMISSION THE VIRUS IS NOT FATALLY PATHOGENIC

  162. Laura Says:

    Ok Michael I accept that you are not Lincoln. I just saw simililarities in your posts. We can drop it now.

    I will have to look into fatalities from Candida infections further as I have never heard of a death in a healthy person. Mostly just blaming it for basically every condition under the sun,and here take my supplements and you will be all better.And if it was that simple why wouldn’t Big Pharma be pushing drugs like Diflucan like crazy. It’s not exactly cheap either.

  163. Chris Noble Says:

    IF EVEN 1% OF 17-19 YEAR OLDS WITH HIV INFECTIONS ARE DUE TO PERINATAL TRANSMISSION THE VIRUS IS NOT FATALLY PATHOGENIC

    Bold letters don’t fix problems with logic.

    I have never stated that any of the army recruits were infected perinatally with HIV. I have said that to be consistent with surveys of the general US population at most about 5% could have been infected perinatally.

    If 1% of 17-19 year olds with HIV infection were infected perinatally then it would mean that some percentage of perinatally infected babies live for at least 17-19 years.

    However there is zero evidence that these people were infected perinatally.

  164. Chris Noble Says:

    For another case of Duesberg’s historical revisionism look at the case of Raphael Lombardo.

    In 1995 Raphael Lombardo was evidence that if you don’t take AZT and/or recreational drugs you won’t get AIDS.

    See http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdazt.htm

    In 1996, after he died from AIDS, well he must have been lying about not taking drugs.

    In hindsight, I think his letter was almost too good to be true. I am afraid now, he described the man he wanted to be and his Italian family expected him to be, but not the one he really was. I think he died from Kaposi’s.

    This is typical of Duesberg’s habit of fitting the the data to his theory. While Lombardo was alive he was evidence that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. When he died he was now evidence that drugs cause AIDS even though Duesberg has zero evidence that he took drugs and a letter that claims that he didn’t.

  165. Chris Noble Says:

    Laura, Michael hasn’t actually denied that he has been posting under the pseudonym “lincoln”.

  166. Michael Says:

    Hey Chris!

    The Rule of 48
    All Scientists Are Blind

    … some years before [Peter Leavitt] had formulated the Rule of 48. The Rule of 48 was intended as a humorous reminder to scientists, and referred to the massive literature collected in the late 1940s and the 1950s concerning the human chromosome number.
    For years it was stated that men had forty-eight chromosomes in their cells; there were pictures to prove it, and any number of careful studies. In 1953, a group of American researchers announced to the world that the human chromosome number was forty-six. Once more, there were pictures to prove it, and studies to confirm it. But these researchers also went back to reexamine the old pictures, and the old studies–and found only forty-six chromosomes not forty-eight.

    –Michael Crichton, The Andromeda Strain (1969;1993), p. 125.

  167. Michael Says:

    Hey Chris! PCP is everywhere in practically everyone!

    Prior to the first 5 Los Angeles cases of sick gay men, very few cases of pneumonia were ever even checked out via biopsy to even see if it was PCP. Patients presenting to the average doctor with pneumonia would have been simply given standard antibiotics, which would have only made the PCP worse.

    The point being, that scientists have great need to go back and look again at their original data. It clearly shows HTLV-III, LAV, and ARV were all the same thing, and that they were definitely not proven to be the cause of illness!

    The Microbe is so very small
    You cannot make him out at all,
    But many sanguine people hope
    To see him down a microscope.
    His jointed tongue that lies beneath
    A hundred curious rows of teeth;
    His seven tufted tails with lots
    Of lovely pink and purple spots,
    On each of which a pattern stands,
    Composed of forty separate bands;
    His eyebrows of a tender green;
    All these have never yet been seen–
    But Scientists, who ought to know,
    Assure us they must be so….
    Oh! let us never, never doubt
    What nobody is sure about!

    Check out the historic FACTS of the first five drug overdoing, poppers snorting, antibiotics overdosing, std sharing guys and their blind-as-three-blind-mice doctors that started the entire HIV/AIDS “shlepidemic”.

    The patients did not know each other and had no known common contacts or knowledge of sexual partners who had had similar illnesses. The 5 reported having frequent homosexual contacts with various partners. All 5 reported using inhalant drugs , and 1 reported parenteral [injected] drug abuse….

  168. Michael David Says:

    CN

    Look boobie, there are approximately 5000 HIV postitve recruits documented by the US Army between 1985-2000.

    They are all healthy and unaware of their HIV status, or so we must suppose otherwise why would they be enlisting.

    We must also suppose that their mothers are all not prostitutes or IV drug users or both, and that in fact most if not all of them are ordinary Janes who also are unaware of their HIV status.

    What’s your conclusion?

    Try reading Maver, you might learn at least a little something.

  169. Chris Noble Says:

    Hey Chris! PCP is everywhere in practically everyone!

    Pneumocystis pneumonia is extremely rare. The pathogen Pneumocystis jiroveci is ubiquitous but does not cause disease in immunocompetent people.

    Prior to the first 5 Los Angeles cases of sick gay men, very few cases of pneumonia were ever even checked out via biopsy to even see if it was PCP. Patients presenting to the average doctor with pneumonia would have been simply given standard antibiotics, which would have only made the PCP worse.

    The idea that lots of cases of PCP were missed prior to the 1980s is not supported by the evidence.

    The point being, that scientists have great need to go back and look again at their original data. It clearly shows HTLV-III, LAV, and ARV were all the same thing, and that they were definitely not proven to be the cause of illness!

    Since the 1980s the evidence that HIV causes AIDS just keeps getting stronger and stronger.

    Duesberg’s fantasies get wilder and wilder.

    His response to Ascher where he redefines shingles to be an AIDS definining illness is the indication of someone desperate to hold on to his theory at all costs.

  170. Michael Says:

    Hey Chris!

    I am sure you also saw very clearly the CDC chart on the years of high death rate that are identical to high dosage AZT from 1987 to 1997!

    And when you get done entertaining yourself with THAT stuff,

    check out the original NEW YORK TIMES articles.

    You can see where the whole viral thing spiraled up and out of control and the obvious answers of drugs, poppers, meth, antibiotics overuse, malnutrition, and crap diets common to drug abuse were overlooked by the brilliant but blind virologists, who unfortunately for the rest of the world, are not toxicologists, pharmacologists, gayologists, or nutricious-dietologists or even drugaddictionologists.

    Gallo and Montagnier and Levy were so busy fighting over whose virus and who’s gonna get a Nobel, that they never bothered to prove the virus was ever even the cause! And There is also a possibility, and I wouldn’t even doubt that the harmless virus itself, now known as HIV, was actually originally in the Live Hepatitis B vaccine that was pushed on the gay community for a trial study beginning in 1978. By 1981 the CDC had just completed a cooperative study with a number of gay community health clinics–a multiyear, multisite study of hepatitis B. The gay rags from 1978 have ads in them in New York, San Fran, LA and Chicago encouraging gay men to take the live hepatitis trial vaccination at their local health clinics. And many did.

    Which brings us back to The Rule Of 48!

    Scientists are blind!

  171. Bialy Says:

    Allow me to add a bit more data for the benefit of those reading this thread with the intention of themselves learning something.

    The arguments above concerning what is proved by the US Army recruits was considered so persuasive that even Helene Gayle (at the time director of the CDC Africa/AIDS program) admitted as much in front of the TV cameras in SA at the close of the Presidential Panel meetings in 2000 when she sat between Drs. Duesberg and myself and agreed to the organization of contact tracing to determine the AB status of as many of the mothers of the positve recruits as possible.

    The study never was carried out however, even though it is described in detail in the official report of the Panel, because the uber-bosses at the CDC told Dr. Gayle that it was an ethical and paper work nightmare in which they could not become involved.

  172. claus Says:

    McK,

    I’m a bit surprised to see you didn’t get my point, even with the help of Dr. D. To repeat:

    EVEN if you were right and Duesberg wrong in the case of Ms. Bergalis, it does zero, zippo, nada to throw doubt on his general theories. Therefore it’s not an interesting issue.

    The things you reference do not include Duesberg as original author of the claim that HIV could never be transmitted via blood. I resent you wasting my time with them instead of an article from Duesberg himaelf.

    I’m not surprised at all, however, that CN skipped all the essential issues raised before him to jump on this strawman of a discusion you started, which turns yet again on Duesberg’s person and not the fundamental science behind his hypotheses.

    I remind everybody here that CN is a filthy slanderer who targets persons, first Lanka, now Duesberg, at the expense of any relevant debate. This is a proven fact, since we’re still waiting for him to substantiate the and lies he’s spread about Stefan Lanka.

    And finally a plea: Mck. please no more profound remarks on poetry, what it means and doesn’t mean, how to read it etc. That stuff’s really offensive.

  173. Michael Says:

    Chris, it is fascinating how 10 people on this thread think your fantasies are getting wilder and wilder and more desperate with each silly post you leave.

    While Dr. Duesbergs are being proven ever more true over and over and over again.

  174. Chris Noble Says:

    If only Michael read the JAIDS paper that he cited.

    There were marked differences in the HIV prevalence acoording to ethnic orgin, age, and geographical location.

    Men had a higher HIV-1 prevalence than women (0.87/1000 versus 0.49/1000).

    White applicants comprised 70% of the total applicant pool but accounted for only one third of all HIV-1-positive applicants, for an overall prevalence of 0.36 per 1000 (95% CI: 0.34-0.38). African-Americans comprised 57% of the HIV-1-positive pool and had the highest overall prevalence of 2.47 per 1000 applicants (95% CI: 2.37-2.56), followed by Hispanics with 0.90 per 1000 applicants (95% CI: 0.81-1.00).

    The majority of applicants were young, with 53% under 20 years of age and more than 83% under 25 years of age. HIV-1 prevalence increased with age, rising to 2.16 per 1000 (95% CI: 2.04-2.29) among all applicants between 25 and 29 years of age, who made up approximately 10% of all applicants. Applicants older than 30 years of age, who comprised 6.9% of the cohort, had a PR of 1.95 per 1000 (95% CI: 1.81-2.10).

    Hmmm. For the recruits in the age range 17-19 the prevalence rate was 0.26/1000. For the recruits aged 20-24 the prevalence rate was 1.03/1000 and for recruits aged 25-29 it was 2.16/1000.

    Why is there a ten fold difference between the recruits aged 17-19 and the recruits aged 25-29?

    None of this is evidence for HIV being a harmless passenger virus spread predominantly by perinatal transmission. It actually strongly argues against it.

    Even if you take the average prevalence rate of 0.8/1000 and extrapolate to the whole US population of ~250 million you still only get at most 200 thousand which is a long way short of the 1 million figure that Duesberg quotes. Using Duesberg’s own arguments the vast majority of people were not infected perinatally.

  175. claus Says:

    Witness: just in that last post to Michael I counted 3 unreferenced, 1 ‘semi-referenced’ claim, 2 unmotivated attacks on Duesberg consisting of the attacker’s opinions, therefore not conducive to real debate of the issues

  176. claus Says:

    That should read the second last, the bastard got there before me

  177. claus Says:

    And where does duesberg say that the vast majority of the 1 million were infected perinatally?

  178. Chris Noble Says:

    And where does duesberg say that the vast majority of the 1 million were infected perinatally?

    I didn’t say he did but many of his arguments are based on that unsupported premise.

    “AIDS is new but HIV is a long-established, perinatally transmitted retrovirus”

    “like most retroviruses (23), is transmitted perinatally rather than sexually”

    “HIV is a long-established, perinatally transmitted retrovirus.”

    “HIV Depends on Perinatal Transmission for Survival”

    ” On account of these tests, one million Americans were found to be HIV-positive in 1985 and one million Americans were found to be HIV-positive in 1992 and again in 1993. HIV is a totally long-established virus and on the grounds of this type of epidemio logy, you can extrapolate this curve back 200 years. It’s as solid as that. You can say the virus came with the immigrants 200 years ago to this country. It’s an old, long – established virus, but AIDS is a new disease. It’s not a good candidate for a new disease.”

    Except the vast majority of the ~1 million were in specific risk groups such as homosexual men and IDUs and logically did not acquire HIV through perinatal transmission.

    You can’t extrapolate the magic 1 million figure 200 years in the past because the vast majority of the ~1 million obviously did not acquire HIV perinatally. You can’t argue that HIV depends on perinatal transmission when the vast majority of people in the US did not acquire it perinatally.

  179. Michael David Says:

    CN,

    This is a very good question:

    Why is there a ten fold difference between the recruits aged 17-19 and the recruits aged 25-29?

    I suggest you ask the authors of the study, because it sure as shit can’t be that these O so fortunate boys and girls who previously must have had googles almost of unprotected sexual encounters with HIV ab positive people had all become safe sex converts while their slightly older peers screwed like energizer bunnies day and night.

    I detect the faint aroma of fudge, which is perhaps why this “apparently” definitive paper appeared in JAIDS and not in the JAMA as the previous large scale study did in 1990.

  180. Chris Noble Says:

    I suggest you ask the authors of the study, because it sure as shit can’t be that these O so fortunate boys and girls who previously must have had googles almost of unprotected sexual encounters with HIV ab positive people had all become safe sex converts while their slightly older peers screwed like energizer bunnies day and night.

    For people with a grasp of logic it means that the results are consistent with HIV being acquired through sex or intravenous drug use. It is inconsistent with these people being infected with HIV at birth. Why should the HIV prevalence rise with age?

    I detect the faint aroma of fudge, which is perhaps why this “apparently” definitive paper appeared in JAIDS and not in the JAMA as the previous large scale study did in 1990.

    Why did you cite the paper if were going to reject the resulsts anyway?

    Duesberg also cites this paper (JAMA. 1991 Nov 6;266(17):2387-91.) and fails to mention the increase in prevalence with age and the marked differences according to ethnic origin and geographical location.

    Yet again the very papers he cites provide evidence against his hypothesis.

  181. claus Says:

    CN you disappoint me, I just thought you for once had come up with a real attack that deserved to have poor Duesberg as a named target But at least we’re on to a real issue.

    I’m not going to pretend I can fill Dr. D’s shoes in this particular respect, so I’ll freely admit that I cannot answer to the 1 million 200 years ago. Then again I can’t tell from this if Duesberg says there were supposed to exist 1 million or any other stated number HIV+ persons at that point in time.
    I presume the point is that the virus has had 200 years to consolidate itself in the general population and thus show statistically steady numbers up to recent times.

    What Duesberg DOES say is that in the ‘wild’ (say 200 years or more ago) where people don’t share needles, consume vast amounts of synthetic drugs, get frequent blood transfusions or participate in drug enhanced promiscuous behaviour with large numbers of partners, HIV, like all other retroviruses, relies on perinatal transmission for survival. This goes to the last quote of yours.

    One of Duesberg’s reasons for thinking this must be such a ‘typical’ retrovirus is the mainstream data which suggest that perinatal transmission is 25-50% effective, which I’m sure you’ll agree makes this route vastly more succesful than sexual transmission, especially under ‘normal’ circumstances (not to offend any orgy regulars or methheads that may read this). Duesberg can indeed argue that HIV is perinatally transmitted even if some ‘artificial’ conditions cause smaller isolated epidemics in which the major routes of transmission are not the ones the virus initially depended on for survival.

    As to how much the statitical 1 million adds to the long time established number of perinatally transmitted HIV+ persons I refer you to Dr. D:

    What Dr. Noble continues to harp on, namely the gross uncertainty of the estimates in the early years of the numbers of antibody positive individuals in the general US population, while saying nothing about the central argument, does indicate the only scientific explanation of the prevalence curve not being compatible with the AIDS “epidemic” curve. Namely, “AIDS” in the US is a fragmented epidemic consisting of many small sub-epidemics whose actual numbers are hidden in the statistical fluctuations of the larger population estimates (My bold)

    Whatever numbers have been added by the secondary (not normally occurring in the ‘wild), for various reasons inflated routes of infection, they do not support an epidemic in the classical sense.

  182. Michael David Says:

    CN,

    Your logic tree is falling down. Why do you think I asked you to ask the authors, and gave you the same non-answer you think is the implication for real of this nonsensical data?

    Get real Chris. How did these kids get infected via sex and if they are military applicants? It is a little beyond even buggered belief that they possibly had enough unprotected sex with positive partners. And I do believe needle sharing can be ruled out for all but perhaps one or two madmen or women.

    And when you finish with that. Here’s a few more epidemiological conundrums you can unravel for us.

    1. What is wrong with the analysis of the actuary Mr. Maver?

    2. If the majority of the 1 million persons presently harboring HIV in the US are in the classical risk groups and not the general population, why is the shape of the US AIDS curve the way it is?

    3. Why does Canada (a mirror demographic image and geographic extension of the US) have only a handful of AIDS cases in the past year?

  183. Michael David Says:

    CN,

    I do have to tip to “one bad” on my part. My bad memory transposed the location of Ms. Bergalis’ yeast infection.

    And as long as I am back again let me add a number 4 to the list that your Occams’ Razor will neatly “slice and dice” (like RNA processing enzymes).

    4. Why for Africa is it claimed that HIV infections have increased from 1 to 25 million in a perfectly linear fashion that matches “so beautifully” (it also buggers belief) the increase in AIDS cases between 1955-2000? You know the source for this graph, I’m certain of that.

    And as I have just read the newest post of TS concerning the newest deviltry that has been perpetrated on the fearless Christine Maggiore, I am reminded of another question to put to you.

    We both agree that the PCP pathogen is ubiquitous. Why then is PCP *not* the most common AIDS-defining disease across all risk groups everywhere, and statistically remains confined to male homosexuals who tend to abuse nitrite inhalants?

    P.S. *You* will also know (but many of the readers of this thread may not) that as of about 10 years ago the CDC stopped reporting the AIDS-defining diseases in their weekly MMRs, thus making any serious analysis of a host of questions that could have been used to test the drug-AIDS hypothesis undoable.

  184. Michael David Says:

    CN,

    You can relax. TS has let you off my hooks. His latest display of insensitivity has convinced me never to comment at NAR again.

    To what extreme of insensitivity do I refer?

    Choosing to “grace” his latest onslaught (on whose behalf I leave an open question) with photographs of some fashion model demeans the utter seriousness of the matter at hand, and to add insult to this idiocy, the photograph of Ms. Maggiore is nothing short of ghastly.

    And why if he insisted, for reasons one supposes of eliciting sexist comments like the one from Claus, on using them, he did not search Google and produce one of the number of flattering jpgs that are easily available, joins some of your thinking in buggering the imagination beyond any belief.

  185. Truthseeker Says:

    And as I have just read the newest post of TS concerning the newest deviltry that has been perpetrated on the fearless Christine Maggiore, I am reminded of another question to put to you….8.28.2006 9:41am

    Choosing to “grace” his latest onslaught (on whose behalf I leave an open question) with photographs of some fashion model demeans the utter seriousness of the matter at hand, and to add insult to this idiocy, the photograph of Ms. Maggiore is nothing short of ghastly. … 8.28.2006 12:31pm

    An astonishing display of quickness of eye and rapidity of visual response, in one who claims that his life is now mainly devoted to what he represents as “art”. Clearly Michael David is not the professorial one he is generally thought to be, or else he took an early nap. Doesn’t seem to have improved his manners any, though. May we suggest some tequila and another siests?

    Normally we would remove derogatory posts such as the above as more sanely sent by private email, since they are merely evidence of the self defeating narcissism of those too long on the Web and away from real life, or, of the great among us who will never be understood by the lesser folk, or both, you decide, but given the amusement afforded by his barbs aimed at others earlier in this thread – they add a certain fizz to the champagne of semi-intelligent discussion, – we will leave it up, as a permanent reminder of the human weakness of even the greatest heroes of HIV?AIDS dissent.

  186. McKiernan Says:

    So where’s my emerald border for this comment to Michael David:

    “You have satisfactorily explained what you call the natural transmission AND have implicitly endorsed that hiv is blood-borne and transferable. ”

    8.27.2006 8:31pm

  187. Michael David Says:

    a less than graceful, but nonetheless necessary return:

    As his wont, TS has engaged in unacknowledged retrospective editing yet again. The photograph of Ms. Maggiore that now decorates the Elle story is *not* the ghastly one I was so outraged about earlier.

    and McK …as far as I am concerned you deserve green borders and gold stars around all your posts.

  188. Chris Noble Says:

    One of Duesberg’s reasons for thinking this must be such a ‘typical’ retrovirus is the mainstream data which suggest that perinatal transmission is 25-50% effective,…

    If perinatal transmission is 25-50% effective then we would expect the prevalence rate to follow an exponential decay.

    Let’s be generous and take the upper value of 50% for the effficiency of perinatal transmission.

    If in one generation the prevalence rate is 100% then in the next generation the prevalence rate would be 50% and in the next the prevalence rate would be 25%. You can continue with the maths.

    100%
    50%
    25%
    12.5%
    6.25%
    3.125%

    As you can see there is no way a virus can rely on perinatal transmission with an efficiency of 25-50% for its long term survival.

    The vast majority of people infected with HIV in the US (according to the statistsics that Duesberg uses) are in high risk groups and could not logically have been infected perinatally. This has been true since 1985 and there is absolutely zero evidence that the situation was any different in the past.

    Duesberg’s “logic” about the HIV+ army recruits being infected perinatally is embarassingly stupid.

    http://www.duesberg.com/papers/1992%20HIVAIDS.pdf

    Most, if not all, of these adolescents must have acquired HIV from perinatal infection for the following reasons: sexual transmission of HIV depends on an average of 1000 sexual contacts, and only 1 in 250 Americans carries HIV (Table 1). Thus, all positive teenagers would have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.

    The errors in this one paragraph are profound. The stupidest one is the idea that even if we use the average transmission risk of 1/1000 that by necessity all positive teenagers must have had 1000 sexual contacts with a positive person is a classic example of the gambler’s fallacy and indicates a profound ignorance of statistics on Duesberg’s part.

    The average risk for dying in a commercial airplane flight is approximately 1 in a million. Duesberg would have you believe that every person who died in a commercial airplane crash must have previously made 1 million flights. This is so transparently stupid that it makes me wonder why anyone takes Duesberg seriously.

  189. Chris Noble Says:

    I have a suggestion for Bialy.

    Rather than sitting around demanding that the CDC check the HIV status of mothers of HIV+ army recruits why don’t the “rethinkers” do some simple experiments.

    Get all HIV+ “rethinkers” to get their mothers anonymously tested for HIV.

    What do Bialy and Duesberg predict? What percentage of mother’s will be HIV positive?

    Don’t whine about lack of funding. Just do it. Surely you have thousands of HIV+ supporters that would be willing to pay for one anonymous HIV test.

  190. Michael Says:

    Hey Chris,

    The ignorance of your posts is astounding and does not in any way, shape, or form, address the 67 or so well known factors listed in Scientific journals, that are known to cause HIV tests to show false positive.

    HIV itself has seldom ever even been isolated and only in vitro.

    HIV tests are NOT conclusive of HIV infection.

    “Viral Load” PCR tests do not even allow HIV negatives to take the test because of the high rate of supposed viral loads in people who otherwise test HIV negative.

    Wake up Chris, all of your numbers for people who tested positive are based in false non-specific tests that are lumped together as positive if someone is gay or black and negative false positive if the person tested is a white heterosexual non drug user.

    You are a phoney. Your suggestions are founded in error. And Non-Specific HIV tests are indicative of nothing!

    Why don’t you go take some AZT, top it off with some nevirapine, and go enjoy all of the make-believe test results by yourself.

  191. Truthseeker Says:

    As his wont, TS has engaged in unacknowledged retrospective editing yet again. The photograph of Ms. Maggiore that now decorates the Elle story is *not* the ghastly one I was so outraged about earlier.

    A very fine specimen of the professorial logic of the mysterious Michael David, a nom de plume as unimaginative as the post. Supposing any ordinary mortal complained about a photo on a post – would he/she not thank the writer for changing it in accordance with his/her wishes? For this distinguished poster, however, it is evidence of “retroactive editing” – though this is precisely what he requested.

    The only explanation for this rare lapse in reasoning performance on the part of an otherwise acutely intelligent analytical mind is that MD correctly divined that his posted request was so heavyfooted in its expression that TS would pay no attention to it at all, as indeed happened. But this of course is irrational in itself – a waste of breath to make a request in terms bound to be resisted by the addressee? Does anyone but an madman (or in this case, a genius) hit an oyster with the handle of an oyster knife and expect it to open?

    As it happens the request to Christine Maggiore for a better photo was made at the time of the post, anticipating a problem eleven hours before MD’s predictable challenge, even allowing for his minimal artistic response time of 170 minutes when viewing a new image, which presumably is that long because it includes repeated emailing other people for confirmation and moral support for his perceptions before exercising the blinding lack of tact that he views as appropriate for his exalted station in life as chief surgeon of nonsense from the HIV?AIDS body politico-economic on behalf of the HIV?AIDS dissenters.

  192. Chris Noble Says:

    The ignorance of your posts is astounding and does not in any way, shape, or form, address the 67 or so well known factors listed in Scientific journals, that are known to cause HIV tests to show false positive.

    You’ve already posted the dubious list at Aetiology.
    http://tinyurl.com/ohmnl

    It is abundantly clear that you have not checked any of the references.

    Your tactics of moving the goal-posts is typical of “rethinkers”.

    Duesberg makes arguments that HIV is an old virus based on surveys using these tests.

    Bialy suggests that we test the mother’s of HIV+ army recruits to see whether they are positive according to these tests. He apparently expects the mothers to test positive.

    Why do they do that if HIV tests are so completely nonspecific?

    “Rethinkers” can’t have it both ways. They can’t at one time use arguments that assume the validity of the HIV tests and then argue that the tests are completely invaild at another time.

  193. Truthseeker Says:

    The average risk for dying in a commercial airplane flight is approximately 1 in a million. Duesberg would have you believe that every person who died in a commercial airplane crash must have previously made 1 million flights. This is so transparently stupid that it makes me wonder why anyone takes Duesberg seriously.

    If Duesberg had said that, he would indeed be foolish. The foolishness, however, is yours, since you misintepret his reasoning. He said, as you note

    Most, if not all, of these adolescents must have acquired HIV from perinatal infection for the following reasons: sexual transmission of HIV depends on an average of 1000 sexual contacts, and only 1 in 250 Americans carries HIV (Table 1). Thus, all positive teenagers would have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.

    This states the average transmission requires 1000 contacts, not every transmission. With such a low transmission rate and with so few Americans positive – you have to engage with 250 partners on average to get an average certainty of 100% for transmission, if the transmission rate was 1. Since it is 1 in 1000, the number you have to get through on average is 250,000. Some might do it immediately, some might fail entirely even at 250,000. But the average indicates that all positive teenagers would have had to get through on average 250,000 partner-bouts.

    Your comment should be corrected to read as follows:

    The errors in this one paragraph are not profound. If we use the average transmission risk of 1/1000, by necessity all positive teenagers must have had on average 1000 sexual contacts with a positive person. This is not a classic example of the gambler’s fallacy and does not indicate a profound ignorance of statistics on Duesberg’s part. It merely indicates that Chris Noble misinterprets what is said unless everything is spelled out ABC.

    Your point about 25-50% efficiency of perinatal transmission leading to a petering out of the incidence of the virus in newborns is a little more challenging, but a moment’s thought suggests the answer. What you say would only be true if those mothers who were positive only ever had an average of one child each.

  194. Chris Noble Says:

    Your point about 25-50% efficiency of perinatal transmission leading to a petering out of the incidence of the virus in newborns is a little more challenging, but a moment’s thought suggests the answer. What you say would only be true if those mothers who were positive only ever had an average of one child each.

    No. The prevalence rate is indenpendent of the number of children.

    If a HIV+ mother had 10 children then you would only expect 50% to be HIV positive. For every additional HIV+ positive child at least one more HIV- child would be expected. The percentage of HIV positive children can never increase.

    Add to that the obvious fact that only approximately half of all children are female and capable of giving birth to a new generation of children.

    The mathematics are inescapable.

    It is not possible for a virus to survive by perinatal transmission with an efficiency of 50% or less.

    In every subsequent generation the prevalence rate must fall by 50%.

  195. Dan Says:

    Chris,
    you seem to be responding to Michael.

    You bring up Duesberg, even though Michael didn’t mention him. Why is that? Do you honestly think “we” all “worship” Duesberg?

    Duesberg doesn’t call the shots for the rethinkers. I don’t suppose you’ve noticed that. Or maybe you just don’t want to notice it. Duesberg is your personal whipping boy, and I’m beginning to think that if you can “take down” Duesberg, that the rethinkers will follow. Neither of those things will happen, Mr. Chris.

    “Rethinkers” can’t have it both ways. They can’t at one time use arguments that assume the validity of the HIV tests and then argue that the tests are completely invaild at another time.

    I know you’re smarter than that, Mr. Noble. The “rethinkers” are not of one mind. Some of them seem to believe that the tests are somehow valid. Others don’t view the tests as valid. So, maybe you can find a specific case where a rethinker was having it both ways on this issue and bring it to our attention?

  196. Chris Noble Says:

    Truthseeker,

    I quoted Duesberg saying “Thus, all positive teenagers would have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.”

    It is dishonest to claim that he really said something else.

    The other profound errors are that he assumes a fixed transmission risk for all people at all times. This is not valid. Duesberg himself says that transmission risk should be highest during the acute infection period.

    Duesberg also assumes that the approximately 1 million people infected with HIV in the US are randomly distributed. They aren’t

    Actually if you look at the Fig 2 in J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003 Feb 1;32(2):215-22 you’ll see that the the HIV prevalence of army recruits shows the same geographical distribution as both overal HIV prevalence and AIDS incididence.

  197. Chris Noble Says:

    Dan,
    Bialy is on record as questioning the reliability of HIV tests.

    He also goes to great lengths to argue that HIV prevalence as determined by HIV tests in inconsistent with AIDS incidence.

    He also said here that he suggested testing mothers of HIV+ army recruits to test Duesberg’s hypothesis. This is something that would be pointless if the HIV tests are totally non-specific.

  198. Laura Says:

    Chris you are correct Michael never denied being Lincoln however I chose to move on from the topic anyways. Maybe Lincoln is just Michael at a higher level of consciousness.

    As for studies by Duesburg I am not familiar with the specific article you are discussing but in another article in Science that was linked from Duesburg’s Berkeley site I found he does play with the numbers a bit. Specifically with the data from the Concorde study.
    n=877 in the preventative treatment group (lmm) n= 872 in the deferred or non treatment group (DEF) Duesburg determined that 25% more of the patients treated with AZT resulted in fatalities opposed to the Def group. Based on 96 deaths in the lmm group and 76 in the Def group. The problem is he ignored to take key factors into account specifically the population size and the fact that 22 participants died from unrelated causes. So actually accounting for each groups actual size the actual difference in mortality is Lmm 10.9% minus Def 8.7% making the actual difference a negligible 2.2%. Not to mention after adjusting for unrelated causes of death mortality is actually only 1.3%.

    Granted these results do not say a lot for the effectivness of AZT monotherapy, but they don’t prove AZT as the causal factor of AIDS either.Plus the Lmm group did have a decrease in the number of oportunistic infections during the first year of therapy suggesting it helped at first but resistance is a problem and is why combination therapy is now the norm.

    Duesbergs response to this analysis:

    “according to my analysis of this paper, this paper shows that AZT is harmful…25% more people die in the AZT group than in the placebo group. That matters to me . Because even a single life seems to matter to me. Maybe not to you. You like to normalize that. To me it does. Period.”

    I agree a single life is important and every life should be saved if possible but this study nor his response offer statistically relevent difference in fatalities caused by AZT as opposed to controls.

    I also think it is important to note I have read in a lot of places that ALL HIV+ people’s deaths are labeled as AIDS which is not true in the mainstream scientific community however Duesberg chose to include deaths from car accidents and suicide in his statistical analysis. Which he did IMO to make his analysis more significant.

    Ref Science Vol266, Dec. 9 1994.

    As for transmission not being equal between the sexes I think he is wrong there as well. Simple anatomy suggests that there is a greater liklihood of transmission via anal sex due to the liklihood of tearing increasing the odds of blood to semen transmission. The theory of using Poppers increasing the risk of transmission actually supports my point as they relax the muscles making sex more comfortable. So unless you think it would be easy to deliver a baby out of your ass I think my point is made. Vaginal sex has a lesser risk of tearing thus a smaller risk of transmission.It does not mean its a conspiracy against gay men.

    Last I realize you think that retroviral disease in animals is unimportant however I believe animal models are our best method of finding a better treatment for this devastating illness. So call me an overprotective cat owner all ya like but the truth is at least there are models of retroviral illness in animals to study that can potentially benefit humans and animals. In my field I am not so lucky MS does not naturally occur in animals so they need to be given a different disorder in order to mimick it. However I still have hope that effective treatments can be found and hey if all else fails I can just blame it on yeast as apparently it is a serious problem of epedemic proportion according to Stop Yeast Now.

    Anyways I will be leaving now as classes are resuming and I don’t have the time to do the necessary research to keep up with your discussion.

  199. Chris Noble Says:

    Truthseeker writes:

    But the average indicates that all positive teenagers would have had to get through on average 250,000 partner-bouts.

    I’m afraid your reinterpretation of Duesberg’s ignorant argument is just as stupid if not more so.

    If you can’t see this for some reason then just translate it into my example of plane crashes.

    Take the average risk of dying in a commercial airplane crash to be 1 in a million. According to your logic – the average indicates that all people who died in a commercial airplane crash would have had to get through on average 1,000,000 flights. What? Some people took fewer than 1,000,000 but others took more than 1,000,000. The average is 1,000,000?

    49 people just died in an airplane crash in Kentucky. What would you say was the average number of flights for these people was? Duesberg claims that a single life seems to matter to him. Why doesn’t he use some Duesberg logic to tell them that they couldn’t possibly have died?

  200. McKiernan Says:

    I think I got it Chris. If I have a 1 in 100 chance of getting hit by an automobile while walking against a red light, then
    10 people would have to do the same 1000 times before they get hit by an automobile.

  201. Claus Says:

    CN,

    You would fare so much better if you could just stay with the science points and refrain from your ad Duesbergs for more than 2 sentences at a time. You know there’s a proverb where I come from that says ‘thief thinks every man steals’. I’ve never seen anybody persisting the way you do in calling other people ‘liars’, ‘dishonest’ and the likes in spite of the fact that the only one shown to be repeatedly and wilfully dishonest here is you.

    Unlike yourself Duesberg doesn’t deal with matters on a case-by-case only basis in order to illustrate his statistical points. precisely as TS says, this shows that you’re the one who’s not doing the statistics, only the misleading.

    In statistics, for an illustration to have any meaning, one must assume that it’s representative of an in the context significant statistical average no?
    Or perphaps in CN’s estimed opinion statistics is all about that once in a while when somebody does win in the lottery?

    But never mind we’ll let CN have the point; the case in question was that odd one out, and Duesberg was guilty of the gambler’s fallacy. ok? You scored one on Duesberg, happy now? Good. So here’s the real statistical point abstracted, if you will, from the whole that’s made up by all single cases, then applied to the single case in question:

    Thus, all positive teenagers would have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.

    This is the statistical truth, which is what everybody but CN is interested in.

    Reminder: Whenever somebody shows a pattern of pedantically reverting to single cases and/or persons, insisting on interpreting them out of all context, it’s because they want to divert your attention from real issues and blind you to the overall picture.

    Your second point, the acute infection period has exactly what role to play in the overall statistical argument? Or are you still trying to calculate the likelihood of these particular army recruits winning in the lottery?

    The same goes to your last point. It still doesn’t change the statistics of the whole thing one bit to say that these boys geograpically or demographically came equipped with two lottery tickets.

    So why don’t you stick to the one about perinatal transmission, where you show that the virus needs rising population numbers to survive and propagate. I don’t know if it’d be too worried about being represented in an ever decreasing ratio of people if it could still show increasing numbers.
    But perhaps you’ve got the math to show that sexual transmission is more reliable? If the virus were to rely on sexual transmission, at a rate of 1:1000 (assuming we’re not talking lottery tickets now) how long exactly would it be necessary for this very deadly guest to keep its host alive to survive and propagate?

  202. Chris Noble Says:

    I think I got it Chris. If I have a 1 in 100 chance of getting hit by an automobile while walking against a red light, then 10 people would have to do the same 1000 times before they get hit by an automobile.

    Not quite.

    If in your example you get 1000 people to walk against the red light you would expect about 10 to get hit by a car given your probability.

    It is a mathematical stupidity to then say that these ten people must have already done the same thing a hundred times before or even to say that they must have done it on average a hundred times.

    Just to simplify it even further for people who are still having problems.

    Take 600 people and get each of them to fire one shot from a revolver loaded with only one bullet at their head. The probability of a particular person dying is 1 in 6. You would expect approximately 100 people to die. Of the 100 people who died the average number of shots fired is 1.

    Duesberg’s logic would say that the 100 people who died must have each fired 6 shots.

    Untruthseeker’s logic would say that the 100 people who died must have fired on average 6 shots. Some fired 5 and some fired 7 shots but averaging out to 6.

    Except in this example we know each person only fired once.

    Surely everyone can see the problem with Duesberg’s and UTS’s logic

  203. Truthseeker Says:

    The mathematics are inescapable.

    It is not possible for a virus to survive by perinatal transmission with an efficiency of 50% or less.

    Believe you are right, as far as can be seen from your reasoning. But your reasoning may be wrong, for the same reason that blondes don’t die out. Can you state it in precise terms again, with reasoning, so that we can think about it tomorrow?

    We recall checking this at the time it was written, and being satisfied it worked, but have forgotten why, and corrections are always welcome.

    The business about the airline crashes/250,000 copulations still seems wrong, but again it is too late here for the eye and brain to focus. Can you state that one again in precise form?

    Thanks. And let’s hail your ongoing capacity to reason things through for yourself, Chris, which is the essence of the spirit of NAR. Right or wrong, think for yourself!

  204. Chris Noble Says:

    Thus, all positive teenagers would have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.

    This is the statistical truth, which is what everybody but CN is interested in.

    It is not a statistical truth. It is mathematical nonsense.

    If you accept Duesberg’s statement then you are forced to accept that people who die in plane crashes must have previously made a million flights.

    Please learn the definition of ad hominem . I am attacking his arguments. Duesberg may well be a nice guy. His mathematical arguments are crap.

    So why don’t you stick to the one about perinatal transmission, where you show that the virus needs rising population numbers to survive and propagate. I don’t know if it’d be too worried about being represented in an ever decreasing ratio of people if it could still show increasing numbers.

    For the total number of people in the US infected with HIV to remain constant with 25-50% efficient perinatal transmission then the population must have increased between two and fourfold every generation. It hasn’t.

    If as Duesberg claims at present 0.03% of the US population are infected with HIV perinatally then we can extrapolate backwards and find that between 6-12 generations in the past more than 100% of the population must have been HIV+.

    4^6 = 4096
    4096* 0.03% = 122.88%

    Duesberg’s mathematics sucks.

  205. Chris Noble Says:

    OK,

    I’ll take it slowly.

    Take 500,000 couples – 1,000,000 people in total.

    The HIV prevalence is 1% and is equal between sexes.

    Thus 5,000 females are HIV+ and 5,000 men are HIV positive – 10,000 in total.

    If each couple has 2 children then the total number of children is 1,000,000 and the population is stable.

    The number of children that are born to HIV+ mothers is 2*5,000 = 10,0000.

    If we use the 50% figure for perinatal transmission then the number of HIV+ children would be 0.5*10,000 = 5,000.

    The HIV prevalence rate in the total number of children is 5,000 * 100/1,000,000 = 0.5%

    If each couple has 4 children then the total number of children is 2,000,000 and the number of HIV+ children would be 10,000.

    The total number of HIV+ in the new generation would be the same as the previous generation but the prevalence rate would still have decreased from 1.0% to 0.5%.

    The prevalence rate will always decrease.

    Mathematically it is an exponential decay.

    We also know that the average number of children per women is nowhere near 4 in the US. So there is no way population growth could possibly make up for a perinatal transmission efficiency of 25-50%.

    If as Duesberg claims 0.03% of Americans are perinatally infected with HIV then 0.06% of their parents must have been infected with HIV. And if they were all perinatally infected then 0.12% of their parents must have been infected. If you go back a few generations then more than a 100% of Americans must have been infected with HIV.

    The inescapable conclusion is that HIV could never have relied on perinatal transmission for survival. Thus Duesberg’s argument that HIV cannot be pathogenic because it relies on perinatal transmission is false.

  206. Claus Says:

    CN,

    To restate the same misrepresentation doesn’t make it less of a wilfull lie.

    NOTE: Even when we concede the point to CN, admit on Duesberg’s behalf that he commited the gambler’s fallacy, CN refuses to leave the single case example, to work with the statistics, but just keeps reiterating it!

    Of course TS, aka the man called Centipede, who’s as easily impressed as he is confused, saw this as yet another triumph of independent thinking. One wonders if he just wants to keep CN here for the same reasons that he keeps posting irrelevant pictures of semi-nude women.

    Be that as it may, for our hosts benefit alone (surely everybody else must have gotten this simple point by now) we will take the liberty of reformulating the quote to get at the statistics behind it:

    Thus, if all American teenagers were positive they would each have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.

    And no Chris, although we noted that you managed yet again to associate Duesberg’s name with a derogatory adjective, his mathematics do not ‘suck’. You simply still fail to understand that some of us, not nearly as fixated on Duesberg as yourself, proposed a comparison between the effectiveness of perinatal transmission vs. sexual transmission using the offical numbers. The only way Duesberg is asociated with is that he believes in the perinatal hypothesis.

    That makes you the one who sucks yet again, because when you needlessly involved Duesberg, you apparently didn’t bother to check what he actually said in the very same article you so kindly directed me to – or is it just that you’re a filthy slanderer?

    Therefore, the efficiency of perinatal transmission must be high. This appears to be the case. Based on HIV-tracking via the “AIDS test,” perinatal transmission
    from the mother is estimated to be 13–50% efficient (paternal HIV transmission to the baby via semen, for which there are
    currently no data. The real efficiency of perinatal transmission must be higher than the antibody-tests suggest, because in a fraction of recipients
    HIV only becomes immunogenic when its hosts are of an advanced age (My bold)

    So again CN, you double suck, because Duesberg IS aware of the mathematics, while you’re not even aware of what he has said in the papers you reference.

    And so again, again, would you please get off your straw man for a second, zip your pants and answer the real question I wrongly credited you with wanting to deal with:

    Allowing for your benefit that perinatal transmission is 50% or less, is it more or less efficient than sexual transmission?
    You’ve already done the math on one side of the equation, now, if you don’t mind, to the other – as stated clearly in my last post:

    But perhaps you’ve got the math to show that sexual transmission is more reliable? If the virus were to rely on sexual transmission, at a rate of 1:1000 (assuming we’re not talking lottery tickets now) how long exactly would it be necessary for this very deadly guest to keep its host alive to survive and propagate?

    And please, please launch into another ad Duesberg , that’ll win me a case of beer from someone here who still thinks you’re here for anything but slandering Duesberg.

  207. Claus Says:

    Even more precisely:

    Thus, if all American teenagers were positive they would on average each have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.

  208. McDonald Says:

    CN,

    Quite apart from the amusing little number game involving the uncertain percentages of perinatal HIV transmission in tests, you and your admirer, TS, may care to remember that Dr. D. twice, as I recall, has directed your attention to one of those horrid little experimental facts, namely that retroviruses are so stable and well transmitted perinatally that they are used to differentiate otherwise genetically indistinguishable inbred strain of mice.

  209. Chris Noble Says:

    The real efficiency of perinatal transmission must be higher than the antibody-tests suggest, because in a fraction of recipients HIV only becomes immunogenic when its hosts are of an advanced age (Quinn et al., 1986; St Louis et al., 1991).

    I have already cited the St Louis paper which I have read. I have also read this paper that Michael David cited.
    J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003 Feb 1;32(2):215-22

    I already mentioned the fact that army recruits aged 16-19 had a ten times lower HIV prevalence than those aged 25-29.

    This to most people would indicate that these people became infected with HIV after they became sexually active.

    The gender, ethnic and geographical distributions also argues against perinatal transmission being a significant source of infection.

    In the passage above Duesberg assumes from the start that these army recruits were infected perinatally. There is no evidence for this. It’s all circular logic. He assumes that they are and comes up with ad hoc explanations for the evidence that contradicts his theory.

    There is absolutely no evidence for Duesberg’s ad hoc theory that antibodies to HIV only develop in the late teens early twenties – coincidentally during the times of highest sexual activity.

    This is also contradicted by numerous studies that have used the detection of HIV DNA to research MTCT of HIV such as this paper.

    AIDS. 2004 Jan 23;18(2):273-80.

    The rate of MTCT of HIV was 30% as determined by HIV DNA detection.

    Can Duesberg or you find any experimental evidence that MTCT of HIV is higher than 50%?

  210. Chris Noble Says:

    Even more precisely:

    Thus, if all American teenagers were positive they would on average each have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.

    If all American teenagers were positive then they wouldn’t have had to go far to find a HIV+ partner. The first clause in your sentence contradicts the second.

    In addition all American teenagers are not positive.

    Allowing for your benefitthat perinatal transmission is 50% or less, is it more or less efficient than sexual transmission?

    Right from the start of the epidemic the vast majority of people infected with HIV in the US have been in specific risk groups such as homosexual men and injecting drug users. The prevalence in the general population is so low that only a small percentage, lees than 5%, could possibly have been infected perinatally. The number of people infected by sexual transmission vastly outnumber those that could have been infected perinatally.

    Comparing a per sexual encounter risk with the efficiency of perinatal transmission is deceptive because lathough we are born only once most of us have sex more than once.

    On average over a life time the risk of being infected with HIV via sexual transmission is much, much greater than the probabaility of being infected perinatally.

  211. Chris Noble Says:

    The real efficiency of perinatal transmission must be higher than the antibody-tests suggest, because in a fraction of recipients HIV only becomes immunogenic when its hosts are of an advanced age (Quinn et al., 1986; St Louis et al., 1991).

    Have any of Duesberg’s supporters actually read the two references that Duesberg gives here?

    Neither of the two papers say anything like that. Duesberg’s misrepresentation is totally incredible.

  212. Alex Fain Says:

    If “HIV” is sexually-transmitted, how do you explain that famous first group of gay men not having any sexual contact with one another? They certainly had other factors in common which seem to be overlooked still.

  213. claus Says:

    I submit once again, and for the last time, that CN completely avoided the questions put to him, didn’t do the math or the reading, but continued harping on about Duesberg. Anybody can go through the posts above and count this score him/herself – you know yourself who you are out there who owes me a case of beer. Hope you stand by your word. TS of course can take off all his hats and award CN all the emerald borders with gold stars and apparently indispensable hula girls he sees fit.

  214. McKiernan Says:

    One day, through the primeval wood,
    A calf walked home, as good calves should;

    But made a trail all bent askew,
    A crooked trail as all calves do.
    Since then three hundred years have fled,
    And, I infer, the calf is dead.
    But still he left behind his trail,

    And thereby hangs my moral tale.
    The trail was taken up next day,
    By a lone dog that passed that way.
    And then a wise bell-wether sheep,

    Pursued the trail o’er vale and steep;
    And drew the flock behind him too,
    As good bell-wethers always do.
    And from that day, o’er hill and glade.
    Through those old woods a path was made.

    And many men wound in and out,
    And dodged, and turned, and bent about;
    And uttered words of righteous wrath,
    Because ’twas such a crooked path.

    But still they followed – do not laugh –
    The first migrations of that calf.
    And through this winding wood-way stalked,
    Because he wobbled when he walked.

    Oh, never mind, you’ve got it all memorized by now
    Thank you for the emerald borders.

  215. Dan Says:

    Chris,
    your points about Bialy would be more convincing if you could find actual quotes of his where he states that the HIV tests are invalid.

    For us laypeople: we argue many of the points about “AIDS” on their inherent lack of logic and cohesion and just plain old believability.

    So, in one instance we may work with the idea that “HIV” tests are valid to help reveal a fallacy, such as the idea that there’s a sexually-transmitted epidemic occurring. For that one, we might highlight Nancy Padian’s wonderful work. And in doing so, we’ll have to “go along” for a moment with the assumption that the tests actually are meaningful in determining “HIV” infection. This doesn’t mean that we think the “HIV” tests do what it’s assumed they do. For the sake of this particular argument, we’re briefly making the allowance that the tests “work” to highlight the extreme improbability of a sexually-transmitted epidemic occurring with such paltry infection rates.

    In other instances we work with the understanding that the HIV tests are no such thing. This isn’t “having it both ways”. This is about debating points within certain parameters. This is about deconstruction.

    But like I said earlier, “rethinkers” are all over the map concerning HIV’s existence, or whether it’s harmless, and if the tests are valid or not. So, it’s not surprising to see this thing argued from so many points of view.

  216. Truthseeker Says:

    Anyone who uses schoolboy variations on the name Truthseeker or other jibes at the long suffering host in the course of writing a Comment should know that the post will be removed forthwith.

    Yes, we support Chris Noble in his raising objections to points made by Duesberg or anyone else on the basis of his own reasoning, and when we notice that the defense team is unwilling or unable to come up with counter reasoning, as in the case of the alleged inadequacy of the 25-50% perinatal transmission rate to keep the Virus in human circulation, we will join him in demanding an answer, since thinking for yourself is the chief value promoted by this blog, and we are sorry to see that some responders are flummoxed by the simple challenge of being asked to do so. This is not a game of one authority versus another, where the defense team is powerless unless it has a counter text to quote. This is a matter of a paradigm not making sense, and of independent thinkers willing and able to see this.

    Noble has asked for an explanation as to how perinatal transmission rates of 25% to 50% can have been sufficient in the past to maintain the presence of HIV in humans. As far as we have speed read the comments (190 of them backed up!), none have given a good answer. We have answered that we believe this kind of rate is known in other cases in biology to be sufficient, but we have no idea how it works either because we cannot recall or because we never worked it out. If no one here is able to answer we will contact Rebecca Culshaw who perhaps will give us the answer, since modeling biology is her field.

    A fair question deserves a fair answer, even though it is obvious that whatever rate is necessary it must exists since it has done the job over the centuries, otherwise the Virus wouldn’t exists in humans, since it doesn’t transmit in normal heterosexual activity and IV needles have not been around to help out in previous centuries.

  217. Laura Says:

    TS

    HIV can be transmitted via heterosexual sex it is just not as likely. Other factors contribute to transmission such as women are more likely to contract HIV than men from heterosexual sex. As well as having another STD increases the risk. Especially the Herpes virus which seems to aid in transmission.

    We can argue all day about the statistics of transmission but it will never satisfy everyone because while averages are great it only takes one event to transmit the virus. It ultimately comes down to the evidence of the existance of the virus and whether or not current tests accurately diagnose it.

    Since the vast majority of immmuno-compromised people test positive for the virus I believe the evidence overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. So since I cannot answer the question at hand I propose another does everyone here believe HIV is a real virus? If so why doesn’t the paradigm make sense?

    The fact that retroviruses do not kill their host quickly does not prove that they don’t harm their host just that they are successful. Ebola is not generally successful in humans because it kills the host to fast. On the other hand HIV is quite successful because it can remain virtually undetected for many years allowing it to spread.

  218. Michael Says:

    Laura:

    I think that if one approaches the subject of HIV/AIDS and causation, only as a lawyer, gathering evidence only to support one side of an issue, it is very easy to miss much of the big picture.

    I also think that if one approaches the subject as a judge, whom is simply searching for the truth, or truths, whatever they may be, then it is usually a little easier to see a bigger picture on all of it, and judge it from a now more educated perspective.

    Laura, I would hope that you would approach the issue as a judge instead of a lawyer.

    About 12 years or so ago, Gallo published a paper in science, i think, in which he ran through the general mechanisms of cell killing one could imagine for hiv

    1. direct hit
    2, indirect hit
    3. hit and run (!…yup to explain hiv free aids !)

    So what do you have with this? …the ultimate answer to all objections…it came, did something horrible, set horrible things in inexorable motion and then split the scene. Want proof: look we have full blown aids with NO hiv. Could anything be more clear?

    You seem to have the same kind of reasoning going.

    Also, blanket statements that you make, such as:

    HIV can be transmitted via heterosexual sex it is just not as likely.

    are only strongly held beliefs, but not necessarily proven reality, as the 380 sero-opposite couples that Nancy Padian studied, with zero sexual transmission, even with the 25% that never used condoms. This leaves the hetero transmission belief to be completely questionable, like it or not.

  219. Michael Says:

    Laura:

    Have you ever wondered why the discrepancy between Africa, which is almost entirely said to be through heterosexually spread sex, and the west, where it is not?

    Is there something wrong with this picture? Do western heteros just not have sex? Certainly they enjoy it just as much as anyone.

    Is it due to many in Africa not being circumcised? Well much of Europe and most of Asia is not circumcised.

    Kind of overwhelming discrepancies here, wouldn’t you agree?

  220. Laura Says:

    Michael,

    It is true that there are discrepancies between populations in different countries, and I agree westerners have sex as well. There is also a discrepancy in sex education between Africa and the West as well as customs. Now I admit I am not familiar with all sexual customs but I have read that some men in Africa believe having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. I also read that they practice dry sex which is another factor that increases the risk of transmission. So you are obviously more well read on the topic enlighten me are these practices true? And do you see how they could increase transmission?

  221. Truthseeker Says:

    Laura, it is only a small and very specific point. Chris Noble produced a logical contradiction of an assertion made by Duesberg, and if he is correct then HIV could only have arrived from the distant past by scoring a higher rate of perinatal (mother to child) transmission of 25% to 50%. He says over 50%, some say it has to be 100% not to lose ground generation after generation.

    The issue is simply what if anything is wrong with his reasoning? We believe it is wrong and that Duesberg’s statement is correct. Let’s find out. But we agree it doesn’t actually matter since clearly the Virus has arrived from the distant past successfully, so whatever the rate it must be sufficient. It also has no bearing on how much its prevalence has been magnified (possibly hugely) by IV drugs and gay sex today (heterosexual transmission is no help, as Padian has established).

    It is a simple issue, and has nothing to do with whether HIV exists or whether tests are adequate or any of the other spurious issues that have ballooned since this non-starter of a hypothesis was adopted.

    Since the vast majority of immmuno-compromised people test positive for the virus I believe the evidence overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS.

    This sentence is so logically faulty that all we can do is urge you to read a little more of this blog.

    So since I cannot answer the question at hand I propose another does everyone here believe HIV is a real virus? If so why doesn’t the paradigm make sense?

    We believe that the Virus is a real and consistent entity, but we wouldn’t be surprised if the whole epidemiological picture was wildly inaccurate owing to tests reacting with parts rather than the whole, and elements which have nothing to do with this retrovirus, as well as statistical projections of little or no validity. But we are not yet expert in this area so we can only roughly guess what is really going on, which is probably mostly mistaken reinterpretation of reality, just as it is in the central issue of belief in the depredations of the Virus.

    The extent of the mistaken reinterpretation of reality is so vast now that most people when it is questioned assume that the questioner is insane. That is why the unfortunate Christine Maggiore cannot realistically expect any ordinary journalist however smart to believe what she says.

  222. Laura Says:

    Michael,
    As far as cicumcision I honestly am not sure how much of a role that would play. I admit I am not an expert I am just stating how I understand the situation.

  223. Michael Says:

    Hello Laura.

    Although I am sure you are not rascist, I think it is important to be aware of and take into consideration the as yet societal propensities toward such.

    Now I admit I am not familiar with all sexual customs but I have read that some men in Africa believe having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. I also read that they practice dry sex which is another factor that increases the risk of transmission.

    I for one, and I am sure almost all Africans would point to these words and scream “bloody racist trash!”

    I realize you have heard or perhaps read such words from some white folk, and perhaps even thought they might be true. And even though I can NOT assure you that no black man has ever tried behaviors such as this, It is unrealistic to paint even a small percentage of a continent with over a billion people with such a very broad and unattractive brush.

    Certainly many whites fantasize over having their own virgin for whatever reasons, and many white men have attempted “dry sex” as well, which all find out quite sooner rather than later, just doesn’t work too well, and is quite uncomfortable on both sides.

    One finds, that for several millenia, the sex act and how to safely and enjoyably go about it, has been quite discoverable, for blacks, whites, and chinese, even without “Western sex education” which also did not seem to help out our gay community very well either. If anything, most cultures other than our very own western culture, do not have quite so many psychologically damaging hang-ups over it either, and have an even lesser problem of rape, child molestation, and sexual abuse than the US.

    As you are a young person, whom is wishing to be involved in the study of science, it is important to look at the data of Africa in comparison to the West, instead of dataless subjective statements of assumed differences of sexual practices.

    Does the data, with all of its glaring discrepancies between the west and africa, and as presented by mainstream HIV advocates, seem at all plausible to explain the differences?

    If you wish to be more educated on the issues of Africa, I would recommend a look at this piece: AIDS IN AFRICA, Distinguishing Facts From Fiction, which had been published in an official UNESCO journal.

  224. Michael Says:

    TS,

    You wrote:

    Chris Noble produced a logical contradiction of an assertion made by Duesberg, and if he is correct then HIV could only have arrived from the distant past by scoring a higher rate of perinatal (mother to child) transmission of 25% to 50%. He says over 50%, some say it has to be 100% not to lose ground generation after generation.

    Are you serious? Chris Noble produced a straw man and put figures in Duesberg’s mouth (a favorite trick of the dishonest, as TS should know), and I am wondering if like a pussy cat (and I thought you were a math whiz too) you followed him down the twisted garden paths he so very deliberately led you.

    McDonald told us just a little above, that the real transmission rate is near 100% but perhaps you did not understand, or catch, the implications of the data that he imparts, or that Dr. D. imparted twice as well.

    Also, TS, it is clear from Claus’ posts that Duesberg nowhere claims the perinatal transmission rate for HIV is 25-50%, and in fact claims it must be higher.

    Hopefully you will put down the latest issue of Elle, with it’s entrancing pictures, and give a closer look at the science TS, before we conclude that scientific debate is not your forte.

    And while on the subject, it might be more beneficial at this point to redecorate with tables and graphs instead of scantily clad female forms that may have offended some.

  225. Laura Says:

    Michael
    No I am not racist nor did I mean that I believe those practices are fact. I just read them somewhere in all my reading on AIDS rethinking. Thanks for the interesting article. I shall leave now as clearly in my naivety I have nothing worthy to contribute.

  226. Chris Noble Says:

    But we agree it doesn’t actually matter since clearly the Virus has arrived from the distant past successfully, so whatever the rate it must be sufficient. It also has no bearing on how much its prevalence has been magnified (possibly hugely) by IV drugs and gay sex today (heterosexual transmission is no help, as Padian has established).

    But it is not at all clear that HIV arrived in the distant past. Stored blood samples show that HIV was very,very,very rare in the US before the 70s. There is no evidence at all of it being present before the 50s. HIV is a new pathogen in the US.

    The same pattern is seen in every country where HIV has been introduced. HIV prevalence is initially zero and then rises. Look at various asian countries. We have records showing the increase in HIV prevalence. You can’t claim that HIV has been present in these countries for centuries.

    Phylogenetic analysis shows that HIV diverged from SIV less than a hundred years ago. Exactly the same science is used to estimate the time that proto-chimpanzees and proto-humans diverged, different polymorphisms of influenza or polio virus etc.

  227. Chris Noble Says:

    McDonald told us just a little above, that the real transmission rate is near 100% but perhaps you did not understand, or catch, the implications of the data that he imparts, or that Dr. D. imparted twice as well.

    There is absolutely zero evidence that the perinatal transmission efficiency of HIV is any where near 100%.

    If you are going to claim otherwise then put up or shut up.

    Duesberg provides no evidence only his insistence that it must be higher because otherwise he would have to reject his precious theory.

    Come on Michael give us the references.

  228. Chris Noble Says:

    Just to remind people:

    I have already pointed out the flaws in Duesberg’s argument about sexual transmission being impossible.

    Thus, all positive teenagers would have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.

    Can anyone find any flaw in my mathematically identical argument that it is impossible for anyone to ever die in an airplane crash because nobody ever makes 1 million flights?

  229. McKiernan Says:

    “…are only strongly held beliefs, but not necessarily proven reality, as the 380 sero-opposite couples that Nancy Padian studied, with zero sexual transmission, even with the 25% that never used condoms. This leaves the hetero transmission belief to be completely questionable, like it or not”.

    Correction Michael, there were 169 couples and their partners that were named in the one sentence of Padian with zero seroconversions. In all they represented only 39.5 % of the total group studied. Did they study any homosexual partnerings, no. There were other flaws in the Padian study.

    Part Two:

    In a SA study reported 05.04.2005, it was found that of 3530 mother-child pairs, 29.1 % of the mothers were hiv + but only 14.8 % of the children were hiv +. In addition 7 of the 261 hiv + children had hiv – mothers.

    See: Breastfeeding of babies by a non-biological caregiver with HIV is one of the most important factors associated with HIV infection in children

    Go figure.

  230. Michael Says:

    CN,

    You have some nerve asking for references when you are the champ at providing uncited assertions.

    Nonetheless, my reference is the now 4x repeated statement of fact that retroviruses are used to distinguish otherwise genetically indisinguishable strains of inbred mice. The implications are: (1) they are very stable, (2) they are harmless, (3) they are transmitted perinatally with extremely high effciency. Since HIV is a canonical retrovirus, its properties are not expected to be different. You can find the papers that mark various strains of C57 and CBL mice with murine retroviruses yourself.

    I also remind you of the words of Howard Temin, William Blattner and Robert Gallo in Science in 1988 when I paraphrase them and write. “There is no evidence that HIV-1 or HIV-2 are pathogens, and their evolutionary origins are interesting perhaps but scientifically unrelated questions in any case.”.

  231. Michael Says:

    CN,

    Just so you do not become more confused than you are:

    I also remind you of the words of Howard Temin, William Blattner and Robert Gallo in Science in 1988 when I paraphrase them and write. “There is no evidence that HIV-1 or HIV-2 are pathogens, and their evolutionary origins are interesting perhaps but scientifically unrelated questions in any case.”. 🙂

  232. Chris Noble Says:

    Michael,
    I have provided two references that show that MTCT of HIV is less than 50% efficient.

    You have given no references regarding the MTCT of HIV.

    In case you haven’t noticed the vast majority of people in the world are not inbred mice. many of the inbred mice starins are highly susceptible to infection with retroviruses while wild mice are not.

    There are hundres of papers studying the MTCT of HIV. Can you find one that supports your claim.

    If you are going to remind of the words of Temin, Blattner and Gallo then show me their words rather than your “paraphrase”.

  233. Michael Says:

    CN,

    I am by nature a very polite and easy going person, but your density, or deliberate obfuscations, are making me lose my temper.

    MTCT rates in the studies you mention all begin with known AB+ women. Whether these represent true instances of HIV infection or not is a matter of question in each and every case, particularly those from Africa where the antibody tests are demonstrably unreliable in detecting a true infection.

    Since there is no data of any reliability about the actual MTCT of HIV, the implications that follow from the animal data and the invariant 25 year prevalence in the US lead me to parsimoniously conclude that HIV must depend on perinatal as opposed to horizontal transmission as its evolutionary mode of survival, and therefore cannot be a fatally pathogenic retrovirus.

    Goodnight.

  234. Chris Noble Says:

    Since there is no data of any reliability about the actual MTCT of HIV, the implications that follow from the animal data and the invariant 25 year prevalence in the US lead me to parsimoniously conclude that HIV must depend on perinatal as opposed to horizontal transmission as its evolutionary mode of survival, and therefore cannot be a fatally pathogenic retrovirus.

    ?

    The vast majority of the people infected with HIV in the US have been in specific risk groups such as homosexual men and injecting drug users etc. Can you explain how this is consistent with perinatal transmission? Simple question. Where’s your answer?

    We also have data from other countries where HIV surveillance was started before HIV became pandemic. the HIV prevalence in these countries was seen to increase dramatically over time. How is this consistent with perinatal transmission?

    Can you provide the actual words of Temin, Blattner and Gallo that you “paraphrased”? I have read the Science article and your “paraphrase” is a blatant lie.

  235. Dan Says:

    The vast majority of the people infected with HIV in the US have been in specific risk groups such as homosexual men and injecting drug users etc. Can you explain how this is consistent with perinatal transmission? Simple question. Where’s your answer?

    Good point, Chris.

    This looks like the defending Duesberg at all costs thread. I won’t do it. I’m a critical thinker, not a follower. Chris makes a simple, logical, reasonable point, and it will take some very tortured “reasoning” to try and work around that one – especially since rethinkers often bring up the fact that “HIV infection” stays mainly in its risk groups in the US.

  236. Michael Says:

    Laura.

    I indeed think you have much to contribute, and hope you will still continue to post your thoughts.

    Even when thoughts or beliefs are later found to be possibly uninformed or possibly naive, it is still important that they be brought forth so they can be discussed and either be confirmed or perhaps seen in a new light.

    I think we, as well as others reading these threads, all learn and grow through the experiences of such.

    I for one, do appreciate that you have shared some of what you have heard or read, as I think it is important to address it.

  237. Michael Says:

    Dan,

    Noble has mixed so many apples, oranges, pears, apricots and god knows what else that you are in danger of becoming a bit fruity yourself.

    I quote from above, Dr. D.

    What Dr. Noble continues to harp on, namely the gross uncertainty of the estimates in the early years of the numbers of antibody positive individuals in the general US population, while saying nothing about the central argument, does indicate the only scientific explanation of the prevalence curve not being compatible with the AIDS “epidemic” curve. Namely, “AIDS” in the US is a fragmented epidemic consisting of many small sub-epidemics whose actual numbers are hidden in the statistical fluctuations of the larger population estimates — exactly as Duesberg et al. argue at length in the J. Biosci. paper that Noble has read so carefully.

    Is this twisted, or is conflating general population estimates with indicdence and prevalence estimates from risk groups?

    Dan, I wrote above evolutionary survival quite deliberately. Do you suppose that a newly emerged, deadly pathogen could have survived long enough, wherever it arose, to become epidemic anywhere if it had to rely on extravagant numbers of sexual encounters or the sharing of dirty needles?

    I conclude, from the totality of the evidence that I have studied over the years, that HIV is not pathogenic, and like all other non-pathogenic retroviruses it relies on perinatal routes as its predominant mode of transmission.

  238. Chris Noble Says:

    Is this twisted, or is conflating general population estimates with indicdence and prevalence estimates from risk groups?

    You cannot accept the CDC estimates for the HIV prevalence in the entire US popualtion and ignore the risk groups which are fundamental to the estimates.

    The estimates for the entire US population are obtained by finding the prevalence in risk groups such as homosexual men and injecting drug users and then estimating the size of these risk groups.

    For example the HIV prevalence in homosexual men in the US in 1987 was about 20-25%. The HIV prevalence in heavy users of IV drugs was 25-30%. The prevalence in first time blood donors was only 0.04%.

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00014715.htm

    Face it. The vast majority of people with HIV in the US have been in specific risk groups. They have not acquired HIV through perinatal transmission

  239. Claus Says:

    What Truthseeker should be more interested in than the question from CN that he must have imagined was not answered concerning what Duesberg DID NOT say about the numbers for perinatal transmission is the plethora of answers we’re still waiting for from CN, notably the mathematical proof that HIV can survive and even cause an epidemic at a sexual transmission rate of 1:1000.

    Why is it, TS, you demand we answer bogus questions about what Duesberg has not said, whilst skipping every other much more relevant question here???

    Allow me to remind you that the literature this blog has set out to examine is that of orthodoxy. This means you should examine the numbers orthodoxy has given us, and which Duesberg has questioned as well.

    Or are you going to redefine the aim of NAR just to let your mate CN of the dozen or so hooks he’s on, so you can continue b**** strawmen together. If so, please state it clearly for the record

    The number of reasons given by Duesberg for preferring the perinatal transmission theory over the sexual ditto have been stated and restated above – AND HAVE WITH YOUR GRACIOUS HELP BEEN DODGED EVERY TIME, so that none is the wiser – least of all you, who now prefers to read Duesberg through CN’s eyes, I do believe, as Michael said, because your own are busily engaged in ‘peer-reviewing’ the bright coloured pages of ELLE and similar publications.

    The first question then is NOT whether Duesberg can ‘prove’ his theory, but whether the sexual transmission theory has any legs at all. Yes?

  240. Claus Says:

    Oops Sorry I see now that CN’s theory regarding teh transmission of HIV in the wild is not sexual but via needle stick. I guess he’s one of the crackpots then that thinks HIV was first spread throughout certain population groups via vaccination

  241. Chris Noble Says:

    What Truthseeker should be more interested in than the question from CN that he must have imagined was not answered concerning what Duesberg DID NOT say about the numbers for perinatal transmission is the plethora of answers we’re still waiting for from CN, notably the mathematical proof that HIV can survive and even cause an epidemic at a sexual transmission rate of 1:1000.

    The real question that you want to ask is, given the probabilities of transmission per coital act and the the number of sexual acts and the number of partners will a HIV infected person on average infect one or more people with HIV.

    If this number, the reproduction number, is more than 1 the HIV prevalence will increase. If it is less than 1 the prevalence will decrease.

    Ronald Gray has done this and found a reproduction number of 1.44.

    http://tinyurl.com/ncmku

    The first question then is NOT whether Duesberg can ‘prove’ his theory, but whether the sexual transmission theory has any legs at all. Yes?

    You would like that everybody has to ‘prove’ Duesberg to be wrong but it isn’t the case. Live in your alternate reality if you want.

    Duesberg would be taken seriously if he could come up with an internally consistent and comprehensive theory that adequately explains the available data.

    He has not done this.

    His arguments are full of glaring errors, he makes completely unwarranted conclusions from papers that do not support his theories and he brazenly neglects vast amounts of evidence that contradicts his ideas.

  242. Chris Noble Says:

    Oops Sorry I see now that CN’s theory regarding teh transmission of HIV in the wild is not sexual but via needle stick. I guess he’s one of the crackpots then that thinks HIV was first spread throughout certain population groups via vaccination

    Where did I say this?

  243. Truthseeker Says:

    Or are you going to redefine the aim of NAR just to let your mate CN off the dozen or so hooks he’s on, so you can continue b**** strawmen together. If so, please state it clearly for the record

    Claus, absolutely not, you may hook Noble as often and as mercilessly as you like.

    We merely thought that he had raised a point which was worth answering, as the rest are not. And the point arose from his habit of thinking for himself, which is what we hope all do here.

    Raising points which are not in the literature, ie misquoted, misunderstood, or bowdlerized straw men is not really a contribution that this blog needs or can put up with for long.

    However, we have to say that the skewering of those points is not as deft as we would hope. Perhaps a greater effort could be made to edit comments before posting, instead of extending the list with blather almost as messy as the confusion it addresses.

    Also, please watch your language. Sexually graphic metaphor is banned as distracting if not worse.

    Have you answered his perinatal rate of transmission point yet? Or do we have to beg Culshaw for enlightenment?

    What rate of perinatal transmission is necessary to enable a retrovirus to survive forever in the human population, which contrary to Noble’s view it almost certainly has?

    Has Noble overlooked the contribution of fathers to the mix?

  244. Chris Noble Says:

    What rate of perinatal transmission is necessary to enable a retrovirus to survive forever in the human population, which contrary to Noble’s view it almost certainly has?

    You still seem to be starting from your conclusion that perinatal transmission is necessary for the survival of HIV and then working backwards. You have not produced any evidence for this claim so far.

    Has Noble overlooked the contribution of fathers to the mix?

    In most of the studies that have determined the efficiency of MTCT of HIV the father is HIV+. If this was going to play a role then it would have been seen.

    Duesberg agrues that the amount of infectious HIV in sperm is too low for sexual transmission. How could it then be high enough to infect the baby at conception?

  245. Chris Noble Says:

    Another reminder:

    I have already pointed out the flaws in Duesberg’s argument about sexual transmission being impossible.

    Thus, all positive teenagers would have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.

    Can anyone find any flaw in my mathematically identical argument that it is impossible for anyone to ever die in an airplane crash because nobody ever makes 1 million flights?

    If anyone can find a flaw in my argument I’ll stop reminding you.

  246. Claus Says:

    You would like that everybody has to ‘prove’ Duesberg to be wrong but it isn’t the case. Live in your alternate reality if you want

    Ha-ha… nice try Chris. ‘thief thinks every man steals’ I think you’ll find that proving Duesberg wrong only counts for something in your reality. In how many ways can I break it to you gently that I do not share your fixation on Duesberg?

    I followed your link CN and found an abstract containing no calculations with regard to minimum transmission rate for HIV survival. But I guess the 1.44. means an average of 1440 unprotected copulations before the deadly virus finishes off our busy little HIV bunny then?
    So this is finally the data that explains the infamous HIV prevalency curve?

    The vaccine theory was just an afterthought, since unless you mean to view the gay population as analogous to inbred mice, perhaps you’d think an initial ‘boost’ of sorts was needed to achieve the very high prevalency very early on.

    Taking your word for it, that we’re not all inbred mice, how do wild mice transmit retroviruses – could it be through 1:1000 sexual contacts, since they don’t share needles and the like?
    [Close this window]

  247. Claus Says:

    I have already pointed out the flaws in Duesberg’s argument about sexual transmission being impossible.

    Thus, all positive teenagers would have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.

    Can anyone find any flaw in my mathematically identical argument that it is impossible for anyone to ever die in an airplane crash because nobody ever makes 1 million flights?

    If anyone can find a flaw in my argument I’ll stop reminding you.

    CN here’s the flaw in your argument: Duesberg never argued that sexual transmission is impossible. + I’ve twice happily conceded the point to you on Duesberg’s behalf that he committed the gambler’s fallacy, so that we could get on with the issues. Now what more would a sicko like you want that we could possibly provide? Ok, I got it. On second thought your argument is flawless, profound and completely revolutionizes the whole debate. It deserves pulishing in a prominent journal, and here’s an ice cream to go with it. OK?

    Which reminds me, have you come up your with the proof to sustain your filthy slander of Lanka. Have you apologized for putting words in Duesberg’s mouth like the above example and the one about the math on perinatal transmissions?
    As soon as you do, I’ll stop reminding everybody here that you trade in lies, slander and ad hominems

  248. Claus Says:

    However, we have to say that the skewering of those points is not as deft as we would hope. Perhaps a greater effort could be made to edit comments before posting, instead of extending the list with blather almost as messy as the confusion it addresses . (TS)

    TS, you’re the math guy, you’re the one supposed to be well versed in the literature, especially Duesberg’s literature. Why is it up to us average commenters, who do not live inside the mind of Duesberg, the way Duesberg has taken on peculiar life of his own inside CN’s mind, to come up with these numbers.

    All we can say is:

    1. The 25-50% perinatal transmission are the official numbers, which CN shamelessly put in Duesberg’s mouth.
    2. Duesberg says he’s got good reasons to believe those numbers are in reality higher – and we have stated and restated those reasons above, last in Michael’s latest several posts, which in themselves should afford everybody the overview they need.
    3. even if Duesberg cannot ‘prove’ his theory conclusively via other peoples articles on perinatal HIV transmission, that is indeed the normal state of affairs in questioning HIV=AIDS, which, as you will know, is censored and unfunded, and so we concede that point to CN for what it’s worth.
    4. Even if Duesberg is wrong on perinatal transmission, it does zero to counter his critique of the sexual transmission theory, which makes this whole discussion, mildly interesting, but still tangential.

    If we haven’t ‘skewered’ the point to your satisfaction, I don’t know what to do other than encourage CN to share his ice cream with you.

  249. Michael Says:

    TS,

    I don’t think I have ever quoted myself in toto before, but the strangess of your thinking induces strange behaviors.

    TS,

    You wrote:

    Chris Noble produced a logical contradiction of an assertion made by Duesberg, and if he is correct then HIV could only have arrived from the distant past by scoring a higher rate of perinatal (mother to child) transmission of 25% to 50%. He says over 50%, some say it has to be 100% not to lose ground generation after generation.

    Are you serious? Chris Noble produced a straw man and put figures in Duesberg’s mouth (a favorite trick of the dishonest, as TS should know), and I am wondering if like a pussy cat (and I thought you were a math whiz too) you followed him down the twisted garden paths he so very deliberately led you.

    McDonald told us just a little above, that the real transmission rate is near 100% but perhaps you did not understand, or catch, the implications of the data that he imparts, or that Dr. D. imparted twice as well.

    Also, TS, it is clear from Claus’ posts that Duesberg nowhere claims the perinatal transmission rate for HIV is 25-50%, and in fact claims it must be higher.

    Hopefully you will put down the latest issue of Elle, with it’s entrancing pictures, and give a closer look at the science TS, before we conclude that scientific debate is not your forte.

    And while on the subject, it might be more beneficial at this point to redecorate with tables and graphs instead of scantily clad female forms that may have offended some.

    Any more skewering you will need to undertake by yourself, math guy, truth seeker and esplainer of the scientific literature as digested by the NY Times, and Elle.

  250. Michael Says:

    Chris dear,

    While TS is trying to figure out the difference between your inverse PCR argument as it is applied to “survival” and “percentage of the population” (you cleverly switched up on him up above as you know you devilish boy), don’t think that you have escaped all the hooks Dr. D. thinks he let you off.

    I call your attention, and the rest of the blogosphere, one more time to the essay by Robert Maver that can ve read here, and ask that you please turn your considerable analytical abilities to deconstrcuting it because Maver is not Duesberg, the essay is brief, and unless you can, its conclusions must stand as fact and your beloved set of beliefs about HIV and the AIDS epidemic in the US go up in smoke.

  251. Claus Says:

    And while we are waiting for that I’m sure elucidating answer, Michael, I take the opportnuty to thank you very much for that elucidating comment in your previous post:

    math guy, truth seeker and explainer of the scientific literature as digested by the NY Times, and Elle .

    I do think you have provided the solution to one of the deepest mysteries I’m sure must have puzzled readers of this blog since its inception, namely, why does a presumably singular being who calls himself Truthseeker continually refer to himself with the Royal “we”?,
    Until now my shrewdest guess was that TS was really two people under as many hats since he gives an email address with A.L. as the prefix. But that was not really satisfying (even less taste in fact than sucking stones in turn). But now the principle of trim is restored and a blazingly correct answer delivered. TS is in reality not 2 but 3, a math guy, a truth seeker and a ruminant of the literature, each of the three possibly split into several fragmentary personalities, even though they seem to never be home at the same time.

  252. nohivmeds Says:

    As Chris Noble wrote:
    Another reminder:
    I have already pointed out the flaws in Duesberg’s argument about sexual transmission being impossible.

    Thus, all positive teenagers would have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.

    Can anyone find any flaw in my mathematically identical argument that it is impossible for anyone to ever die in an airplane crash because nobody ever makes 1 million flights?

    If anyone can find a flaw in my argument I’ll stop reminding you.

    Here is another analogy. A child under 5 has a 1 in 23000 chance of being killed in a car accident. Does this mean that so long that children don’t take 23000 trips in the car between birth and 5 years old, that they won’t be killed in a car accident? Of course not.

    Odds ratios are averages. 1 in 1000 is an average — meaning that the stats used to produce this ratio incorporated possibilities both above and below the average, including 1 in 10 and 1 in 100,000. Think of a bell curve with 1 in 1000 at the center — all other odds are possible, just less likely as you move from the center.

  253. nohivmeds Says:

    In other words, Chris Noble knows his way around an odds ratio. His air plane crash example is perhaps a little too extreme to make the point, but the car crash example is easier seen.

    And thinking of 1 in 1000 as the center of a bell curve of potential odds should help clarify this.

    Also, although 1 in 1000 is not what I would consider a great odds ratio for an infectious disease, it isn’t 1 in 1,000,000 — if it were, we could simply reject the idea that HIV was infectious out-of-hand. But 1 in 1000 does not let us do that.

    Also, male-to-male anal receptive intercourse results in a different odds ratio — 1 in 500. The fact that the odds ratios for heterosexual sex and homosexual sex differ this dramatically would need to be explained – -and there are many possible explanation, not all of which involve infectious disease, but some of w which do.

    In the future, when confronting an odds ratio, it is best to remember that it is a statement of probability and that the numbers cannot be taken to mean anything regarding “actual” experiences in the world.

  254. Michael Says:

    Chris dear,

    Hello again. I have the feeling (maybe it is just the hope that springs eternal in the soul of the AIDS dissident) that you may be actually reading the Maver essay at long last, and I do not want to distract your attention with references that you cannot remember.

    So I will relieve you (and TS) of the burden of asking “What do you mean survival and percent of pop?”

    The complicated division by 2 argument indeed reduces the percent of the population each generation by a factor of two, but this does not stop an organism with a transmission rate of .5 from surviving and indeed thriving in absolute numbers, which was what you first claimed it could not do when you introduced your table for the arithmetically challenged WAY up above.

    Let’s take the example of one of your humans who is a mouse (you did write that “the vast majority of péople are not mice” recall) and she has 10 pups and 4 of them carry a particular retrovirus and two of them are female, and they have boyfriend who are also human mice, etc. Well it does not take an Einstein to figure out that the virus will do just fine unless another new virus that induces exponentially decaying sterility attacks the poor micies.

    But when it comes to your airplane passenger argument, I must admit I was out of my depth and needed to consult with a professional mathematician to clear out my own reeling head.

    I asked him the following question:

    Does an odds ratio of 1/1000 mean that in order to have a close to 100% chance of the event occurring, 1000 tries on average need be attempted?

    This was his answer:

    No. If the chance of the event occurring is 1/1000, then the chance of it not occurring is 999/1000. If you do the experiment 1000 times, then the chances are (999/1000)^1000 that is fails every time, and that’s about .367, so there’s only about a 63% chance that at least one of the tries was successful.

    You’d need about 4500 tries to have a 99% chance of at least one success.

    So there you have it Chris. You have done it (at least to my satisfaction) and shown Duesberg to have been wrong on this point all along.

    The only problem it seems is that he erred 4.5 fold on the side of caution.

  255. nohivmeds Says:

    wrong again, Michael. Sorry. Think of the bell curve.

  256. nohivmeds Says:

    or — even better yet — since outside experts are being questioned — might we not just admit here that some of this is beyond what a blog can elucidate? Perhaps 6 courses in multivariate stats would help — but again, that wouldn’t be apporpriate for a blog. CLEARLY – we have not resolved this and will not. Best to let it go.

  257. nohivmeds Says:

    Plus, as I was made aware, the following line was not provided by the outside expert:

    You’d need about 4500 tries to have a 99% chance of at least one success.

    And, mathematically, does not follow. SO — this really is not a desperately important point. we all agree that there is no heterosexual HIV epidemic. Let us be content with that for now (even though we all have a hard time being content).

  258. Michael Says:

    I beg your pardon? Who made you aware? I quoted the mathematcian exactly and fully, even including his one typo.

  259. Michael Says:

    I would think that one glaring question, the very question that the blog thread was originally about, has been answered. The question, which Truthseeker himself posed in the subtitle way above, was, and I quote:

    DOES THE HIV MEME EVER LEAVE?

    It seems to me, at least, that the questioned is answered, with a resounding NO.

    The meme is here, at least in the minds of Chris, McK, and Nomedshiv to stay!

  260. nohivmeds Says:

    You know who made me aware — and hello, aren’t we moving on from this? I thought we were going to take up something more productive now. I think we are all ready for a new topic in this strand. Let’s go for it!

  261. nohivmeds Says:

    Oh michael – can you speak topically, please? you seem bent on inferring what is in other people’s minds, even when you don’t know them, can’t see them or interact with them. That’s really not advisable — it wastes a great deal of time, and you’ll likely be incorrect since you are making assumptions based on so very little information.

    Now — can we have a topic that doesn’t include your pseudo-psycho babble? Let’s move on (I’ll say it again, this time imploringly).

  262. Michael Says:

    nohivmeds, you wrote above:

    Plus, as I was made aware, the following line was not provided by the outside expert:

    You’d need about 4500 tries to have a 99% chance of at least one success.

    You were most courteously forwarded a copy of the same information from the professional mathematician that several other people were. The line that you claim to have not been provided is clearly right there in the email. You have made the claim that the line was not provided by the outside expert , when clearly, it was.

    Dude, I am not a math wiz kid. I did not pull that line out of thin air! And I would appreciate a correction to the statement that you made as it portrays the words of the math pro as a figment of my imagination to people reading this thread.

    Perhaps you glossed over it, or in some other way mis-read it. Will you please look at it again, and verify that the line was indeed in the words of the mathematician?

  263. nohivmeds Says:

    Michael — I’ve already made my explanation of the odds ratio, which i think is way simpler to understand (the bell curve with decreasing probabilities as you move away from the apex). I’m not discussing odds ratios anymore! Honestly, this is the third time I’ve requested a change in topic. I’ve also summarized on what we all agree on — no heterosexual epidemic! It is irrelevant where that statement came from – it is unfortunately to someone like yourself, who freely admits not beeing a “math whiz kid” easily misunderstood and not really the way statisticians use odds ratios, or would ever apply them. Your friend is a mathematician too, remember. Statisticians and epidemiologists use odds ratios. Although both fields are derived from mathematics, most mathematicians I know would not claim any expertise in statistics.

    OKAY. Now Michael, if we might (I’m requesting this for a fourth time now from you) move on, that would be great. And I’d also like to make a personal request — you evidence some obsession with me, and I don’t even know you. Could you perhaps examine that? Because with obsessional neurosis, the object of the obsession is not the problem.

  264. Dan Says:

    DOES THE HIV MEME EVER LEAVE?

    It does for myself, and a handful of people I’m glad and honored to know. These are people who can think for themselves, and have independently realized that HIV=AIDS=bullscheisse.

    This is why I’m dismayed at what is turning out to be a Duesberg-apologist thread. I’m not seeing critical thinking, just following.

    Michael, are the HIV tests accurate? If I go to the hospital and take a test, will I know my status? Yes or no. It seems like an integral part of this discussion on perinatal transmission.

  265. nohivmeds Says:

    Hey Dan,
    I wouldn’t advise folks to get a test — I think Michael has written some great stuff in other strands about all the conditions that can cause false positives. I know that Perth believes that a poz ab test may be an indicator of oxidative stress, but I think Christine Maggiore made the best statement on it– that the test alone can set into motion the steps towards a person’s death. I think the test is to be avoided. Just my opinion.

  266. Dan Says:

    I have no intentions of being “tested”. I just want to hear from Michael whether he thinks the tests can determine somebody’s “status”.

  267. nohivmeds Says:

    What “status” Dan? If the test has so many false positives, and if many smart people believe it to either be:
    a) indicative of nothing, or
    b) indicative of oxidative stress
    then what do you mean by “status”?
    If this is something you didn’t want to discuss publicly, I think you can email Michael directly for his advice.

  268. Dan Says:

    I’m asking Michael whether or not he thinks the tests can determine whether or not somebody is HIV-infected. It’s an integral part of the discussion on perinatal transmission.

    I’m not asking Michael for “advice”.

    I bet you’re smart enough to understand the meaning of the word status placed between quotation marks.

  269. Dan Says:

    Whoops, only needed one “whether or not” there.

  270. nohivmeds Says:

    Well – that’s a tough question, Dan. What do you mean by HIV-infected? Do you mean viremic? Or do you mean, having been exposed and mounted an immune response? If yes to the second possibility, then the question becomes whether something tranmitted perinatally which produces an immune repsonse, would continue to produce an immune response — say 20 years later. If there has been no transmission except perinatal, then that seems unlikely.

  271. nohivmeds Says:

    And I would add that if you’re posting these questions here, you are asking all of us, not just Michael.

  272. Dan Says:

    No, I’m not asking all of you. If I was, I would have said something to the effect of: “hey folks, I’ve got a question”. Didn’t do that, did I?

    I’m asking Michael. I think he’s a big boy and can answer the question all on his own. You’re free to answer, even though the question wasn’t put to you.

    Let’s see what Michael has to say. I’m curious to know what he thinks of the tests’ ability to determine HIV-infection, and how that relates to MTCT.

  273. nohivmeds Says:

    Well, I’m looking forward to Michael’s response too — and the response of others interested in perinatal transmission — I think there are others here besides myself, you, and Michael who have a strong interest in this. And just to clarify what I think is a basic response — in truth, Dan, you asked all people in the world who have internet access, the question. It’s a fascinating quesiton that many people might have really interesting things to say about, including definitely, Michael. : )

  274. Dan Says:

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree whether or not I asked everybody on the internet the question.

    I asked Michael. Anybody else is certainly free to respond. Quite literally, and truthfully, I didn’t ask them.

  275. nohivmeds Says:

    Dan — I think you (in conjunction with CN, actually — kinda unusual) really made a statement earlier that may, in a sense, invalidate your current question:

    The vast majority of the people infected with HIV in the US have been in specific risk groups such as homosexual men and injecting drug users etc. Can you explain how this is consistent with perinatal transmission? Simple question. Where’s your answer?

    Good point, Chris.

    This looks like the defending Duesberg at all costs thread. I won’t do it. I’m a critical thinker, not a follower. Chris makes a simple, logical, reasonable point, and it will take some very tortured “reasoning” to try and work around that one – especially since rethinkers often bring up the fact that “HIV infection” stays mainly in its risk groups in the US.

    I guess what I’m saying, is I’d like to ask, in conjunction with you new question — that why only certain subpopulations would test ab+ if HIV was always transmitted perinatally.

  276. Michael Says:

    Dan. The case by case ridiculousness of the non-specific HIV tests and their inability to determine if anyone actually has HIV or not, is NOT the point here. It has also been discussed, and by me, countless times. If you go to a hospital and get tested, they will most certainly tell you, regardless of accuracy or inaccuracy, their determination of your status.

    Dan, You said that you are not seeing Critical thinking? You only see Duesberg apologists?

    I am not seeing anyone adress, and I am seeing total avoidance of the two key pieces of critical thinking that have been presented to Mr Noble above:

    Number One! Did you or anyone else here actually read the Maver piece for yourself? It is on the 2nd page of THIS LINK. I posted this important but seemingly ignored piece at 8:14am:

    I call your attention, and the rest of the blogosphere, one more time to the essay by Robert Maver that can be read here, and ask that you please turn your considerable analytical abilities to deconstructing it because Maver is not Duesberg, the essay is brief, and unless one can deconstruct it, its conclusions must stand as fact and your beloved set of beliefs about HIV and the AIDS epidemic in the US goes up in smoke.

    Number Two! I quote from above, Dr. D.

    What Dr. Noble continues to harp on, namely the gross uncertainty of the estimates in the early years of the numbers of antibody positive individuals in the general US population, while saying nothing about the central argument, does indicate the only scientific explanation of the prevalence curve not being compatible with the AIDS “epidemic” curve. Namely, “AIDS” in the US is a fragmented epidemic consisting of many small sub-epidemics whose actual numbers are hidden in the statistical fluctuations of the larger population estimates — exactly as Duesberg et al. argue at length in the J. Biosci. paper that Noble has read so carefully.

    This is what I call critical thinking.

  277. Dan Says:

    nhm,

    my question is very very basic. It has to do with the tests.

    Do they determine whether somebody is HIV-infected or not?

    Let’s start there, and work our way outwards to perinatal transmission, sexual transmission and risk groups.

    I’m leaving for work, so Michael will have plenty of time to formulate an answer.

  278. nohivmeds Says:

    As Dan said, let’s back it up to:

    “my question is very very basic. It has to do with the tests.
    Do they determine whether somebody is HIV-infected or not?”

    Everyone please contribute what you can!.

  279. McKiernan Says:

    You’re not going to like it.

  280. Truthseeker Says:

    4. Even if Duesberg is wrong on perinatal transmission, it does zero to counter his critique of the sexual transmission theory, which makes this whole discussion, mildly interesting, but still tangential.

    Duesberg is not wrong on perinatal transmission. Claus has answered this by quoting Duesberg as follows (corrected for an error of transcription he made):

    Therefore, the efficiency of perinatal transmission must be high. This appears to be the case. Based on HIV-tracking via the “AIDS test,” perinatal transmission from the mother is estimated to be 13–50% efficient. This number does not include paternal HIV transmission to the baby via semen, for which there are currently no data. The real efficiency of perinatal transmission must be higher than the antibody-tests suggest, because in a fraction of recipients HIV only becomes immunogenic when its hosts are of an advanced age.

    This is taken from p 544 of Inventing The AIDS Virus. For people who are interested in this whole topic of whether HIV causes AIDS or whether the world has had the wool pulled over its eyes by a bunch of mediocre crooks and charlatans who run their own particular branch of “science” as if it was a banana republic, this book should be bedtime reading.

    As Claus demonstrates, and Chris presumably resists, this bible of HIV?AIDS correction written by the scientifically saintly Duesberg – sorry about that, Chris! – is a very quick way of checking any clumsy misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Duesberg’s views made by distinguished commenters here, particularly since the Appendices are nicely ordered by topic headings such as 3.5.2 HIV-Assumed to Be Sexually Transmitted–Depends on Perinatal Transmission for Survival, as in this case.

    Perhaps distinguished posters here could give their references when quoting from this or any other source, and double check their transcription for accuracy before posting it.

    But now the principle of trim is restored and a blazingly correct answer delivered. TS is in reality not 2 but 3, a math guy, a truth seeker and a ruminant of the literature, each of the three possibly split into several fragmentary personalities, even though they seem to never be home at the same time.

    Unlike some, we indeed have more than one dimension to our intellectual makeup, indeed, and use the royal “we” to express this extraordinary versatility, as well as to imply that what we write is not merely the usual egomaniacal self indulgence as exemplified by so many in the blogosphere, but a distillation of the contributions of many thousands of people brave/foolhardy enough to stand up against the authority of Anthony Fauci, the diminutive ruler of the HIV?AIDS universe. Moreover, in our poor efforts to elucidate the true state of reality in this fantasy ridden sphere we draw on the wise and informed counsel of many minds superior to our own.

    That said, we have to add that we find the adoption of several names by one poster here to be needlessly schizophrenic. From whence does this impulse stem, to split oneself into several fragmentary personalities, all at home at the same time, with precisely the same style? Is this an attempt to avoid responsibility? A lack of decision? Of integrity?

    Come to think of it, why does anyone here use a pseudonym? The only possible excuse is that one is afraid that John Moore will call one’s employer and inform him/her than one is expressing a non mainstream view in public, which he is known to have done in the case of one pseudonymic blogger. (This going behind one’s back to spread calumny is a technique used by more than one of these furtive knights of science, unbeknownst to the decent people they attack).

    Otherwise, why not use your real name? Stand up and stand for, or you stand still.

    Well, of course, we know why, and it is a telling commentary of the forces against free speech in this realm.

  281. nohivmeds Says:

    TS wrote:
    “That said, we have to add that we find the adoption of several names by one poster here to be needlessly schizophrenic. From whence does this impulse stem, to split oneself into several fragmentary personalities, all at home at the same time, with precisely the same style? Is this an attempt to avoid responsibility? A lack of decision? Of integrity?”

    Here’s really the answer, TS. Since everyone knows it’s me, and I know that everyone knows, then it can’t be schizophrenic. Since everyone knows its me and, because I used to post with my full name, then it can’t be avoidance of responsibility. Since, under every name I’ve used, I’ve expressed skepticism about HIV=AIDS and every dissident thought under the sun — been very consistent with that — I think that indicates that a decision has clearly been reached, and it’s “believe no one.” The Skeptic. Finally – Again, because everyone knows it’s me — how could it possibly be a lack of integrity?

    So why have I changed it over time, if not for those reasons? Because, including myself, develop a tendency to prejudge a person based on initial impressions. With SA, I wanted a fresh start — but it was silly — as Dan pointed out, because my views are expressed in a certain way and are at a certain variance with others. So why “nohivmeds?” Well, because I like the message.

  282. Truthseeker Says:

    The vast majority of the people infected with HIV in the US have been in specific risk groups such as homosexual men and injecting drug users etc. Can you explain how this is consistent with perinatal transmission? Simple question. Where’s your answer?

    Good point, Chris.

    Why is this a good point, and not a redundant and meaningless point, repetitively made to no purpose whatsoever? Do you have some difficulty in imagining that perinatal transmission is the normal, long term phenomenon, and probably very low level in this country, and that injecting drug users and gay partyers with fatal habits have recently expanded its prevalence in sub groups? That’s assuming positive HIV tests mean what they are taken to mean.

    This is so blindingly trivial and obvious that we feel we must be missing your point in some way.

  283. nohivmeds Says:

    TS — not clear on something you’re saying. Are you saying that the mothers of “gay partyers” and “drug addicts” (hint, “gay partyers are just gay drug addicts, by the way, so you could just say “drug addicts”) are transmitting to these future drug addicts perinatally at a higher rate when compared to mothers of individuals who will not become drug addicts?

  284. Claus Says:

    Dan,

    I’m afraid you’ve got it upside down. This thread was not a ‘defend Duesberg at all cost thread’ – it was a ‘let’s drag Duesberg into the discussion and attack him at all cost, including productive debate’ thread. That naturally produces an impression on people who insist on reading everything a certain way, that whenever we don’t concede the point (and heaven knows we’ve kindly conceded as many as we possibly could) to CN or some of his random, double blind, placebo helpers, that we’re in here just to defend Duesberg.

    I’m sure a lot of people here, myself included, would be delighted to discuss the tests – even consider the possibility that the virus doesn’t exist, neither in Duesberg’s nor Gallo’s version. But in the interest of progressive debate, I very strongly suggest you ‘bracket off’ the Duesberg perinatal transmission theory for just now. There’s a number of ways the test/isolation issue could influence the perinatal theory, but if you insist on coming at it from this, or the ‘I don’t see critical thinking here’ angle, I don’t think you need me to tell you where we’re going to end up. Just look at McK’s latest valuable contribution.

    TS, You’re absolutely right, something funny happened with my copy/paste procedure. I’ll be more mindful in the future.

  285. Truthseeker Says:

    Claus, cut and paste? Sorry, we thought you had typed it out from the book. Is the book online?

  286. Truthseeker Says:

    TS — not clear on something you’re saying. Are you saying that the mothers of “gay partyers” and “drug addicts” (hint, “gay partyers are just gay drug addicts, by the way, so you could just say “drug addicts”) are transmitting to these future drug addicts perinatally at a higher rate when compared to mothers of individuals who will not become drug addicts?

    Mothers are not involved in gay partying, are they? Whatever extremes of sexual behavior go on in the cause of political and psychological liberation in these circles, they are self destructive as far as passing along pathogens is concerned, it seems clear, and even the flimsy Virus transmits at a 1 in 400 rate or whatever per bout, and the number of bouts is colossal for some.

    Not that we think that the Virus causes any harm at all. It is really irrelevant, this transmission issue, to health, but it must account for the higher rate of positive tests among gay partyers and dirty needle users, possibly along with other causes of cross reaction. What’s relevant are the other pathogens, the drugs, the malnutrition and the stress.

    Meanwhile the added modes of transmission account for the far higher prevalence of the V in these risk groups. That is the association that is taken as evidence for cause, by people who cannot think very well.

  287. Claus Says:

    http://www.duesberg.com/papers/1992%20HIVAIDS.pdf

  288. nohivmeds Says:

    Cool — I didn’t think that the perinatal issue was really central here at all. And again — just drug abusers would do, I think, in desribing the past and emerging risk group in this country. The drugs (same), the malnutrition (same), the stress (likely again, same if both groups are drug abusers) — the pathogens? Don’t konw. Does the homosexual community have higher rates of STDs than the “drug using” community? I would bet not.

  289. McKiernan Says:

    Not that we think that the Virus causes any harm at all. It is really irrelevant, this transmission issue, to health, but it must account for the higher rate of positive tests among gay partyers and dirty needle users, possibly along with other causes of cross reaction. What’s relevant are the other pathogens, the drugs, the malnutrition and the stress.

    Kindly elucidate. It seems your conclusion is the bifurcation point at which the rethinkers decided that it cannot falsify the HIV=AIDS paradigm, therefore any questions demanding that rethinkers do so are irrelevant along with your conclusion so is HIV+. Do you deny infectivity ?

    On the other hand, someone asked,

    Do HIV tests determine whether somebody is HIV-infected or not ? And the answer to which seems to be:

    HIV -1 was detected in ALL seropositive symptomatic and non-symptomatic individuals and in NONE of the HIV negative individuals in this study.

    Like 100% of AIDS (56) patients, 99% of (88) ARC patients, 98% in (265) non-symptomatic hiv+ patients and in none of the (131) hiv negative patients.

    The second question is what are the other pathogens of which you speak ?

  290. Laura Says:

    What’s relevant are the other pathogens, the drugs, the malnutrition and the stress.

    Other pathogens? Are you talking about opportunistic pathogens? Its odd because if the Virus is not a contributing factor than why don’t HIV- drug using stressd individuals suffer the same fate. Example anorexics are extremely malnourished, stressed, depressed, and often abuse a wide assortment of drugs however opportunistic pathogens don’t usually kill them. Keeping in mind that the vast majority of people have been exposed and harbor these pathogens for most of their lives. If truely stress, drug use and malnutrition were the primary cause they would have AIDS as well. But they don’t they genrally die from heart failure, electrolyte imbalances and suicide not candida, CMV and PCP. Why is that?

  291. Truthseeker Says:

    What’s relevant are the other pathogens, the drugs, the malnutrition and the stress.

    Kindly elucidate.

    Silly, McK, silly. The virus is a pussy cat, the deterioration comes from other insults.

    In your case, McK, we worry that it seems that the AIDS meme has got a hold, and nothing will dislodge it, despite your original desire to assess the case impartially. As licensed meme doctors we advise to switch to reading the New York Times, the chief promoter of this farce in the media today. A very easy read, excellent soothing palliative and stress medication for those suffering from irreversible meme parasitism, whose chief symptom is paralysis of the neural networking in the interior of the skull. In your endless indecision, we can see these symptoms at work. Far better to give up and just read Tina Rosenberg, rather than this blog and its uncollegial critique of what the rest of the world knows to be true. Can’t you recognize sorehead outsider conspiracy theorizing when you meet it? How likely is it that 20,000 papers, and sixteen global conferences can be dveoted to the wrong premise? Please. You wouldn’t allow such nonsense in your Army days. Don’t start now.

    Why is that?

    Don’t they? Perhaps you ought to do some reading, Laura. Go to the duesberg.com site and download and print out the last major paper Duesberg et al wrote in Biosciences. Put it in the smallest room of your house so that you encounter it briefly every day. You will be surprised at what you learn.

    If it is all too unbelievable or difficult for you, then you can simply put it behind you.

    (Joke).

  292. Chris Noble Says:

    I asked him the following question:

    Does an odds ratio of 1/1000 mean that in order to have a close to 100% chance of the event occurring, 1000 tries on average need be attempted?

    This was his answer:

    No. If the chance of the event occurring is 1/1000, then the chance of it not occurring is 999/1000. If you do the experiment 1000 times, then the chances are (999/1000)^1000 that is fails every time, and that’s about .367, so there’s only about a 63% chance that at least one of the tries was successful.

    You’d need about 4500 tries to have a 99% chance of at least one success.

    You didn’t ask the right question.

    Ask him whether Duesberg’s statement is mathematically correct.

    Thus, all positive teenagers would have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.

    The only question of any importance to epidemiology is whether on average a person infected with HIV infects at least 1 other person. If this number is greater than 1 then the epidemic will grow. It doesn’t matter if the odds of any one specified person becoming infected the only important factor for the survival of the pathogen is that it keeps on infecting more people.

  293. McKiernan Says:

    TS,

    Apologies,

    I wasn’t in the Army. Just the Air Force. You know 500 bombing missions more or less then back to Doc Daneeka in the psy-ward to escape the absurdities of war. In any event, you have ducked questions posed.

    I can only note the words of Albert Einstein, “Do not stop questioning”. Apparently that applies to one/your side.

    I would remind you of your first internet contact with himself when you said sometime in January 2005:

    “Dear Catch 22,

    Sorry if I came off as telling you what to think. Of course you have to think for yourself. That is exactly what I admire about you and many posters here — I think all of them. That is exactly what you do. I say Thank God for that. Without people like yourself this stuff could go on forever unchecked.”

    So I suggest that you are doing a dis-service to your readership to announce,

    ” Not that we think that the Virus causes any harm at all. It is really irrelevant, this transmission issue, to health,. .”

    Somehow, HIV is not irrelevant.

  294. Laura Says:

    Michael

    I read the Maver article and I don’t disagree with it. The predictions on AIDs have been overestimated in this country. I don’t deny other factors are neccessary to cause AIDS, indeed they are. However it does not prove that HIV is not a significant factor in T cell depletion in many AIDS cases. Nor do bad actuarials give me much confidence in being immune to the possibility of it killing me. Is it really worth taking the chance on some debated stats?

    In my reading I found the argument that a problem with the AIDS paradigm is that once antibodies are detected that the virus is either cleared from the body or if latent is at such low levels it could not cause the level of immune suppression seen in AIDS. Why not? There are a lot of latent viruses. HSV is latent many never get an outbreak when immuno compromised it can reactivate and be quite nasty. The same process happens with many other viruses. The JC virus for example, it is predicted that majority of the population is exposed by the age of 6 mostly without incident. However in immuno compromised people it can reactivat causing PML a deadly demylinating disease. Not only that but they believe CMV another virus that majority of the population is exposed to without incident can actually help the JC virus infect cells it normally can’t infect. Perhaps HIV could be a helper virus in a similar fashion or maybe stress of any kind can activate it causing illness. Can you deny that possibility? If not how can you avoid stress and how much stress is necessary for infection to take hold?

    So I guess in theory you are right HIV in itself won’t kill you. The problem is it might open the door to other viruses that can. I would never tell someone to take ARVs that is a personal choice but I wouldn’t tell someone its harmless and to risk exposure either. Just my opinion.

    Ref:
    Human cytomegalovirus induces JC virus DNA replication in human fibroblasts. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci, Vol 99, pp 11406-11410 Dec 1993.

  295. Chris Noble Says:

    Just to demonstrate why Michael’s mathematical question is irrelevant let me illustrate.

    Take 10,000 HIV+ people and let them have sex exactly once and once only with a HIV- person.

    Given a transmission risk of 1/1000 you would expect 10 to become infected with HIV.

    The average number of sexual contacts that these newly infected people had was exactly 1. So Duesberg’s assertion that they must have had 1000 sexual contacts or even an average of 1000 sexual contacts is fallacious.

    The probability of 10 people becoming infected is extremely high.

    The probability of a particular specified individual becoming infected is still low 1/1000.

    The survival of the pathogen does not depend on a specific individual becoming infected. It only matters that it is one or more of the 10,000.

    The probability that none of the 10,000 become infected after exactly one sexual encounter is extremely low 0.999^10000 = 1/22137

  296. Chris Noble Says:

    Odds ratios are averages. 1 in 1000 is an average — meaning that the stats used to produce this ratio incorporated possibilities both above and below the average, including 1 in 10 and 1 in 100,000. Think of a bell curve with 1 in 1000 at the center — all other odds are possible, just less likely as you move from the center.

    Thanks. I thought I had made this point but perhaps not clearly enough.

    Any crude calculation using one fixed probability for different sexual encounters between different people and at different times after initial infection will not reflect reality.

    It’s like using the same risk factor for an Aeroflot flight and a QANTAS flight.

    The remarkable thing is that Duesberg’s argument is still fallacious if you are describing a situation with a uniform probability.

    Take the probability of rolling a 6 with fair dice.

    Get 600 people to roll a die exactly once.

    You would expect approximately 100 people to roll a 6.

    For the people that rolled a six (and everyone else) the average number of throws is exactly 1.

    Duesberg’s logic says it should be 6. Duesberg’s logic is false.

    Anyone that says otherwise is mathematically incompetent.

  297. Chris Noble Says:

    Duesberg is not wrong on perinatal transmission. Claus has answered this by quoting Duesberg as follows (corrected for an error of transcription he made):

    Therefore, the efficiency of perinatal transmission must be high. This appears to be the case. Based on HIV-tracking via the “AIDS test,” perinatal transmission from the mother is estimated to be 13–50% efficient. This number does not include paternal HIV transmission to the baby via semen, for which there are currently no data. The real efficiency of perinatal transmission must be higher than the antibody-tests suggest, because in a fraction of recipients HIV only becomes immunogenic when its hosts are of an advanced age.

    Duesberg gives two citations for his claim that perinatal transmission must be higher.

    Quinn et al., 1986; St Louis et al., 1991

    The first is available here
    http://www.scielosp.org/pdf/bwho/v79n12/scan2.pdf

    Duesberg looks at Fig 2 sees low prevalence in 2-14 year-olds and then high prevalence again in 15-19 year olds and then speculates without the slightest evidence that by some amazing chance at the exact time when people become sexually active they suddenly start to produce antibodies to a virus that they have had since birth.

    Who is Duesberg trying to fool? Oops, silly question.

    Don’t you think that it is an amazing coincidence that people only start developing antibodies to HIV at exactly the same time when they become sexually active?

    Can you think of perhaps a more parsimonious explanation?

    What is keeping the virus under control during the previous 14 years? It can’t be antibodies.

  298. Chris Noble Says:

    I followed your link CN and found an abstract containing no calculations with regard to minimum transmission rate for HIV survival. But I guess the 1.44. means an average of 1440 unprotected copulations before the deadly virus finishes off our busy little HIV bunny then?
    So this is finally the data that explains the infamous HIV prevalency curve?

    Read the paper.

    The average probability of transmission per coital act used in the calculation was 0.0012 or 1/834.

    The average number of sexual contacts was 8.9 per month.

    Based on these figures the calculations showed an incidence of 1.57 per 100PY or 1.57% per year.

    Fig 2 shows the calculated HIV prevalence rising.

    The conclusion is that 8.9 sex acts per month with a transmission probability of 0.0012 is enough to sustain an epidemic.

    If you can find any mathematical flaws in the paper then tell me or tell the author or the journal.

  299. Michael Says:

    Hi Laura. You posed an interesting question above with anorexics, and asked why, considering they deal with malnutrition, stress, depression and sometimes drug addiction, they do not get “AIDS”.

    Well Laura, lets look at someone whom we know recently got AIDS in New York:

    The New York man who sparked fears of a powerful new strain of HIV

    In this piece we read the following:

    BOSTON – The New York man who sparked fears of a powerful new strain of HIV had drug-fueled, unprotected sex with more than 100 men in the months before his diagnosis, a top researcher said yesterday.

    And HIV Researcher David Ho, said the following:

    The victim, who’s in his mid-40s, participated in wild orgies fueled by crystal meth before becoming sick, Ho said.

    I am sure you can see the obvious differences between this man, dealing with his sex addiction and meth addiction and God knows what all, and an anorexic. He seems to have had some major issues going on. We do not know, and can only surmise the following: amount of stress after who knows what he did for money to pay for this lifestyle, additional illicit drugs or poppers, std infections, repeated antibiotics to treat std’s, emotional disturbances, depression, self destructive, suicidal, self loathing, and the diet of probable junk food that someone living this way would eat, and when one is hyped up on meth for days, they don’t eat at all.

    Put HIV totally on the side, do you see this man with his lifestyle as someone who is going to stay healthy?

    The gay man is already in double high risk categories as to how his confirmational Western Blot and Elisa and PCR tests will be read, and his HIV test results will automatically be flagged as definite positive for HIV if he shows up with any results on the antigen tests.

    AIDS is simply testing positive for some antigens which are found many places, and are not necessarily unique to HIV, and any one of 29 somewhat common illnesses OR a low Tcell count.

    This man will of course be diagnosed as HIV and AIDS.

    I think that if you show us an anorexic whom has been quite this self destructive with this much unprotected sex, sex addiction, drug addiction and overall self destructive behavior, we can probably in short order show you another AIDS case.

    And remember also, that the white heterosexual anorexic is in another category that the gay man is not. The anorexic is automatically placed in the low risk category unless she makes it known to her HIV test provider or doctor that she is a drug addict as well. Not only that, but if she is heterosexual, she will probably not even be offered or recommended to take the HIV test.

    Do you think the comparison is fair and equal between this man and an anorexic?

  300. Laura Says:

    Michael,
    While I agree that you are probably right that there is bias in who gets tested but that was not my question. My question is why do anorexics many of whom starve, use drugs such as Meth as it is a great diet aid, laxitives, diuretics, as well as the added shame of hating yourself and hiding your illness are not dieing of opportunistic infections? Sorry I should have clarified not AIDS but AIDs defining illnesses. Instead they die of heart failure sometimes caused by their bodies consuming their heart muscle for energy, electrolyte imbalances from laxative and diuretic use, and kidney failure. I agree the man you describe is not healthy but neither is the anorexic. So assuming malnutrition, stress and drug use play a bigger role in immune suppression than HIV why does the anorexic die of different illnesses?

    Oh and as for categories anorexia is not limited to white heterosexual girls.

  301. Michael Says:

    Laura, either you seem to be exceedingly naive, perhaps you need a little more vivid details of a homosexual having 100 or more sexual encounters with various std infections and ensuing repetitive antibiotics.

    Did the anorexic get f’ed by 100 or 200 other sex addicts with all of their various pathogens in the last 2 months?

    Has the anorexic been taking antibiotics for the last few months for all of the std’s?

    Is the anorexic a crystal meth addict with its well known effects of bodily wasting, rapid aging, and physical deterioration, and perhaps you need to research the effects of crystal meth?

  302. Truthseeker Says:

    Somehow, HIV is not irrelevant.

    The meme, McK, the meme.

    Short of a frontal lobotomy, this thing is probably a permanent inhabitant of your brain now. You could try reading the Times, as we say. You could practice your sharp queries on their reports, which beg so many questions that you should cripple the meme in short order.

    Other than that, may we suggest a bottle of high grade Cuernavaca tequila, Polish bison grass potato vodka, or Momokawa Diamond Premium Sake, Junmai Ginjo medium dry, accompanied by a dozen oysters and a very beautiful woman (or Brad Pitt, depending on taste)?

  303. Michael Says:

    Gee Chris, I guess Maver really flattened your tires. You are completely unable to even address it, and wish to completely change the subject again and hide under further obfuscation.

    Chris, your little 5 post screed and rant episode was cute, but as you have no willingness to successfully address or deconstruct Maver or anything else that is put in front of you, I have no further willingness to address you or your attemts to ignore the obvious.

    Or did you think you had the market cornered on ignoring peoples posts that you pretend to debate?

  304. Chris Noble Says:

    As you continually avoid addressing the points that I raise you are being somewhat hypocritical.

    You are the one that changed the subject by bringing up the Mavers article.

    The Mavers article is hardly revolutionary. He plays around with estimates that are just that estimates.

    We do have hard information. We have cohorts of haemphiliacs that have been followed for years. We know which ones are HIV+ and which ones are not. We know roughly when they became infected.

    HIV+ haemophiliacs developed AIDS. HIV- haemophiliacs did not.

    See Darby et al for details.

    The same is true for cohorts of homosexuals and drug users. Those that were HIV+ developed AIDS those who were not didn’t.

    People that focus on old estimates with large uncerntainties and ignore cohort studies with very hard data are being deceptive.

  305. Laura Says:

    Michael,
    Perhaps its true that I am a bit naive on homosexual origies. I must admit I have never been to one nor have gay friends of mine ever told me about them. So ya got me there.

    I am very well aware of the effects of crystal meth addiction meth mouth, wasting and all. I mean the stuff is made from cold medicine and drain cleaner for crying out loud I am not undermining the negative effects it has on health.However it is not unheard of people using crystal meth as a weight loss aid either. As well as cycling ECA stacks and clenbuterol, cocaine you name it if its an upper its good. To add insult to injury purging is hardly good for the teeth or digestive tract either.

    Please don’t get me wrong I am not suggesting that sex crazed meth fueled lifestyles are healthy and would not lead to serious illness. But taking away the HIV, are STD’s and antibiotic usage enough to cause significant immune suppression? Lots of people take lots of antibiotics and yes they get yeast infections but that is not immune suppresion.

    You also talk of shame do you honestly think that addiction and origies are unique to the gay lifestyle? Contrary to popular belief heterosexuals do some pretty nasty stuff too. Including things they are ashamed of and cause them deep emotional pain and self distruction. Anorexics are not immune. I don’t know if you look at Viva Lalohan and automatically assume that is typical its not. Eating disorders are real and people do some messed up stuff. Nor are they immune to promiscuity a lot of women in particular associate love with sex therefore they will do a lot to get approval. The anorexic personality would be prone to this because of the self-loathing and destructive behavior of the disorder.

    I will drop this because I guess you believe gays are the only ones who participate in self destructive behavior and are the only ones who have difficulties coping with there lifestyles and get addicted to crystal meth. I see it differently I’ve seen what meth can do. If you think I am naive for not blaming AIDs on gay lifestyles that is your opinion and you have every right to it.

    Good night I have got to stop blogging I am losing precious sleep by the moment.

  306. claus Says:

    Ok.CN, so you’ve demonstrated your companion compulsion to your Duesberg fixation, namely coming up with endless variations over a basic statistical example. But, Chris, I’ve already praised your grasp of this topic ok? Duesberg is completely refuted – you nailed him on that one, you really did. Now go have that ice cream and a well deserved feel clever moment.

    Also I’m sure I cannot find. . . wait better yet, I’m sure even Duesberg could find no fault with the pocket calculator used by the authors of the paper you’ve cited. That’s why I immediately conceded the 1.44 transmission rate which means an average of 1440 copulations before the battery runs out – an average, that’s average ok Chris. It doesn’t mean that everybody has to copulate at least 1000 (alternatively 834) times to transmit. Some people win on the first lottery ticket they buy, some people crash on their first plane trip – still very good point, Chris, and taken, very insightful, clever boy, don’t have to go over it again ok? – ok? Chris are you listening?

    Now one thing we do have to go over, I’m afraid, no way around it, is that y-o-u s-l-i-m-e-d y-o-u-r n-e-r-d-y l-i-t-t-l-e b-u-t-t o-u-t o-f a-n-s-w-e-r-i-n-g e-v-e-r-y s-i-n-g-le q-u-e-s-t-i-o-n once again. Oh yes you did, no denying it Chris. Not only is your butt nerdy, you’ve got less balls than Laura, because she immediately read the Maver article and commented on it, whereas you didn’t after being asked 6 times. It’s no use switiching once again now to ‘hard numbers’ haemophiliacs. We’ll take that very different issue in order, if you’re really sure you want to, doesn’t look like a winner to me. Or perhaps it wasn’t you at all who kept on ‘focussing on old estimates with large uncerntainties’. Should we go back and check? That ought to be a lotta fun.

    But for now, it really is your turn to answer a question, and I mean answer .

    So for the 7 time:

    Would you please and with sugar on top take whatever buggered number you’re comfortable with and explain the infamous HIV prevalence curve???!!!!

    Or better yet, in the words of Michael:

    I call your attention, and the rest of the blogosphere, one more time to the essay by Robert Maver that can ve read here, and ask that you please turn your considerable analytical abilities to deconstrcuting it because Maver is not Duesberg, the essay is brief, and unless you can, its conclusions must stand as fact and your beloved set of beliefs about HIV and the AIDS epidemic in the US go up in smoke.

    Thanks a bunch chris – and hey did I mention, good one about the airplane crash, topical too, really nailed old D there, have another ice cream.

  307. claus Says:

    Several strains of mice the world over have asked me to make sure your don’t bypass them as well in your sudden eagerness to get at the HARD facts:

    Taking your word for it, that we’re not all inbred mice, how do wild mice transmit retroviruses – could it be through 1:1000 sexual contacts, since they don’t share needles and the like?

  308. Truthseeker Says:

    Claus, we believe that you have forgotten the conditions with which discussion is proceeding or not proceeding here, which is that certain of the discussants are taken over a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers by the now notorious AIDS meme (patent taken out by NAR) which renders the response of even a brain which likes to think for itself entirely crippled, so that it can only make sideways movements like a crab, and move neither forward nor backward in discussion. As you can see, the recent 100 posts or so on this humungous thread demonstrate this phenomenon with complete clarity, which you have no doubt already noticed.

    We simply remind you of it because you seemed to evince a flash of impatience there for a moment, and we want to relieve you of even this momentary frustration. The AIDS meme renders all intellectual activity impossible except that which serves its interest, so it is simply unrealistic to expect any diferent outcome but reiteration of the same trivial and long ago exploded points.

    Only the medications we specified above have any chance of dislodging the meme from its victims brains and even then after treatment a long period of recovery is necessary, where the only activity allowed is the reading of Harvey Bialy’s book and Peter Duesberg’s Biosciences paper, although Inventing the AIDS Virus is permitted if the patient shows progress. In the early stages reading has to be accomplished by tracing each word along the page with the index finger and mouthing the word, as half of the brain’s function has fallen into such disuse that it cannot be hurried back into operation without permanent damage.

    It is important not to treat untreated victims with harsh words or jibes since this only embeds the meme even more securely in the frontal cortex. If possible an ambulance should be called and the victim transported as rapidly as possible to the New York Times which will debrief him or her and render the material in its front page coverage of HIV∫AIDS at the next opportunity.

    Only then can the appropriate alcoholic medication be taken, the dead meme removed and the process of recovery proceed.

  309. Chris Noble Says:

    That’s why I immediately conceded the 1.44 transmission rate which means an average of 1440 copulations before the battery runs out – an average, that’s average ok Chris.

    You still display absolutely zero evidence that you have comprehended anything I said.

    The figure that I quote, 1.44, is the basic reproduction number for HIV in the Rakai cohort.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number

    I am not sure whether your comment is meant to indicate irony or whether it is just mathematical ignorance.

    You continually ignore the essential conclusion that even with a transmission risk of approximately 1/1000 and 9 sexual contacts per month the HIV prevalence will increase.

    So there you have it. 9 sexual contacts per month is sufficient to sustain an epidemic. This is not an absurd number. It doesn’t involve any racist assumptions.

    Sexual transmission at a transmission risk of 1/1000 can sustain a HIV epidemic. Perinatal transmission at 25-50% can not.

  310. Claus Says:

    TS, I wonder, if CN’s obsession, Duesberg, had written this:

    Thus, of all positive teenagers 63% would have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.

    would he still have convulsions of stats rage?

    CN, yes that’s all very well, I see that the average (now don’t let that word ‘average’ throw you into yet another stat rage) life expectancy of someone infected with the deadly virus is appr. 10 years, which includeds all risks posed to his sexual abilities of any sort. Now to the questions please. . .

  311. Chris Noble Says:

    Thus, of all positive teenagers 63% would have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.

    This version is just as preposterous.

    Why don’t you use your brain?

    Are you seriously suggesting that 63% of the people that have died in airplane crashes must have achieved an absurd 1 million flights? This mathematically equivalent to what you are saying.

    Why, oh why, can’t you comprehend that Duesberg’s argument is completely and utterly fallacious?

    You can try dressing it up in a tuxedo but it’s still a turd.

    If you can’t understand the mathematics then ask someone that can. Remember to quote Duesberg’s exact words and not ask a different question like Michael.

  312. Claus Says:

    . . . and now to Maver.

  313. Claus Says:

    Oh sorry I didn’t notice that in your stat rage you were actually asking a question there:

    Are you seriously suggesting that 63% of the people that have died in airplane crashes must have achieved an absurd 1 million flights? This mathematically equivalent to what you are saying.

    No, math genius, but I am seriously suggesting, and so is Duesberg by the way, that ON AVERAGE it takes a whole lot of flights to kill any one passenger, even if its not the same passenger that boards those flights 1 million times in a row.

    But don’t let that stop you from embarrasing yourself, just remember to answer the Maver and the mice questions, as well in between your high mathematical circumlocutions.

  314. Michael Says:

    Laura,

    You said:

    I will drop this because I guess you believe gays are the only ones who participate in self destructive behavior and are the only ones who have difficulties coping with there lifestyles and get addicted to crystal meth.

    I do not believe that gays are the only ones. There are too many dis-similarities to compare anorexics to gays, particularly in the period from 1987 to 1997. It is apples and oranges. Gays have however, shared certain behaviors en masse, and regularly in the infamous bath house scene and s&m scenes. The HIV positives that avoided the orgy scene and avoided the poppers and meth did not deal with Kaposis Sarcoma or PCP. They may have dealt with other illnesses but not ks/pcp. Therefore, these issues had to have been related to their illnesses.

    In your wildest nightmare, I do not think you could imagine some of these drug/orgy behaviors that were common in the hedonistic 80’s and early 90’s. An entirre group of people were overtaken by mass hysteria and believed they were all going to die. It was a bit like watching lemmings follow each other off a cliff. This is all much lessened today in the community than it was 20 years ago. The one drug that was only used in the gay community was poppers. It was used often and by many. You could go into a gay bar, and the entire bar would reek of poppers. Every 3rd gay had it in their pocket. It was sold over the counter in bars, bathhouses, and sex shops that catered to gays. It was advertised in big full page ads in gay media. It is no wonder that KS was unique to gaydom and that PCP prevalence was high as well considering the damage done to ones lungs in using this. And remember, constant anal/oral sex is not the same as constant vaginal/oral sex, and is much more likely to spread pathogens of fungal, bacterial origin.

    You will also note that hiv+ hemophiliacs did not deal with the same illnesses as gays, and neither did hetero hiv+ drug users, and neither did African hiv+ heteros. The various diseases and illnesses that all of these supposed HIV infected groups were affected by, were completely different. All are completely explainable without HIV as even the HIV negatives get the same diseases in these groups.

    And lets top it all off with the fact that the western AIDS epidemic has gone all the way down to being practically insignificant once high dosage AZT use had ceased. The other HIV drugs and low dose AZT does it’s damage as well, but the illnesses today are also not the same in quantity or type of what was evidenced in from 1987 to 1997, the years of high dosage AZT.

  315. Dr. H.S. Bialy Says:

    I have been half-following this incredible discussion that resembles Borges’ Garden of the Forking Paths with considerable amusement, but think it is time expand a little on what I wrote much earlier regarding the SA Presidential Advisory Panel.

    When it was decided by a unanimous vote of the Panel to conduct the epidemiological experiment involving determining the antibody status of as many of the mothers of HIV ab positive military applicants as possible, the discussions leading up to this decision were quite extensive and covered all the points (and others) raised by the various discussants here — none of whom are entirely accurate in their various representations — and neither for that matter is Prof. Duesberg in the quotation that has been reproduced in various point-mutated forms more than a few times.

    Not to belabor any of them, and stripped of all the numbers, lottery, airline tickets and dice, let me cut to the chase and say that the Panel agreed with the following argument:

    It is not reasonable to think that the young men and women who test positive by the US Army have had the requisite, average number of sexual contacts required to have obtained their infection (assuming ab+ equates with infection) horizontally. If they have become ab+ through perinatal routes, this is another strong datum that says HIV is an ordinary, passenger retrovirus. Let us test this hypothesis in the obvious way by determining the ab status of the positve applicant’s mothers.

    Let me remind everyone that this Panel was composed of 2/3 mainstream, very prominent scientists and only 1/3 of so-called dissidents, of much much less prominence of course. Thus, one must not be quick to out of hand dismiss the reasoning or the experimental design because the insult is to the intelligence of Facui et al. and not Duesberg et al.

  316. nohivmeds Says:

    Given that the military database has been available for so long, it is rather sad that this study of the mothers proposed by Dr. Bialy has not yet taken place. Although there would remain questions on what the data means (as usual in this area), I think this study is an excellent idea, and couldn’t help to add to our meager knowledge on HIV. Again to reiterate — it should have taken place years ago. Excellent proposal on so many fronts.

  317. nohivmeds Says:

    apologies for typo:
    “couldn’t help BUT to add..”

  318. nohivmeds Says:

    Just to add one consideration: I have been an intense advocate for newer approaches to research on this issue both in print and on line. The establishment is constantly saying, “Well, we have over 200,000 studies in print that blah blah blah…” To that we say: Yes. We are aware of your over 200,000 articles — ALL proceeding from the same guiding assumption WHICH MAY INDEED BE WRONG! So of course, studies like the one Dr. Bialy proposes here are vital if our understanding of HIV is ever going to advance. And in a larger way, Dr. Bialy’s proposed study represents the newer and more varied and interesting direction that research on HIV must take for many if not all of the questions we debate here to find resolution. We do not need 200,000 more studies proceeding from the same underlying assumption. We need new studies with new assumptions.

  319. Truthseeker Says:

    The establishment is constantly saying, “Well, we have over 200,000 studies in print that blah blah blah…” To that we say: Yes. We are aware of your over 200,000 articles — ALL proceeding from the same guiding assumption WHICH MAY INDEED BE WRONG

    Exactly Mr Not. Which is precisely why no other studies will be undertaken, since they would immediately reveal what is already obvious, that HIV is not the governing factor in any of this, merely one very common signal that other insults to the system are or were present and have caused or will cause the immune dysfunction, namely drugs and inadequate nutrient supply and balance, plus already disease in poor regions.

    The same with the 20,000 papers and studies – in all trials in the HAART era, no subjects free of HAART have been included, since these would be very embarrassing to all right minded HIV∫AIDS folk, since they would undoubtedly show that HAART had no lasting beneficial effect, and plenty of damaging effects visible to all who take the stuff for long, and their doctors, who then advise drug “holidays”.

    But the death rate remains the same, as the recent study revealed. HAART kills. Dr Fauci is prepared to put up with this result, however, as long as Federal funds maintain his position and the immense drug trial operation in underdeveloped countries which carefully (or not as the case may be) pick out the fractionally better drugs in his toxic arsenal, so helpfully expanded by the drug companies whose interest appears to be purely financial.

    None of this would be happening without the AIDS meme which now has infected the minds of at least two distinguished contributors to this thread, and may yet infect the blogmaster, if only sufficient ready money is proffered.

  320. Michael Says:

    Hey TS,

    McK got his green border, I see. Only it was not around the comment he suggested, but around the one that to his surprise and our own became the key taking off point for this “Garden of the Forking Paths” thread that has now taken such fascinating and educational turns.

    I am referring of course to this comment and its reply:

    McKiernan (mail):

    Can anyone explain how Peter Duesberg decided he was correct in stating that Kimberly Bergalis was HIV + as a result of perinatal mother-child transfer at birth ? A decision he made after 21 year old Kimberly died,

    8.26.2006 11:45am

    (link)Michael David:

    McK,

    I for one would be delighted to explain this to you, but first you must explain to me with sufficient intelligibility to pass TS and Claus review, that you have the faintest understanding of the Duesberg et al. arguments underlying their persuasion that HIV (like all other retroviruses) relies on perinatal transmission for its survival.

    8.26.2006 12:25pm

    I think McK desrves some of CN’s ice cream cones as well.

  321. Michael Says:

    Thinking about the unperformed study of the SA Presidential Panel got me to thinking of a slightly different version that could “easily” be carried out IF those in charge of HIV/AIDS research funding had the real interests of scientific investigation and the health of the nation (if not the world) at heart, as they tell the lackeys of the media at every opportunity.

    Test 10-20,000, 10-12 year olds in the setting of their public schools. Determine the AB status of the mothers of any positive adolescents, and collect health history, etc. of mother and positive child.

    Such collections could be done with absolute minimal disruption to the normal school activities and also serve as a decent assurance that all the children were reasonably healthy.

    I can already hear the cries of privacy violations, too hard, etc from the quarters that can spend billions and invent the most complicated new tchnologies to do their “HIV/AIDS research” (as JP Moore likes to call what he does for a living).

    But it seems to lil ole, no degree me that the data from such a study would be very clean and be valuable in deciding whether HIV was a horizontally transmitted epidemic agent or a vertically transmitted endemic passenger in the general US population.

  322. nohivmeds Says:

    The school study is a nice idea — but given that the military database is already available, it would be much less expensive to carry out, since we already know which military men and women have tested positive, whereas in your school study, that would have to be determined.

  323. McKiernan Says:

    Michael,

    Obviously you cannot read straight. My requests were:

    1.
    McKiernan (mail):
    TS,

    A well earned green border please:

    “You have satisfactorily explained what you call the natural transmission AND have implicitly endorsed that hiv is blood-borne and transferable. ”
    8.27.2006 8:31pm

    2.
    McKiernan (mail):
    So where’s my emerald border for this comment to Michael David:

    “You have satisfactorily explained what you call the natural transmission AND have implicitly endorsed that hiv is blood-borne and transferable .”

    8.27.2006 8:31pm
    8.28.2006 5:11pm

    3.
    Michael David:

    and McK …as far as I am concerned you deserve green borders and gold stars around all your posts.
    8.28.2006 5:47pm

    McK got the green border if you look again. It took half the day to squeeze the information from Michael David. My user interface time was spent dialoguing with he. Secondly, it was pointed out that P. Duesberg has no direct information by which he is capable of determining that Ms. Bergalis was perinatally seropositive. So he is guessing on the only carefully recorded HIV seropositivity study in a dental surgery setting by NIH/CDC
    in which six patients were found to be hiv + after three patients died plus Dr. Acer. There is some science there to discuss. But you missed it and MD didn’t.

    PS

    HIV is blood-borne and transferable .

    Get it ?

  324. McKiernan Says:

    The school study is a nice idea…

    Michael seems to unaware of Informed Consent Law as well as
    HIPAA Privacy laws.

    On the other hand, even the feds are against hiv ‘lets test everyone laws’ for 10 and 11 year olds and their moms or dads.

    Michael’s idea is meritless and smacks too much of the “lets pin a yellow juden sign on the obviously genetically inferior”.

    Maybe there is some information from the military services on new active duty personnel that tested hiv negative on induction then became hiv seropositive during active duty. I can contribute one such statistic datum of a person that is currently deceased.

  325. nohivmeds Says:

    Mck is right. I was trying to be nice. The school study would never happen, not even in a somewhat more favorable environment about AIDS causation. Code of Federal REgulations 45 deals with the protection of human research subjects. Children are covered under a special subsection and are a highly protected class. This study would be rejected not because the saliva swab is too intrusive — but because of the serious negative effects of participating. What will we tell those 10 year olds who test positive? It clearly would never happen.

    The military samples does exist – and is owned by the Department of Defense. Every potential military recruit is indeed tested for HIV, becausee HIV ab+ is a screen out for military participation. The government would not just toss in the garbage the names of potential recruits who tested positive.

    The only real sample outside of DOD is the very obvious one — the mothers of gay HIV+ men. People will question this sample for reasons they cannot prove or verify, I know. That isn’t the point. Can be dealt with. The point is that this is the populations with the higest document seropositive individuals, and a goodly percentage, undoubtedly, could get their mothers to participate.

  326. Michael Says:

    McK

    Ever hear of confidentiality? I cannot imagine that the HIV/AIDS brain trust could not figure out a way to make such a study 100% confidential, and with none of the participants having any idea what was being tested when the swabs were taken, or even when the results came back. No yellow ribbons.

    Of course then the est. would scream, unethical, how can you NOT tell someone they are Ab+? Well I wonder if the US Army tells the failed recruits why it is they are failed and provideds conselling etc. I’m asking. I have no idea.

    AIDS is political as we ALL know and we all know what the terms of engagement are.

    2. Why were you so nasty to me just now? Here I was doing the nicest thing for you anyone has ever done on the internet and you turn around and not only bite me but post an extended string of nonsense that has nothing to do with Dr. Bialy’s post, which some of us find instructive.

  327. nohivmeds Says:

    Michael — sorry again. It is against the law (CFR 45) to engage in deceit in research unless that deceit is of no consequence to the individual participating. In this case, once again, another reason why the school study fails.

    No one can ever guarantee 100% confidentiality – one of the things you learn first in basic research training. Look at the laptop that was just stolen in Washington with all active service members’ personal information.

    I can’t comment on DOD procedures. It’s a good question. But if they are provided counseling, bet you we woulndn’t like it’s content that much.

    Your idea fails because of regular, run of the mill reseach concerns, not for political reasons. If the saliva swab was testing for Parkinson’s genes, it would fail too.

    Can’t claim politics when it’s not the problem. Sorry this is so. This is why I didn’t say anything initially.

  328. nohivmeds Says:

    And too bad you failed to comment on the other sample under discussion — evidence of some sort of bias or issue?

  329. nohivmeds Says:

    Anyway — if you feel a need to now throw ad hominem attacks at me, go ahead — I won’t be reading, so I won’t be responding, so now would be a good time to do your worse! I think I’ve said all I can on these issues.

  330. McKiernan Says:

    hivnomeds,

    You were fine. Sample two will fail I suspect on compliance, parental tension and logistics. A well thought out proposal may be your challenge.

    Michael,

    You did great on your reply to Laura. Your idea of experiments on 10-12 year olds is notably not noteworthy to understate the proposition.

    The only goal that McK had in the emboldened comment was to explain what he did, why and what went through his thinking during the exchanges. This commenting is a multi-user phenom with no uniformity in which no-one knows the others brain patterns except for the bobbleheads with entrenched views.

    I cannot defend your judgement re: nasty. It’s yours subjectively.

    Thank you.

  331. Chris Noble Says:

    H. Bialy writes:

    It is not reasonable to think that the young men and women who test positive by the US Army have had the requisite, average number of sexual contacts required to have obtained their infection (assuming ab+ equates with infection) horizontally. If they have become ab+ through perinatal routes, this is another strong datum that says HIV is an ordinary, passenger retrovirus. Let us test this hypothesis in the obvious way by determining the ab status of the positve applicant’s mothers.

    If you still maintain that there is a “requisite, average number of sexual contacts required to have obtained their infection” then you are displaying signs of mathematical incompetence. What is the requisite, average number of airplane flights required before someone can die in an airplane crash? Demonstrate your mathematical prowess or ask someone that can help.

    No amount of waffling can make Duesberg’s argument logical when the whole premise is fallacious.

    Let me remind everyone that this Panel was composed of 2/3 mainstream, very prominent scientists and only 1/3 of so-called dissidents, of much much less prominence of course. Thus, one must not be quick to out of hand dismiss the reasoning or the experimental design because the insult is to the intelligence of Facui et al. and not Duesberg et al.

    I strongly doubt that the mainstream members of the Panel found Duesberg’s arguments that the majority of HIV+ military recruits were perinatally infected in any way compelling. The proposed experiment is good because it could directly falsify Duesberg’s claim that these military recruits were perinatally infected.

    Several people have already explained why such an experiment is unlikely to ever occur.

    I have proposed a second experiment which could be done independently from the CDC or the military. You can stop demanding that other people prove you wrong and do some experiments of your own.

    In the vast and evergrowing number of HIV rethinkers find a sufficient number of HIV+ individuals that can get their mothers to undergo testing for HIV antibodies. Use anonymous testing. If possible keep everybody blinded to the identity of the individuals until the data is analysed.

    Before conducting the experiment state your hypothesis clearly. What percentage of HIV+ adults in the US (or other country) are infected with HIV perinatally. 50%? 10%? 5%? 1%? 0.5% …?

    Actually you can answer the last question right now.
    What percentage of HIV+ adults in the US (or other country) are infected with HIV perinatally. 50%? 10%? 5%? 1%? 0.5% …?

    Why not state what your hypothesis is right now?

  332. Laura Says:

    Michael,

    Ok maybe it was not a valid comparison I am dropping it.
    That still doesn’t prove to me that HIV (the innocent passenger virus) cannot become pathogenic under certain conditions as other viruses have been shown to do such as JCV and CMV. So until science can rid the world of herpes viruses (thru drugs or vaccines) I cannot totally disregard the AIDs paradigm.
    Hopefully I am wrong.

  333. Claus Says:

    CN,
    Are you feeling quite well.? I mean you only mentioned Duesberg twice in that last post.

    Must be because you’re busy working on Maver and the mice.

    Oh and by the way that airplane crash thing, – did remember to tell you, how clever that one is. Boy you nailed Michael with that one, got him even better than Duesberg. How was it again, did you come up with it all by yourself? Well done!
    Now why don’t you all by yourself work out the odds of dying in an airplane crash. and while you’re at it, why don’t you work out the odds of catching HIV from random sexual encounters with Americans. If you come first you’ll have shown that your pocket calculator is faster than Michael’s, which means your mathematical prowess much be greater, which means another ice cream for you.

    But although, I’m sure this must be really, really exciting, don’t forget Maver and the mice now.

  334. nohivmeds Says:

    Okay, I don’t know CN, so I have no stake in the pettiness. So I’ll clarify.

    There is no requisite number of exposures necessary. We covered this when we covered odds ratios. Many people do not understand odds ratios, including scientists. It seems to me that you’ve repeated that point enough now (as have I in numerous places).

    My proposed study of gay HIV+ men and their mothers could shed light on the question of any perinatal transmission, as I think CN has concurred. In fact, it is the only study we have discussed that can, besides the DOD study, which will never happen.

    No one need hypothesize a % for that transmission, CN, as the study would be entirely exploratory in nature, never having been done before. ALL the gay men recruited would be HIV+, so — DUH — it wouldnt’ be double-blinded. Plus, CN, it is quasi-experimental in design — assuming you understand that, then you understand how silly your demand for a “double blinded” study is.

    This would appear to me to wrap up this issue and hopefully this thread.

  335. nohivmeds Says:

    For those still confused about “requisite” numbers — in his 1991 paper, PD incorrectly used the odds ratio of 1 in 1000 transmission opportunities by saying it “required” at least 1000 transmission opporunities. This was wrong, and I have discussed it with him, and he has concurred. 1000 is the AVERAGE number of transmission opportunities necessary, not the requisite number. This means that it could take over 1000 transmission opportunities or less than 1000 transmission opportunties. But 1000 is the AVERAGE. Everyone knows, I assume, what an AVERAGE is.

  336. Chris Noble Says:

    There is no requisite number of exposures necessary. We covered this when we covered odds ratios. Many people do not understand odds ratios, including scientists. It seems to me that you’ve repeated that point enough now (as have I in numerous places).

    The problem is that numerous people keep on insisting that in some form Duesberg’s argument is valid. It isn’t.

    What is the point in continuing if people will not admit to a simple mathematical flaw?

    No one need hypothesize a % for that transmission, CN, as the study would be entirely exploratory in nature, never having been done before. ALL the gay men recruited would be HIV+, so — DUH — it wouldnt’ be double-blinded. Plus, CN, it is quasi-experimental in design — assuming you understand that, then you understand how silly your demand for a “double blinded” study is.

    Duesberg argues that HIV depends on perinatal transmission for survival. It would be honest if he stated in clear terms what percentage of HIV+ people in the US have been infected perintatally and also what percentage would be consistent with his theory.

    Duesberg’s articles are unclear and in places contradictory about this issue.

    The way that I proposed the experiment involved each HIV+ person getting their mother anonymously tested for HIV. This would present little or no cost to Bialy. Everybody could just send the results to him. It would be better if both the HIV+ and the mother were unaware of the results at this stage to prevent any possible bias in the reporting. Just have the results delivered straight to Bialy.

    If you can design a more rigorous experiment and get funding then that would be great.

    I’m all for it. It’s an experiment that could falsify at least a part of Duesberg’s theory and can be potentially performed at low cost and independently from the CDC etc.

    Go for it. It sure beats whingeing about being censored and not getting funding etc

  337. nohivmeds Says:

    CN, I assume you have now read my post on average and requisite numbers — so, DROP IT!!! End of story.

    And this is unethical:
    The way that I proposed the experiment involved each HIV+ person getting their mother anonymously tested for HIV. This would present little or no cost to Bialy. Everybody could just send the results to him. It would be better if both the HIV+ and the mother were unaware of the results at this stage to prevent any possible bias in the reporting. Just have the results delivered straight to Bialy.

    You cannot withhold the results of these tests, number one, and number two Chris, since THIS IS NOT AN EXPERIMENT is does not require any blinding!

    Plus – all you’ve written is a reiteration of my proposed study without the word “gay” inserted — so you’re not just a fool, but also a theif. Now I understand why everyone is complaining about you.

    In any case — we now agree. No requisite number. Test moms of (gay) HIV+ individuals and provide them with those results (as the law requires), and then we will have a QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL study on the issue.

    NOW DROP IT.

  338. Chris Noble Says:

    For those still confused about “requisite” numbers — in his 1991 paper, PD incorrectly used the odds ratio of 1 in 1000 transmission opportunities by saying it “required” at least 1000 transmission opporunities. This was wrong, and I have discussed it with him, and he has concurred. 1000 is the AVERAGE number of transmission opportunities necessary, not the requisite number. This means that it could take over 1000 transmission opportunities or less than 1000 transmission opportunties. But 1000 is the AVERAGE. Everyone knows, I assume, what an AVERAGE is.

    You are still confused!

    I have explained this in infinite detail.

    People that die in airplane crashes do not take an AVERAGE of 1 million flights.

    Are you really still claiming that some people that have died in airplane crashes take 600,000 flights and some take 1,400,000 flights but it all averages out to 1 million?

    I asked people this question before and I’ll ask it again. If the risk of dying in an airplane crash is 1 in a million what is the AVERAGE number of flights necessary to achieve this?

    Take everybody that has died in a commercial airplane flight in the past 25 years. What do you think the average number of flights per person was? 1 million? A lot less?

  339. Chris Noble Says:

    Plus – all you’ve written is a reiteration of my proposed study without the word “gay” inserted — so you’re not just a fool, but also a theif. Now I understand why everyone is complaining about you.

    How naughty of me to steal your idea 3 days ago.

    http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1155530746.shtml#1483

    On the other hand you have convinced me that withholding test results until after analysis would indeed be unethical. You’re correct on that issue.

    I also agree that it is not necessary to specify a requisite percentgae before the study.

    It would however be honest for Duesberg to state his hypothesis clearly so that if the results aren’t amenable to his theory he can’t change his mind afterwards about what his theory predicts.

  340. nohivmeds Says:

    CN WROTE:

    On the other hand you have convinced me that withholding test results until after analysis would indeed be unethical. You’re correct on that issue.

    I also agree that it is not necessary to specify a requisite percentage before the study.

    FANTASTIC, CN. Now I sincerely hope we can move on. Because I think I speak for everyone when I say that you are boring us literally not just to tears, but to death with your insane repetitiveness and need for validation. I’m sure I’m not the first to tell you this, CN, but you will find no validation for your whining here.

    NOW — is there something totally differen that someone would like to discuss? or shall we spend the rest of our blimey lives on this ridiculous not-so-merry-go-round with our friend, CN (who really needs some new material at this point).

  341. Claus Says:

    Forget it NHM, I have tried. The word ‘average’ is several syllables too long for our friend. But I trust you know CN well enough by now to have acquired a ‘stake in the pettiness’. So I repeat, if you want to stay pure and above all the pettiness, forget this one.

  342. Michael Says:

    Mr. Noble (not),

    Your continued impertinence and the disrespect you show to your elders (even if you do not think them your betters), and your one time too many deflections to try and make people think that 2 and 2 is not 4 by playing games with simple statistics has gotten you your wish.

    Here is the estimate math whiz. Deal with it.

    The chance of contracting HIV from a random sexual contact in the US is app. 1/1000 x 250.

    The army tested 5 million applicants between 85-2000.

    The expected number of positives is approximately 15.

    They found app. 5000.

    Therefore the .25% prevalence in the US is due overwhelmingly to perinatal transmission, and HIV cannot be a fatally pathogenic retrovirus.

  343. Dr. H.S. Bialy Says:

    Michael,

    That was a good try for a non-expert, and I do thank you for the gentle rebuke of Mr. Noble’s manners. However, I am afraid that he will be able to “deal with” what you have written at great length and to no purpose other than to demonstrate that you are not as mathematically sophisticated as himself. The problem is, unfortunately, not quite as simple as you stated it, even if we allow for the typo of 250 instead of 1/250.

    But my point in returning to this interminable, forking path is not to do what Noble I am sure will be itching to do whenever he wakes up, but to call attention to something much more profound that you have uncovered in your brave attempt to make sense out of epidemiological nonsense.

    GIGO, I believe is the term.

    There is a basic disconnect between the only two decent numbers you had to deal with – the CDC 1 in 250 estimate, and the 5000 out of 5 million finding of the Walter Reed study. They do NOT match by a factor of 4!

    Neither I nor anyone else can tell you why a priori .

    It is impossible to draw any proper conclusions from data like this. As with so much else in “HIV/AIDS research”, the epidemiology is loaded with contradictions that are never even acknowledged, much less resolved.

    The best way of determining the perinatal transmission rate of HIV in the US is to perform the Army applicant study that the Panel unanimously agreed upon six years ago.

    I used to think that was what biological science was — good faith testing of hypotheses.

  344. Michael Says:

    Dr. Bialy, I thank you for your stating of the overwhelming and obvious discrepancies of facts that put the entire issue to bed. It is obviously not possible to base any kind of ultimate settlement on the numbers provided. They simply do not add up, and therefore something is blatantly wrong in the original suppositions.

    Chris, I ask you this. How is it, that this supposedly neverending mutating virus, that is claimed to mutate into billions and billions of never ending various mutations, even within the body of the supposedly infected, could ever be found today by looking for the same proteins as are attributed to it for 23 years?

    Chris, on second thought, never mind. Pleeeeeeease do not answer this, as we all know it is a sheer impossibility.

    If HIV were any kind of mutating genius of a virus, as is claimed and attributed to it, HIV would have mutated way beyond the very same proteins that were looked for 23 years ago. And it would have done it long ago!

  345. Michael Says:

    Let me add one other thought. Although it seems like this entire discussion (sic) of perinatal vs sexual transmission has been a tar baby, that is actually not so at all.

    One very good piece of PRACTICAL advice has emerged.

    Anybody who receives a positive anitbody test should demand that their mother be tested as well.

  346. Dan Says:

    …which brings me back to my frustration in this thread…

    Michael, are you saying that the HIV tests are reliable?

    I say not. So the issues of perinatal and sexual transmission are bogus.

  347. Michael Says:

    Based on the way my gedanken involving the 12 year olds was misdirected yesterday, let me make it abundantly clear that the recipient of the antibody positive “yellow star” hopes very much that his/her mother is also branded so they can say to her, as they both laugh uproariously, “Gee mom, you’ve had AIDS all these years and we never knew. What a world!”

  348. Dan Says:

    Michael,

    Truthseeker tals about the “AIDS” meme quite a bit. I think it’s an extremely important part of the equation.

    Maybe I’m just too jaded by 20-some years of this nonsense, but I don’t think the perinatal angle will do anything to counter the effects of the meme. I think it reinforces the meme. The most important keywords are still front and center: HIV, AIDS, infection. These are still the most powerful, gravitating words/acronyms in the AIDS religion.

  349. Michael Says:

    Dan,

    Not to brag, but it was me who first introduced a BOLD AIDS MEME into this discussion way above. TS picked up on it.

    And it was you who wrote so smartly above as well that one had to separate at times the realities and unrealities of the so-called tests for purposes of thinking.

    It seems to me that an excellent way for someone to break free of the meme if they are unfortunate enough to be branded is to take the suggestion with the hoped for outcome. Because then the meme collapses for them in a very real and personal way that will withstand any witch doctor.

  350. Michael Says:

    And Dan,

    Let me clarify a bit what you wrote about the key words. It is not infection per se that is the fearsome trigger, it is “infection with the deadly virus”. The + child/+ mother couplet wipes that out. Yes?

  351. Dan Says:

    Michael,
    I agree that that sounds very convincing on a personal level. And maybe this thing will be dismantled one unfortunately-branded person at a time. I think it isn’t convincing on a larger scale, as we’ve seen how much can fly right past the rational mind with just a few choice keywords or phrases.

    I apologize for being pushy earlier, and for not seeing others practicing exactly what I had mentioned (and then failed to do myself).

  352. Truthseeker Says:

    Not to brag, but it was me who first introduced a BOLD AIDS MEME into this discussion way above. TS picked up on it.

    Silly, if this is a suggestion of priority. We have had a shy AIDS meme around the office for years.

  353. Truthseeker Says:

    Tarbaby or not, this discussion has revealed a basic rather large inconsistency in the paradigm, one which is worth adding to the collection.

    However, the population of the US is now 300,000,000. So perhaps we have to correct the statement as follow:

    Here is the estimate math whiz. Deal with it.

    The chance of contracting HIV from a random sexual contact in the US is app. 1/1000 x 300 assuming the CDC estimate of 1,000,000 positives is correct.

    The army tested 5 million applicants between 85-2000.

    The expected number of positives is approximately 16.

    They found app. 5000.

    Therefore the .30% prevalence in the US is due overwhelmingly to perinatal transmission, and HIV cannot be a fatally pathogenic retrovirus.

    5,000 in 5 million is 300,000 in 300 million, by the way, so the CDC estimate should be corrected to 300,000 in the general population.

    That makes the chance of contracting HIV from a random sexual contact in the US app. 1/1000 x 300 x 0.3 which means app. 1 in 900,000.

    Allowing for imprecision of tests etc we could say that the chance of woman contracting the dread Virus from a man is demonstrated by the hard evidence of the US Army tests to be one in a million. The chance of a man contracting it from a woman is 1 in 9 million.

    Thank you Chris for bringing this to our attention. Even if the Virus is harmful, a claim for which there is now no hard evidence whatsoever, one should hardly be in a panic over one contact.

    The meme kills, not the Virus.

  354. Truthseeker Says:

    You were most courteously forwarded a copy of the same information from the professional mathematician that several other people were.

    Perhaps you would like courteously to send us a copy of this?

    Also, please everybody make any corrections of fact or sense to NAR posts in comments, rather than by emailing us, and be sure to include reasons and explanations.

  355. Dr. H.S. Bialy Says:

    Mr. TS,

    In what I sincerely hoped would be my very last comment to this now, overly long thread, which I would have thought you would have carefully read, you should have taken note that while I commended Michael for his try, his analysis was not quite as devastating as he thought.

    I further indicated that I was not interested in becoming Mr. Noble and making him feel stupid for this, and went on to point out the real inconsistency that is demonstrated by the *most recent* US Army figures and the CDC estimates of HIV prevalence, and also what that inconsistency implied about AIDS epidemiology.

    However, since you have insisted for reasons that escape me totally, to pursue his analysis using more recent census figures, let me point out that the 5000 number is the result of an unknown number of contacts not one.

    How many, unprotected contacts does an American youth have between the ages of 14 and 25? If the number is around 300, the expected and the found are not so different are they?

    What we know for sure is that “catching an antibody” from sex is so unlikely that Padian could not document a single occurrance in her famous study. To try and extend this to assuaging fears that most no longer have by resorting to flawed, quasi-mathematical analyses is another memic version of pulling wool over people’s eyes and not opening them to your beloved truth.

  356. Truthseeker Says:

    Wait, is this correct?

    Here is the estimate math whiz. Deal with it.

    The chance of contracting HIV from a random sexual contact in the US is app. 1/1000 x 300 assuming the CDC estimate of 1,000,000 positives is correct.

    The army tested 5 million applicants between 85-2000.

    The expected number of positives is approximately 16.

    Why is it 16? It’s not 16. 1/300 of 5 million would be 16,666.

    Maybe the 1 million estimate of the CDC is wrong, as above, and it should be 300,000. That’s 1 in 1000 people positive in the US.

    So a corrected CDC estimate of 300,000 in 300,000,000 would yield 1/1000 of 5,000,000 which would be 5000.

    Which is what the Army got. 5000.

    Where do you get your 15 as in The expected number of positives is approximately 15. ?

    Presumably you mean that 1/1000 x 1/300 (250 originally for you) x 5 million = 13 (20).

    But that seems to be an incorrect approach. That is the chance of one individual converting through sex with a random contact – 13 in 5 million.

    The number of positives expected would be 5000 if the number in the total population was 300,000. If it really was 1 million then it would yield 16,666.

    The consistent picture is the Army finding of 5000, with 300,000 in the total population, with a chance of 1.3 in 500,000, or app. 1 in 370,000 of converting from a random heterosexual contact with a man.

    Therefore perinatal transmission still has to be the overwhelming factor in transmission.

  357. Truthseeker Says:

    However, since you have insisted for reasons that escape me totally, to pursue his analysis using more recent census figures, let me point out that the 5000 number is the result of an unknown number of contacts not one.

    The post corrects for the size of the US population, otherwise it follows your – oops, Michaels – analysis. Oh sorry, you do think it too crude.

    Michael does appear to have made a prominent mistake in the line about the expectations we have for the Army outcome, though. However, it makes no difference to the general point. It just means that the striking reason was faulty.

    Why Michael did you write an expected Army number of 15?

    Perhaps Dr H. S. you could forward the mathematician’s email to us also, as requested, so that we too can check where the errors lie.

  358. Truthseeker Says:

    Sorry, the above comment merged different distinguished posters (would be easier if people consistently used their proper names, rather than mixed actual names with inventions, which seems purposeless).

    There is a basic disconnect between the only two decent numbers you had to deal with – the CDC 1 in 250 estimate, and the 5000 out of 5 million finding of the Walter Reed study. They do NOT match by a factor of 4!

    Neither I nor anyone else can tell you why a priori.

    But these are reconciled if the CDC very rough guesstimate for the US is reduced to 300,000. Whatever the tests react to, that is the Army study result, which has to be taken as gospel.

    So Michael, are we correct about your reason for the 15, and for rejecting it?

    Harvey, if it was you who drew on the math guy, kindly send us a copy.

  359. Darin Says:

    The excellent suggestion of Michael above has been taken up at the AIDSWIKI here.

    I think it redirects this conversation back to its starting point and energizes it by virtue of a special topological property of “Gordian Knot” manifolds known as translational isomorphic enhancement. 🙂

  360. Dr. H.S. Bialy Says:

    Mr. TS,

    I for one would be a little cautious in reducing the size of the “US epidemic” by a factor of three so quickly and with such religious fervor:

    Whatever the tests react to, that is the Army study result, which has to be taken as gospel.

    The 0.8/1000 Walter Reed 15 year average prevalence estimate, btw, has been presented on this thread several times, and one might have thought you would have pounced on this dramatic point earlier.

    Have you actually read the paper, or are you plunging along like this, with your most peculiar way of calculating odds ratios, based on an abstract that was quoted here earlier?

    Have you not yet noticed that the number of contacts is very important in deciding what the expected mean might be in a large trial with big odds against?

    But as I wrote above, the disconnect is a very serious one, making any attempt at simple quantitative approximation of any of the relevant numeric parameters impossible, and cannot be explained a priori .

    This is one reason we do experiments, or used to anyway.

    I suggest you check the link Dr. Brown just provided and leave this tendentious, and dangerous, fork in the path alone.

  361. Chris Noble Says:

    Here is the estimate math whiz. Deal with it.

    The chance of contracting HIV from a random sexual contact in the US is app. 1/1000 x 250.

    The army tested 5 million applicants between 85-2000.

    The expected number of positives is approximately 15.

    The most amazing thing is that Darin, the maths professor, chose not to correct you. Apparently stupid maths from “rethinkers” is OK.

    Actually I see Bialy did correct him “let me point out that the 5000 number is the result of an unknown number of contacts not one” but didn’t really explain himself that well.

    Your brilliant calculation is for the expected number of seroconversions if each applicant had had sex exactly once and once only in their life. Even then you get the calculation wrong.

    Why do people that obviously have little skill in mathematics continue to pretend that they do?

    The correct way of phrasing the problem is to ask what would be the average number of random sexual contacts necessary before the expected number of seroconversions reachs 5000 or in other words a prevalence rate of 0.001.

    The answer is log(1-0.001)/log(1-1/250000) = 250.12

    The prevalence rate for the 17-19 age group was 0.00026

    log(1-0.00026)/log(1-1/250000) = 65.008

    That’s somewhat less than Duesberg’s funky 250,000

    Duesberg’s maths are just plain wrong. They illustrate a perfect example of a mathematical fallacy.

    Neither Harvey nor Darin are forthcoming in admitting this although they both apparently are aware of it.

  362. Chris Noble Says:

    The excellent suggestion of Michael above has been taken up at the AIDSWIKI here.

    I think it redirects this conversation back to its starting point and energizes it by virtue of a special topological property of “Gordian Knot” manifolds known as translational isomorphic enhancement. 🙂

    Well to be pedantic I was the one to make the “excellent suggestion”.

    http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1155530746.shtml#1483

    Your version has one feature that I specifically tried to avoid.

    You ask people that are HIV+ to respond if and only if ther mother is also HIV+. That precludes any hope of determining the percentage of HIV+ that have HIV+ mothers.

    Why not get all HIV+ that can get their mothers tested to send their results in?

  363. Chris Noble Says:

    There is a basic disconnect between the only two decent numbers you had to deal with – the CDC 1 in 250 estimate, and the 5000 out of 5 million finding of the Walter Reed study. They do NOT match by a factor of 4!

    Neither I nor anyone else can tell you why a priori.

    Why do you pretend this is a problem?

    There is absolutely no reason for the prevalence in army recruits to be the same as the average prevalence for the total population.

    The majority of people infected with HIV are in risk groups such as homosexual men and injecting drug users. These groups are underrepresented in army recruits.

  364. McKiernan Says:

    Lets see if I got this right:

    Michael had a brilliant suggestion to have school nurses drawn blood from 10 years at school secretly in a government sponsored confidential hiv seropositivity program, then go get mom tested.

    That was found ever so slightly deficient as a real science project because of violation in law, Informed Consent protocols, HIPAA Privacy Rules, child experimentation, unethical conduct and violation of CFR 45.

    Next, Darin , Michael, recommends a “a special topological property of “Gordian Knot” manifolds known as translational isomorphic enhancement” survey, poll if you will whereby all hiv+’s are going to call up mom and have her tested, then send the results in:

    a. to Larry King, the NYT, BarnesWorld

    b. to wiki-wackie website that will provide free “mom is
    positive and so am I, badges.

    c. Now since there are 300,000 hiv+’s, it has been decided
    there will in fact be a charge for the ‘Mom is Poz’
    badge. The new offer will be $ 3.99 and you will receive
    in a brown unlabeled envelope as many as 5 ‘Mom is Poz’
    badges for your friends whether or not they call mom for
    the test.

    This is called science by blogosphere.

    How could that go wrong ?

    By the way, on this very thread it was agreed that hiv is a
    blood-borne pathogen and transferable.

    Update:

    A mexican hispanic company has offered to make the badges dirt cheap. Thank God for NAFTA. We are now able to offer the badges for only $ 2.99 plus 10 free badges for your hiv+ friends whether or not of course they call mom for the test.

    Sorry for the interruption, Chris

  365. Chris Noble Says:

    How many, unprotected contacts does an American youth have between the ages of 14 and 25? If the number is around 300, the expected and the found are not so different are they?

    I take it from this quote that Bialy has managed to consult somebody that has mathematical qualifications.

    Bialy knows that Duesberg’s argument even with the inclusion of the word ‘average’ is totally and utterly false.

    Why doesn’t Bialy admit this?

    Here we have Duesberg and Bialy’s lay audience refusing to admit that Duesberg has made a mistake. Are they doing this because they have any mathematical ability. No, they have a blind faith in Duesberg.

  366. Michael Says:

    Hello All.

    I finally figured out why not a real Doctor, Dr. Chris Noble, who seems to pretend to know all and be all in the biological world of retroviruses, twists and turns any statistics into anything he wants.

    Chris, you are not even worthy of mopping the floor of brilliant men such as National Academy of Science Member Dr. Peter Duesberg.

    Turns out dear Chris does NOT know anything of biology whatsoever. Turns out he is just a nitwit assistant professor statistician at Bond University and has absolutely no background in biology at all!

    PS: Love the picture of you Chris, if I was only a chubby chaser!

    Dr?? Christopher Noble
    BSc (Syd), BE (Syd), PhD (NSW)

    Assistant Professor of Statistics

    Background
    I was formerly an Education Research Specialist at the Texas Education Agency, Austin, Texas, USA. Prior to that I was an Assistant Professor at James Cook University, and at The University of Texas at Austin. I also worked at the University of NSW and at NSW Department of public works in structural design.

    Expertise
    Applied probability and statistics, multiple regression, multivariate analysis, Bayesian decision analysis, education measurement-item response theory, sampling and survey design and analysis.
    Research Interests
    Logistic Regression Models for Handicapping, Hierarchical Linear Modelling, Randomness Testing in Keno, Test Scaling and Equating, Use of Statistical Packages in Education.
    Publications
    Full List of Publications

    Teaching
    Business Statistics, Introduction to Statistics for Psychology, Discrete Mathematics, Statistical Modelling, Multivariate Analysis.

    Contact Email: chris_noble@staff.bond.edu.au
    Phone:
    Fax: (07) 5595 3322, +61 7 5595 3322
    (07) 5595 3320, +61 7 5595 3320
    Post: School of Information Technology
    Faculty of Business
    Bond University
    Gold Coast, Queensland, 4229, AUSTRALIA

  367. Michael Says:

    Hey Chris,

    Actually, I am more interested in your paper on winning KENO jackpots, than what you have to tell us about HIV. Any suggestions for winning strategies?

    SUGDEN, S.J., NOBLE, C.S. and McMAHON, G.B. “Keno Jackpots and Randomness: A Consulting Report for Jupiter’s Network Gaming”, 13 February 1998.

  368. Chris Noble Says:

    Michael,
    Do you have any comments whatsoever that deal with the mathematics rather than the personalities?

    Launching into ad hominem attacks is a sure sign that you have totally lost it.

    You’ve already falsly accused me of stealing your idea when I had already suggested it several days ago.

    No apology?

  369. Michael Says:

    The Keno Kid is back! Hello Chris!

    I have no intention of dueling with statistics that we all know can be manipulated when it is based on incomplete and probably faulted information to begin with.

    Congratulations on your bright idea of several days ago.

    Now to the important stuff.

    How do I win that KENO Jackpot?

  370. Dan Says:

    Chris,
    I’ve been under the mistaken assumption all this time that you were an MD.

    What’s your stake in this? Why are you so hellbent at helping to maintain this hateful, murderous paradigm?

  371. Chris Noble Says:

    Chris,
    I’ve been under the mistaken assumption all this time that you were an MD.

    What’s your stake in this? Why are you so hellbent at helping to maintain this hateful, murderous paradigm?

    I have never claimed or implied that I was an MD or anything else.

    I was under the impression that the science was important rather than the scientist.

    What’s Duesberg’s stake in this? Both of us are upset about people dying.

    I don’t think that Duesberg is evil, hateful or murderous. However, his pseudoscience has the potential to result in the deaths of millions of people.

  372. Dan Says:

    Chris,
    funny how when I ask a question about you, you turn the conversation to Duesberg.

    I think I got my answer.

  373. Chris Noble Says:

    Dan.

    You asked a loaded question.

    Why are you so hellbent at helping to maintain this hateful, murderous paradigm?

    I have the decency not to ask Duesberg why he is pursuing hateful, murderous Denialism. I believe that Duesberg sinserely believes that he is attempting to save peoples lives. I also believe he is completely wrong.

    Why is that “rethinkers” avoid the science and attack the people?

  374. Michael Says:

    Hey Chris.

    Why do you do the same to the “rethinkers”?

  375. Dan Says:

    Chris,
    I apologize. I should’ve asked you why you’re so hellbent on helping to maintain this paradigm. Yes, I think it’s a hateful, murderous paradigm, but I didn’t need to state it that way.

    But…once again…! It’s about Duesberg for you.

  376. Chris Noble Says:

    Why do you do the same to the “rethinkers”?

    I’m not.

    I am attacking Duesberg’s arguments and not Duesberg the person.

    Duesberg’s argument about needing 250,000 random sexual contacts to seroconvert is simply wrong. It is a classic example of a mathematical fallacy.

    I have also pointed out the weaknesses of some of his other arguments. Take the example of seroprevalence increasing sharply at exactly the age in which people become sexually active. Duesberg somehow dresses this up as evidence for more perinatal transmission. How?

    Look up the definitions of ad hominem

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

  377. Michael Says:

    Actually Chris, many of us “rethinkers” have had near death experiences with the toxic drugs, or had dear friends perish that were healthy before taking the drugs and became ill and/or lost their lives after getting on them. Some of us have had our lovers test positive and had our very lives at threat by the paradigm, and some had our lovers waste away or die before being gotten out from under the belief and the poisons they were taking.

    Being with a group called HEAL for several years, has afforded me the personal opportunity as well to know a boatload of people who do not take the drugs or took them until they realized how toxic they were, or never took them and stayed healthy for often more than 20 years. I have heard personal horror story after horror story directly from people who were caught up in the belief in HIV and poisoned by the drugs until they broke free of it all. Two of them have been in my employ for 5 years. I also deal with mothers that have been threatened with the state taking their kids from them if they did not give the kid these toxic AIDS drugs.

    Three years ago, a scraggly ghost grey near to death person, who could barely hobble across the road, took 5 minutes to cross in front of my vehicle. I met him later that evening at a nearby coffee house. He had wandered out of an “AIDS Hostel” where they had him on about 15 drugs. ARV’s, antidepressants, cocktail including AZT, and a bunch of pills for all of the side effects. One year prior, his doctor told him he had a year to live. I talked to him about the rethinker arguments and he decided he wanted to get off the drugs. I took him into my home, nursed and fed and clothed and looked after him, including getting his intestinal parasites and candida under control which was causing him constant diarhea, and I made sure he got exercise, food, and whatever he needed. After 6 months off of the drugs, I helped him to get set up in his own apartment. Although he still has a lot of dementia (probably from the azt, although maybe from his own earlier drug abuse), and he still needs someone to come in and help him take care of himself, he is now three fucking years off of the drugs and doing well, considering he was also suffering from near total wasting and lipodystrophy.

    Today he is a shining example to his former HIV advocating doctors and HIV/AIDS caretakers of how someone can go even to that extreme of knocking on deaths door, and come back to life once they get off the poisons!

    So please do tell me Chris, just what is your trip? Because buddy, if I ever crossed paths with you, well, God help you, somebody would probably need to hold me back. Just what the F is it you think you know more than I do about the realities of rethinking Chris, and just what is it that you are so f’ing sure of, there, Mr. Keno?

    Do tell me Chris, just who your fat ass has taken in and brought back from deaths door.

  378. Truthseeker Says:

    So Chris Noble is educated in statistics, and actually teaches it? Apologies to all, we were under the impression he was a valiant amateur, given his muddy explications to date. Well, Chris, since you spend your time in that corner of the minor university world, why can’t you set us straight on the question we asked originally? What rate of HIV transmission MTC in a population is necessary to maintain its prevalence at a constant level?

    Special note to Harvey Bialy: Thank you for your capitalized, insulting email, but you seem to miss the point of this blog, which is to explain and elucidate, in the simplest and most accessible way, what sense can be made out of the mainstream literature on HIV∫AIDS and what is inconsistent or wrong, and in the process all assumptions and claims the mainstream lit makes are first accepted on a provisional basis before being shown to be invalid or impossible.

    The point of a Comment thread as far as NAR is concerned is to help reach this more accurate picture by exposing the false interpretations and claims of the paradigm promoters and substituting corrections, so that readers who test positive can deal their AIDS meme infected doctors and other health providers on an informed basis.

    Your whiplash insults are amusing in Comments and therefore bordered in green but your explications are no better than the ones you decry, so until you make your posts clearer and more useful in clarifying the picture, we can only urge you to be more generous in responding to the fundamental aim.

    The first thing you might do is to have the decency to forward the contribution of your pet mathematician to us as well as others, since you mention it here without presenting its results clearly enough for many readers to understand, and have been asked three times so far to do so without result.

    Thank you for the special effort it will cost you.

    Alternatively Darin Brown could contribute directly to the thread, perhaps?

  379. Michael Says:

    Truthseeker,

    Thank you very much for calling our attention to a very overlooked point in the various analyses presented here recently.

    Namely, both Chris and myself used the WRONG estimate for the Rate of Transmission of HIV!

    Oh My God. Instead of 1/1000 which is the supposed rate for women, we should have been using Padian’s 1 in 10,000 since the “overwhelming majority” (I think around 85% or more) of military applicants are BOYS not GIRLS.

    And even worse, for Chris Noble, the stats whiz, that makes the number of contacts necessary to achieve the glorious mean TEN FOLD HIGHER.

    Even the most outrageous sexual experimenter, with abundant testosterone, would be hard pressed (pun intended) to accomplish that many copulations in a lifetime, let alone from the time they reached puberty until their mid 20s with or without CHEMICAL ASSISTANCE of course.

  380. Truthseeker Says:

    Michael, we at NAR HQ have not been following this series that closely because we hoped you would all work out what the answers were without us, but as we recall Chris Noble the statistics wiz from Bond told us that it all boiled down to 65 random sexual encounters on average for each of the 5000 pozzies the Army found.

    So far be it for us to speak for the Down Under expert but your point would mean that each man would have had to have had 650 encounters, which is beyond the realm of possibility, we agree.

    Is that right Dr Noble? Does that make Duesberg’s point valid now? It aint 250,000 but it is funky enough, no?

    Perinatal rules.

    After all, Chris, you stated that

    The correct way of phrasing the problem is to ask what would be the average number of random sexual contacts necessary before the expected number of seroconversions reachs 5000 or in other words a prevalence rate of 0.001.

    The answer is log(1-0.001)/log(1-1/250000) = 250.12

    The prevalence rate for the 17-19 age group was 0.00026

    log(1-0.00026)/log(1-1/250000) = 65.008

    That’s somewhat less than Duesberg’s funky 250,000

  381. Dan Says:

    Why is that “rethinkers” avoid the science and attack the people?

    Chris,
    I found a choice sliver of a post of yours on the “Questioning is the Cornerstone of Science” thread at talkabouthealthnetwork (also can be found on misc.health.aids).

    It seems that you may have attacked Jack Levine. Maybe you can interpret your words for us, as I’m certain that you’re incapable of hypocrisy.

    I spent a lot of time “debating” with Jack Levine before he died and I
    probably called him a denialist and worse. Calling him a Denialist did
    not cause him to reconsider his views.

    Here’s a post from August 13th on misc.health.aids. Is calling Stephen Davis a “moron” not an attack?

    Ahh, the dissident moron in question is Stephen Davis, author of yet
    another populist book attempting to deny the evidence that HIV exists
    and causes AIDS.

    Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by attacking the people . Or maybe it’s ok to attack the people as long as you’re not avoiding the science.

  382. Michael Says:

    McK,

    Would you be so kind as to have a look here now, and tell us if you retain any of the misunderstandings you listed above?

    Thanks.

  383. McKiernan Says:

    Michael,

    Yes, I saw it. The point is testing may well be valid but voluntary reporting is a no brainer with respect to accuracy. It will be as objective as an SFGate.com poll. Not very. But it will make a great propaganda tool especially given the number of hiv+’s and any number of hiv+ that may fabricate false results to achieve the result desired.

    That Brown and Bialy came up with this idiocy tells you that spontaneous kneejerk intuition is less than professionally accurate nor desirable.

    Science by blogosphere is a rather inexact modality for the discovery of real facts. Rigid study control is mandatory but only if you have accuracy as a goal.

    Otherwise one ends on the Calfpath, see stanza three:

    Because he wobbled when he walked.
    And through this winding wood-way stalked ,

    A study design ought not be relegated to lowered standards.

  384. Laura Says:

    Dan,
    I think there is a big distinction in calling someone a dissident moron for selling a book to a lay audience and attacking someone on a personal level. From your sliver of the post I didn’t see any criticism on Stephen Davis’s appearance or as a person. Unlike the personal attacks on Chris for ex.

    Turns out he is just a nitwit assistant professor statistician

    PS: Love the picture of you Chris, if I was only a chubby chaser!

    Please tell me how being a statistatician lends to bias on AIDs? I doubt big pharma has any motive in funding Keno research. Not to mention I don’t see how appearance plays a role either.

    Last how can you be so sure you are looking at the right Chris Noble? Surely there is more than one Chris Noble in the world so since Chris has not confirmed nor denied his identity lets lay off the personal attacks.

    Michael,
    I commend you on taking an ailing man into your home that was very generous. Not to mention it is great that you are in the position to put people on your payroll not everyone can do that. Just because a person cannot or has not done that does not make them bad or mean they don’t care.

  385. Michael Says:

    McK

    Are you TOTALLY blind old man? I am not making it bold only here. This is the way it appears on the page that you just claim to have read.

    You are not being asked to participate in any kind of study. This is an individual empowerment exercise only.

  386. Dan Says:

    Laura,
    we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    Chris publicly called Stephen Davis a moron. He didn’t say for instance that Mr. Davis’ book was moronic. He simply called him a moron.

    Chris also stated that he probably called Jack Levine a denialist or worse. Sounds like a personal attack to me.

    I’m sorry, Laura…is Chris above hypocrisy?

  387. Laura Says:

    Dan

    I did not say Chris is above hypocrisy. Noone is.

    The distinction as I see it is he was criticizing Stephen Davis’s beliefs which one can defend. It is much harder to defend one’s appearance. So to use appearance in an intellectual debate is not fair as it plays no part in one’s ability to make an argument.

    As for calling someone a denialist I concede that could be taken personally. However, until I started to read these debates I never realized what a touchy word that was so before I wouldn’t have seen the problem. I stand corrected it is a bad word.

  388. Michael Says:

    Hello Laura. I do agree that ad homs and verbal attacks on either side of the issue do nothing to help anyone or move anything forward. Thank you for pointing this out. It is very easy for one to become overwhelmed by emotions in this issue of HIV/AIDS, which touches us in very different and often very deep ways.

    I do apologize to Chris for my unnecessary and mean spirited remarks, as well as to all who have been subjected to reading them.

  389. Funes Says:

    This is not much of a controversy, when all we have to do is look around and see that nothing has happened even as close as we were told 20 years ago…

    I know it is psychologically tough to just give away all the crap that we´ve been forced to swallow for such a long time.

    But the truth is out there in the streets. AIDS has not killed half the population randomly, nor has HIV been pointing to every person to infect them.

    It doesn´t matter if Duesberg is right or The Perth Group is. The important thing is that AIDS preachers were, are, and will be, A FRAUD.

    Nevertheless, the hardest thing to do is to unmask AIDS INC, and so I think that our efforts should be focused on that, instead of discussing the sex of the angels.

    That´s my point of view.

    Thanks everyone and I apologise if I made any or lots of mistakes in my writing. As you know, here in ARGENTINA we speak Spanish…

  390. McKiernan Says:

    This is an individual empowerment exercise only.

    I’ll withhold judgment Michael. More data needed. But it sure looks like a step toward universal testing which can only help the ARV industry.

  391. Michael Says:

    McK

    ?????

    Not one minute ago almost this page was “propaganda” for the “denialists”, and now it is a misguided effort that will wind up helping AIDS, Inc.

    You gotta be the most confusing person to live with, if anybody does.

    How did you keep the prescriptions straight for all those years?

    May I suggest you read your favorite poem again? Only don’t please, quote it.

  392. McKiernan Says:

    Yes, the page still is propaganda . But I am withholding judgment pending more data input.

    Go see this movie: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

    Listen to Manuel: WE DONT NEED NO BADGES. It’s a sound file.
    You wont have to read.

    Good luck with your AK 47 empowerment tool.

  393. Claus Says:

    Laura,
    of course ad homninems have no part in an intellectual debate, but personal appearance certainly does. My great grandfather, before he passed away when I was 4, always used to pull me aside, and say to me ‘young man remember this, if you grow up to be a tall handsome man like most of your forebears, never trust short, ugly people! Overweight people are not necessarily bad, but if they’re both short and ugly you’d better watch out.’ Laura take a look around you, George Bush is short, Ahmadinejad is even shorter and, in my opinion, uglier. Hitler comes in somewhere in between.
    Now it is a fact, the host of this blog can attest to it, that most of the AIDS inc. kingpins are short or ugly or both. I could mention Tony Fauci, very short man, by no stretch of the imagination handsome, even if he’s got dress sense. John Moore, has already been confirmed by several arcane experiments to be half macaque, which is a species of monkey shorter uglier and more unfortunate than the ususal primates we humans compare ourselves to. And Chris Noble. . . well, a picture speaks more than 1000 stats rages when it comes to him. You can even take a look at Bill Gates, you find the pictures right here on this blog, as he appeared at the Toronto Drug Pusher’s All, and tell me who he looks like.
    The Rethinkers on the other hand are simply more stylish, more beautiful, more fun – and a lot taller. That’s how we’ve earned the undying resentment of all these short ugly people, who’re so hell bent on maneuvering themselves into positions where as heads of state, doctors or teachers they can torture fellow creatures with impunity. Laura, for the future of humanity, in any intellectual debate, side with the tallest party.

  394. Truthseeker Says:

    I could mention Tony Fauci, very short man, by no stretch of the imagination handsome, even if he’s got dress sense.

    Fauci is handsome enough. He has quite a well cut jaw, and he knows it, judging from the way he poses on stage. Also there are short people on the side of the angels in this issue, including the two leaders of enlightenment, the delightful Peter Duesberg and the devilish Harvey Bialy.

    A friend informed me once that people are only growing absurdly taller in the US compared with previous generations because the milk is full of growth hormones. Interesting theory.

    Have to disagree about macaques. too. As the pics here showed, astonishingly expressive souls, and very wise. We have three on the advisory board here at NAR.

  395. Laura Says:

    OMG! Vote with the tallest party you have got to be kidding. I’ll admit that in a public forum appearance does play a role but that does not prove integrity. You can joke and laugh at others expense all you want however that does not lend to your credibility.

  396. pat Says:

    Laura,
    It’s all tongue-in-cheek I’m sure…relax, I for one don’t take it seriously.

  397. pat Says:

    CN claims on Aetiology that his IP is banned. Is that so?

  398. Michael Says:

    Chris Noble’s exact claim, as per his Aetiology post is:

    My IP address is now being blocked from posting to the blog and I am not about to use “rethinker” tactics of using an anonymiser to circumvent this nor am I going to use a pseudonym.

    Truthseeker, is this true, or does Chris Noble lack any sense of integrity? or ?

  399. Truthseeker Says:

    Chris Noble is not banned here. Why would he be? Shows how accurate he is in reporting facts. No one is banned here. If anyone was banned, it would be posted in a Comment as a warning first, and probably wouldn’t happen anyway. The only people/things banned here are bots advertising sex tapes etc, and then only if the ads are of no interest to our distinguished posters. We have even given up banning ad hominem remarks, since Harvey Bialy produces so many witty barbs to juice up the otherwise often tepid proceedings of working our way through one point with 100 posts that they are now indispensable.

    If Chris Noble thinks he is banned, why wouldn’t he contact NAR HQ as provided in the right hand margin? Must be some glitch in his computer. We have double checked and find nothing amiss this end.

  400. pat Says:

    Well, I have posted at Aetiology but it probably won’t make it past their “spam” filters. Those are the thinker-atrophied tactics. CN’s bull is really starting to disgust me. It might be a professional deformation seeing he works with lotteries for a living.

  401. Truthseeker Says:

    Where is that Chris Noble post? It should be contradicted.

    More interesting is the Good Math Bad math blog comment and thread Pathetic Statistics from HIV/AIDS Denialists that Tara points to which trashes our replies to Chris Noble as up the creek. Unfortunately the way it is expressed is so preoccupied with calling us moronic that it is hard to deconstruct, but it will be done.

    The basic point is that Duesberg is said to be wrong and statistically naive to have said “Thus, all positive teenagers would have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission.”

    The blogger, Mark C. Chu-Carroll, self-described as “a Computer Scientist working as a researcher in a corporate lab. My professional interests run towards how to build programming languages and tools that allow groups of people to work together to build large software systems.”, writes:

    While I was on vacation, I got some email from Chris Noble pointing me towards a discussion with some thoroughly innumerate HIV-AIDS denialists. It’s really quite shocking what passes for a reasonable argument among true believers.

    The initial stupid statement is from one of Duesberg’s papers, AIDS Acquired by Drug Consumption and Other Noncontagious Risk Factors, and it’s quite a whopper. During a discussion of the infection rates shown by HIV tests of military recruits, he says:

    (a) “AIDS tests” from applicants to the U.S. Army and the U.S. Job Corps indicate that between 0.03% (Burke et al.,1990) and 0.3% (St Louis et al.,1991) of the 17- to 19-year-old applicants are HIV-infected but healthy. Since there are about 90 million Americans under the age of 20, there must be between 27,000 and 270,000(0.03%-0.3% of 90 million) HIV carriers. In Central Africa there are even more, since 1-2% of healthy children are HIV-positive (Quinn et al.,1986).

    Most, if not all, of these adolescents must have acquired HIV from perinatal infection for the following reasons: sexual transmission of HIV depends on an average of 1000 sexual contacts, and only 1 in 250 Americans carries HIV (Table 1). Thus, all positive teenagers would have had to achieve an absurd 1000 contacts with a positive partner, or an even more absurd 250,000 sexual contacts with random Americans to acquire HIV by sexual transmission. It follows that probably all of the healthy adolescent HIV carriers were perinatally infected, as for example the 22-year-old Kimberly Bergalis (Section 3.5.16).”

    Computer Scientist Mark continues: “Now, I would think that anyone who reads an allegedly scientific paper like this would be capable of seeing the spectacular stupidity in this quotation. But for the sake of pedantry, I’ll explain it using small words.”

    It seems worth deconstructing this in a special post, so we’ll do that as best we can.

    We know better than to argue with professional statisticians when it comes to probability! If Chris Noble had confirmed that he was an university teacher in the field, we would have stepped more cautiously. But to be honest we thought he wasn’t, judging from his posts.

  402. Michael Says:

    The post by Chris Noble claiming censorship was at the Aetiology site under the Rebecca Culshaw thread.

    It can be accessed by clicking on this link.

    I would hope the administrator of NAR will himself post the correction of supposed censorship.

  403. Chris Noble Says:

    I certainly have been getting a message informing me that my IP has been banned from commenting.

    If this is due to a computer glitch then I apologise for assuming that this was due to AL banning me.

  404. Truthseeker Says:

    Chris, you can rest assured that NAR will not ban you, since you have raised a very interesting (to us) simple puzzle in Duesberg’s statistical formulation which doesn’t seem to have been fully solved, and as far as we are concerned that wins you lifetime posting rights on this blog.

  405. Chris Noble Says:

    As my last post did indeed come through my IP is obviously not currently banned.

    Is AL the only administrator for NAR?

    …Duesberg’s statistical formulation which doesn’t seem to have been fully solved…

    Just what is that isn’t resolved?

    I’ll attempt just once more to illustrate the mathematical fallacy at the heart of Duesberg’s argument.

    If the probability of winning the lottery is 1 in a million then indeed you would expect that on average for every winning ticket another 999,999 non-winning tickets will have been sold. Duesberg’s argument assumes that these 999,999 non-winning tickets must have been bought by the same person that bought the winning ticket and that nobody else bought any tickets at all.

    Likewise if we accept Duesberg’s figures then on average for every random heterosexual contact where HIV is transmitted we would expect 249,999 where no transmission occurred. Duesberg’s argument assumes that the 744 HIV+ 17-19 year old military recruits must of each had on average 250,000 random heterosexual contacts and that the remaining 2,812,441 HIV- 17-19 year old military recruits had each had exactly zero heterosexual contacts.

    Just what would resolve the issue for you?

  406. Truthseeker Says:

    Just what would resolve the issue for you?

    Chris, the issue has been moved to the comment thread of a new post, following, Duesberg’s math incorrect, say bloggers, which deals with the topic.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1290 access attempts in the last 7 days.