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---

Saving the chimps from scientists


Joy of liberated chimps shows up witless abuse of power by researchers

Suggests lethal motivations in HIV∫AIDS drug research are similar

Strong men may weep and rage at the Nature segment on Chimpanzees: An Unnatural History running on PBS stations this week in New York.

According to this poetic video lament by filmmaker Allison Argo, scientific researchers who work with chimps behave with less sensitivity than chimps themselves. They have neither the imagination nor the principles to treat their charges as they deserve, ie as 99.5 per cent genetically human, and deserving of equal rights if not in all respects, then in 99.5 per cent respects.

Up at Fauna Foundation [outside Montreal], a female chimpanzee named Pepper was grooming my arm and she clearly wanted me to take my watch off because it was in the way. So I took my watch off and she had it so fast! It was in the cage, and I thought, “Oh well, that’s the end of the watch. I really liked that watch, too.” She grasped it in her foot, since they can use their feet like hands. So she held it in her foot and groomed me for about 10 minutes. And then when she was finished, she very gently took it out of her foot and handed it out to me. And I was just amazed. It was so considerate, sensitive. She understood that it was something that was mine, something that I liked.

Just how ruinously our brothers and sisters under the hairy skin are treated in America is made only too miserably clear. In labs they are or have been the subject of damaging experimentation without consent, often permanently harmful and sometimes useless. They were shot up into space, injected with disease, surgically messed with and strapped into seats to test seat belts at high speeds.

Small cages were their living quarters in between these heroic services to mankind, solitary confinement for creatures with strong social needs, probably stronger than the scientists who neglected them.

In circuses or show business, all their teeth would be removed.

After their scientific or show business careers are over, they are transferred to retirement homes funded by the Federal government which are no better than solitary in Alcatraz. Typical quarters are or were steel cages indoors without even visual access to their fellow chimps living next door behind the concrete dividers (Click on pics to enlarge hugely).

Kissing a chimp with HIV

In this moving documentary, some women are introduced who, unlike the typical chimp researcher, have that part of the brain functioning that can empathize with chimps as deserving of humane treatment as much as any other intelligent, thoughtful, inventive, passionate, family oriented and loving creature – a group which apparently does not include many of the researchers, though one girl looking after them in a lab does feel a sharp pang when she can’t give them the attention they obviously implore.

The women are trying to move their retirees to the outdoors by building an island or otherwise releasing them into grass and trees. One hitch is that one collection of chimps is among the 200 or so that were “injected with HIV” in the early days of AIDS. The research was carried out because chimps are genetically so close to humans that they are thought to be ideal subjects for such experimentation.

The effort was abandoned, the documentary explains, because the chimps didn’t get AIDS. There is no answer to the obvious question, why then didn’t the researchers conclude that HIV didn’t cause AIDS in humans?

So now one sympathetic woman has a bunch of chimps “with HIV” in hand, and heavy resistance on the part of the townspeople where she runs her chimp home to the idea of building an island for them in case they somehow escape and give everyone the AIDS which they do not have themselves.

There is one exception, a gentleman who at first is scared stiff of catching AIDS from the chimps but gets to know one and is totally transformed in attitude, kissing the chimp fearlessly and saying his feelings about people are as changed as his feelings about chimps:

“Now there’s nothing I wouldn’t do for Tommy…I used to be a redneck type. I’ve changed immensely. It’s unbelievable how I have changed in my attitude towards people as well as chimps. They are so forgiving. They have hearts bigger than us. There’s no way I could forgive like they forgive. And we’re supposed to be human and smarter. But I don’t know if we are smarter.”

In their bones, do they know it’s false?

In their behavior, he and the woman who rescued the chimps “with HIV” are certainly smarter than the scientists who research HIV∫AIDS, which is odd. The woman who was the retired chimps’ savior in this case, when warned that the chimps “had HIV”, did not panic and abandon the project. Her immediate reaction was “I have to save these chimps.”

A: I didn’t have a choice. The day that I went to the lab and met the chimps, I decided I would be taking whomever I met. I was introduced to two groups of chimps –15 in total, 7 of which were infected with HIV. There was no way I was going to discriminate. I met the chimps and I decided that, even if they were HIV positive, it didn’t matter. It wasn’t even a question in my mind. We would overcome the obstacles.Q: Safety Precautions with HIV + Chimps?

A: We did everything we needed to do in terms of learning about HIV. We had healthcare workers come in to educate our staff about working with the chimps. And we knew that the two primary methods for contracting the disease were intercourse and exchange of needles. But we are at the same risk as doctors, police officers, and healthcare workers– we’re not really at a greater risk. Plus, we knew who had the virus. The chimps had been labeled and they were behind bars.

Why their instincts are so much more accurate than thousands of HIV researchers is not explained. As far as the ordinary viewer is concerned, they simply demonstrate that HIV is not infectious enough to worry about in daily contact, as we have long been told by the NIAID. But the man’s original worries about “mosquito bites” remain valid, as far as we are told here. Perhaps we are meant to assume that it shows that love overcomes fear, and magically preserves the lover from harm.

To us, however, it suggests an inherent wisdom in the fact that people tend to stop worrying about the threat of HIV over time. The CDC and Oprah of course recognize this phenomenon in their constant search for new ways to alarm the populace. But is it too hopeful to imagine that this public torpor is more than natural apathy, and that it reflects an instinct for detecting BS on the subconscious level that operates regardless of what the conscious mind accepts?

After decades, grass, trees and pond

Eventually the townspeople come around and the island is built. Then the chimps are released, to enter a brave new world of grass and trees some may not have experienced for decades if barely at all at the beginning of their lives.

There is no more moving segment in all of Nature documentaries. One chimp is so unused to grass that even when he emerges to the outdoors, he won’t leave the concrete and goes back indoors to the familiar limits of his cage after a while. But the others slowly expand into knucklewalking and then romping into the meadows, where they sit and gaze at the world they were meant to live in, but hardly did.

One won’t come in at dusk and elects to stay out all night enjoying the space and the plant life and gazing at the water in the lake and the moon.

Another, Tommy, evidently dimly remembering his very early life before capture in the wild, immediately climbs a tree to a considerable height and stays there, happily transported into the opposite extreme from the concrete and steel box where he has been imprisoned and experimentally tormented for most of his life, without even the consolation of affection and company.

Absurd to care about inferior species?

Of course, this is all sodden sentiment and impractical, we acknowledge that. Just as doctors and surgeons couldn’t function unless they turned coldblooded enough not to be queasy about cutting into flesh, dead or alive, or if they did not turn off empathy for the sick and suffering human beings they have to deal with in such overwhelming numbers, so experimenters trying to find a way to cure human ills cannot worry overmuch about the welfare of the beings they have to use as test subjects.

Otherwise they would never do their experiments, and save large numbers of human beings from suffering and dying. And of course we all know any human life is worth far more than the life of any mere 99.5% human chimp, however much they might resemble us in their need for affection, company, family and variety of life.

After all, could chimps appreciate television, Madonna, a MacDonald’s triple decker cheeseburger, or the importance of face lifts? These refinements of civilization are far above the ceiling of their unsophisticated chimp mentality.

On the other hand, what would it have cost to provide chimps that we sent into space or that suffered us cutting out their spinal discs some decent group living accommodation, instead of cooping them up in steel cages all alone? What kind of people are these researchers that have so few principles or perceptions they cannot relate to animals that are so close to them in appearance and behavior, let alone genes?

Presumably, they are the same kind of people that experimented without permission on the children of a certain orphanage in New York. Or who thought it was fine to feed AZT at doses up to 1800 mg to gays in the late eighties, since, after all, they ignorantly demanded release of the drug, didn’t they, before the safety trials were over, in ACTUP demonstrations outside the FDA?

Every human being has to make up his or her mind as to what their life is worth, compared to a chimp. Probably very few of us would give up our own lives for a chimp. Nor would many of us rather die than sacrifice chimps in the cause of prolonging our lives, however insignificant we may be in the grand scheme of things.

But it seems likely that many of us will breathe a sigh of guilty relief when medicine moves on to designing medicines for each individual’s set of genes, and therefore doesn’t need to experiment on our closest relatives any more.

Meanwhile, the disgrace remains that we did not treat them properly when they were test subjects or afterwards, when they had given up most of their lives for us to find out, for example (perhaps the worst example) if safety belts work at high speed, or what happens when they don’t.

Update Nov 22 Wednesday

Of course, scientists are not alone in their cruelty to sentient experimental animals. For the record, the Army’s treatment of pigs is the most horrific we have ever heard of. It was described in passing in a front page article in the Times on Thurs Nov 2. We advise those who love pigs to stop reading at this point:

Petty Officer Kirby began to list the schools he had attended to be ready for this moment. Some he had paid for himself, he said, to be extra-prepared.In one course, an advanced trauma treatment program he had taken before deploying, he said, the instructors gave each corpsman an anesthetized pig.

”The idea is to work with live tissue,” he said. ”You get a pig and you keep it alive. And every time I did something to help him, they would wound him again. So you see what shock does, and what happens when more wounds are received by a wounded creature.”

”My pig?” he said. ”They shot him twice in the face with a 9-millimeter pistol, and then six times with an AK-47 and then twice with a 12-gauge shotgun. And then he was set on fire.”

”I kept him alive for 15 hours,” he said. ”That was my pig.”

”That was my pig,” he said.

(show)
November 2, 2006

Medic Tends a Fallen Marine, With Skill, Prayer and Anger

By C. J. CHIVERS

Petty Officer Third Class Dustin E. Kirby clutched the injured marine’s empty helmet. His hands were coated in blood. Sweat ran down his face, which he was trying to keep straight but kept twisting into a snarl.

He held up the helmet and flipped it, exposing the inside. It was lined with blood and splinters of bone.

”The round hit him,” he said, pausing to point at a tiny hole that aligned roughly with a man’s temple. ”Right here.”

Petty Officer Kirby, 22, is a Navy corpsman, the trauma medic assigned to Second Mobile Assault Platoon of Weapons Company, Second Battalion, Eighth Marines. Everyone calls him Doc. He had just finished treating a marine who had been shot by an Iraqi sniper.

”It was 7.62 millimeter,” he continued. ”Armor piercing.”

He reached into his pocket and retrieved the bullet, which he had found. ”The impact with the Kevlar stopped most of it,” he said. ”But it tore through, hit his head, went through and came out.”

He put the bullet in his breast pocket, to give to an intelligence team later. Sweat kept rolling off his face, mixed with tears. His voice was almost cracking, but he managed to control it and keep it deep. ”When I got there, there wasn’t much I could do,” he said.

Then he nodded. He seemed to be talking to himself. ”I kept him breathing,” he said.

He looked at Lance Cpl. Matias Tafoya, his driver, and raised his voice. It was almost a shout. ”When I told you that I do not let people die on me, I meant it,” he said. ”I meant it.”

He scanned the Iraqi houses, perhaps 150 yards away, on the other side of a fetid green canal. Marines were all around, pressed to the ground, peering from behind machine-gun turrets or bracing against their armored vehicles, aiming rifles at where they thought the sniper was.

The sniper had made a single shot just as the marines were leaving a rural settlement on the western edge of Karma, a city near Falluja in Anbar Province.

The marines had been searching several houses on this side of the canal, where they found five Kalashnikov assault rifles and bomb components, and were getting back into their vehicles when everyone heard the shot. It was a single loud crack.

No one was precisely sure where it had come from. Everyone knew precisely where it hit. It struck a marine who was peering out of the first vehicle’s gun turret. He collapsed.

Petty Officer Kirby rushed to him and found him breathing. He bandaged the marine’s head as the vehicle lurched away. Soon he helped load the wounded marine into a helicopter, which touched down beside the convoy within 12 minutes of the shot.

Once the helicopter lifted away, he ran back to his vehicle, ready to treat anyone else. He was thinking about the marine he had already treated.

”If I had gone with him,” he said, and glanced to where the helicopter had flown away, over the line of date palms at the end of a field. His voice softened. ”But I’m not with him,” he said.

He turned, faced a reporter and spoke loudly again. ”In situations and times like this, I am bound to start yelling and shouting furiously,” he said. ”Don’t think I am losing my mind.”

He held his bloody hands before his face, to examine them. They were shaking. He made fists so tight his veins bulged. His forearms started to bounce.

”His name was Lance Cpl. Colin Smith,” he said. ”He said a prayer today right before we came out, too.”

”Every time before we go out, we say a prayer,” he said. ”It is a prayer for serenity. It says a lot about things that do pertain to us in this kind of environment.”

The only sounds were Doc’s voice and the vehicle’s engine thrumming.

He recited the prayer. There was a few moments of silence. ”It’s a platoon kind of thing, if you know what I mean,” he said.

He listened to his radio headset and looked at Lance Corporal Tafoya, relaying word of the marines’ movements. ”Right now the grunts are performing a hard hit on a house,” he said. He turned back to the subject of Lance Corporal Smith, 19.

”The best news I can throw at anybody right now, and that I am throwing to myself as often as I can, is that his eyes were O.K.,” he said. ”They were both responsive. And he was breathing. And he had a pulse.”

He listened to his radio. ”Two houses they’ve hit so far have both been swept and cleared.”

He looked at the reporter beside him. ”Do you pray?” he asked. ”Do that. I’d appreciate it.”

After a few minutes he started talking again. ”You see, having a good platoon, one that you know real well, it’s both a gift and a curse. And Smith? Smith has been with me since I was”

He stopped. ”He was my roommate before we left,” he said.

He refilled his lungs and raised his voice. ”His dad was his best friend,” he said. ”He’s got the cutest little blond girlfriend, and she freaks out every time we call because she’s so happy to hear from him.”

He sat quietly again. A few minutes passed. ”The first casualty we had here — his name was James Hirlston — he was his good friend.”

”Hirlston got shot in the head, too,” he said.

He said something about Iraqi snipers that could not be printed here.

Then he was back to the subject of Lance Corporal Smith.

”I really thank God that he was breathing when I got to him, because it means that I can do something with him,” he said. ”It helps. People ask you, ‘What are you doing? What are you doing?’ It helps, because if he’s breathing, you’re doing something.”

There had been many Iraqi civilians outside a few minutes before the sniper made his shot. Most of them had disappeared. Now an Iraqi woman walked calmly between the sniper and the marines, as if nothing had happened.

She passed down the street.

Petty Officer Kirby began to list the schools he had attended to be ready for this moment. Some he had paid for himself, he said, to be extra-prepared.

In one course, an advanced trauma treatment program he had taken before deploying, he said, the instructors gave each corpsman an anesthetized pig.

”The idea is to work with live tissue,” he said. ”You get a pig and you keep it alive. And every time I did something to help him, they would wound him again. So you see what shock does, and what happens when more wounds are received by a wounded creature.”

”My pig?” he said. ”They shot him twice in the face with a 9-millimeter pistol, and then six times with an AK-47 and then twice with a 12-gauge shotgun. And then he was set on fire.”

”I kept him alive for 15 hours,” he said. ”That was my pig.”

”That was my pig,” he said.

He paused. ”Smith is my friend.”

He looked at his bloody hands. ”You got some water?” he said. ”I want some water. I just want to wash my wedding band.”

He listened to the tactical radio. The platoon was sweeping houses but could not find the sniper.

The company started to move. It stopped at another house. The marines were questioning five Iraqi men. Doc watched from the road, waiting for the next call.

”I would like to say that I am a good man,” he said. ”But seeing this now, what happened to Smith, I want to hurt people. You know what I mean?”

The marines had not fired a shot.

They took one of the men into custody, mounted their vehicles and drove back to Outpost Omar, their companybase, passing knots of Iraqi civilians on the way. The civilians looked at them coldly.

Inside the wire, First Lt. Scott R. Burlison, the company commander, gathered the group and told them that Lance Corporal Smith was alive and in surgery. He was critical, but stable. They hoped to fly him to Germany.

Doc had scrubbed himself clean. A big marine stepped forward with a small Bible, and the platoon huddled. He began with Psalm 91, verses 5 and 11.

”Thou shall not be afraid for the terror by night, nor for the arrow that flieth by day,” said the big marine, Lance Cpl. Daniel B. Nicholson. ”For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.”

Then he asked for the Lord to look after Lance Corporal Smith and whatever was ahead, and to take care of everyone who was still in the platoon.

”Help us Lord,” he said. ”We need your help. It’s the only way we’re going to get through this.”

Doc stood in the corner, his arm looped over a marine. ”Amen,” he said. There were some hugs, and then the marines and their Doc went back to their bunks and their guns.

* Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

549 Responses to “Saving the chimps from scientists”

  1. trrll Says:

    The effort was abandoned, the documentary explains, because the chimps didn’t get AIDS. There is no answer to the obvious question, why then didn’t the researchers conclude that HIV didn’t cause AIDS in humans?

    Because it would have been an irrational conclusion? Because there are many examples of illness that produce little damage in one host (particularly one in which it has a long evolutionary history), but do serious damage in another? Trying to reproduce HIV AIDS in a chimp was a reasonable shot, given how close they are to humans, but it is not particularly surprising that it failed. And of course, back then nobody knew that the virus had a long evolutionary history in chimps, with plenty of time for the virus and chimps to become evolutionarily co-adapted.

  2. Truthseeker Says:

    Nice try, T, and plausible enough on the face of it. Your premise, however, that HIV is newly arrived in humans, courtesy of some chimp treated as bush meat and not roasted long enough, and of a randy airline steward, is that right? is a little shaky.

    Our bet would be that HIV such as it is has had a long evolutionary history with humans as well, like 98,000 other retroviral bits in the genome. That would seem to fit the raft of other evidence that HIV is irrelevant to human health, not to mention avoids falling in with crude fairy tales improvised by Bob Gallo and friends, who must be surprised to this day by the gullibility of the human race, not to mention their very own colleagues among scientists.

  3. Dan Says:

    We should be working on saving the humans from scientists as well.

    Many humans are just as defenseless against scientific experimentation as the chimps are. Sure, the humans can run, frolic and play in their environment, but many of them aren’t able to question their roles (for various reasons) in the mass pharmaceutical experiment of “AIDS”.

    Like the caged chimps, who are unable to properly socialize, if at all, the humans are unable to experience their birthright of deep, emotionally-bonded intimacy with other members of their species without fear, anxiety or physical barriers that prevent this most basic human form of expression.

  4. Celia Farber Says:

    Dan,

    Quite a stirring comment you made. Speaking for myself, I didn’t realize, consciously, until I was already too deep into the Terra Incognita to turn back, that the HIV/AIDS “debate” was a life and death battle at the severing point of human intimacy. Antibody as persomal prison. Our technologies controlling us; The medium being the message, etc.

    I always carp on about the RED SLASH waistband (1984, Orwell) around the waist of Julia, and that on the note she so perilously slipped to Winston, she’d written: “I love you.”

    Why is it so little discussed that 1984 was a novel about (among other things) a totalitarian state of the future where human intimacy was made impossible and criminalized.

    The destruction of reality, yes, of language, yes yes, but also of intimacy as the central crime, in the eyes of Big Brother.

    At the same time, as I write this, I feel I am going off some kind of deep end. Are we dreaming?

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    Like the caged chimps, who are unable to properly socialize, if at all, the humans are unable to experience their birthright of deep, emotionally-bonded intimacy with other members of their species without fear, anxiety or physical barriers that prevent this most basic human form of expression.- Dan.

    1984 was a novel about (among other things) a totalitarian state of the future where human intimacy was made impossible and criminalized. – Celia.

    Yes, indeed, there are enough barriers to intimacy in modern life without having Big Brother and his test kit looming over candlit dinners and sunsets.

    But let’s be realistic, there always are barriers to intimacy, and idealistic passion usually overcomes them, even celebrates them by finding them to act as incentives (Romeo and Juliet etc). As the Oprah show demonstrated, and the chimp lover confirmed, people are not much ruled by this stuff in action, even if they are in their heads.

    This doesn’t evade the fear, anxiety and guilt piled on people if they test positive, however, let alone the damage they are in for when they go on drugs, all of which is the murderous effect of allowing this criminal bandwagon to keep rolling.

    But currently, except for the small step forward of getting coverage in Discover, it doesn’t seem the bodies of the HIV∫AIDS dissidents are enough to block its forward momentum, fueled as it is by the root of all evil.

    We are trying to join you in the deep end, Celia, but we feel that the driving force is financial rather than political power.

  6. Dan Says:

    But let’s be realistic, there always are barriers to intimacy, and idealistic passion usually overcomes them

    There are real barriers and there are imagined barriers. Unfortunately, one imaginary barrier has an iron grip on the minds, hearts and bodies of the community in which I reside.

    Intimacy isn’t simply the act of inserting Tab A into slot B. Although, since “AIDS” began, with it’s microscope focused on our sexuality, I’ve found that what used to be something spontaneous, natural, and for some of us, a spiritual experience, has become little more than a politically-correct, mechanical series of stimulating actions to various body parts. We’ve gone from a sexual revolution to a sexual devolution.

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    a politically-correct, mechanical series of stimulating actions to various body parts

    Are you referring to all four sexes, here? (Male h, female h, male g, female g).

    Commerce in our culture may continually devalue intimacy in the young through media and music, but it hasn’t eradicated it yet, perhaps because emotional maturity eventually prevails in most people, perhaps because of the overall social trend where culture becomes more and more communicative and realistic in general and through the Web.

    Oprah today ran what looked like a remarkable segment on some innovation for high schools called Team Challenges or somesuch where students confess their real problems in life instead of bravely putting on a front of lies to keep their popularity. The brief snatches we saw were very moving.

    So things may be changing on that front, and eventually on every front, as emotional truth emerges to confront lies.

    To our mind, that is very much the story of the last half century in America and we hope and expect it to continue. That is to say, this society seems very good at moving towards more truth in most areas, from politics to sex, and we don’t expect commerce to be able to defeat the trend in the end.

    So we doubt that HIV∫AIDS can last for ever. Probably as Max Planck put it we will advance funeral by funeral.

  8. Dan Says:

    Are you referring to all four sexes, here? (Male h, female h, male g, female g).

    I’m speaking from my point of reference, the gay community.

  9. Dan Says:

    The destruction of reality, yes, of language, yes yes, but also of intimacy as the central crime, in the eyes of Big Brother.

    I’d heard that in San Francisco, the few bathhouses there are, are legally required to monitor patrons to ensure they aren’t having “unsafe” sex (which is ill-defined, or at the very least, there are as many interpretations of what is “safe” and “unsafe” as there are gay men).

    When I heard this, I thought it was so incredulous that my mind placed it in the “urban myth” file. I’ve done a little searching and found that the big bathhouse in the Castro advertises itself as a “safe sex” club. Now, maybe they don’t want to scare away potential patrons who visit their website by mentioning that they will be visibly monitored. I don’t know. Can somebody here let us know if this is true? If so, how much more Big Brother can things get?

  10. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    Dan,

    You might could use some attitude improvement classes to advance beyond the sour grapes/turn on the violins approach to life.

    Like this is it. Life is not dress rehearsal until abc and xyz happens within big pharma and the guvmint or the gay community creates the conditions to make you happy. But that isn’t for YGB to say.

    What I do want to say is that my favorite neuroscientist is brilliant beyond which a mere moron like myself can ever expect to hope to be. He is:

    Robert Sapolsky

    And he can talk for like 20 hours without stopping except for lunch and other necessities. And has worked personally and gentl y many years with baboons whom he studies and treats well.

    He has a lot to say on the alpha male:

    A BOZO OF A BABOON: A Talk with Robert Sapolsky

    If I were 25 and asked that question I would certainly say competitive prowess is important—balls, translated into the more abstractly demanding social realm of humans. What’s clear to me now at 45 is, screw the alpha male stuff. Go for an alternative strategy. Go for the social affiliation, build relationships with females, don’t waste your time trying to figure out how to be the most adept socially cagy male-male competitor.

    There’s more here:

    Estrés y placer, extremos encontrados

  11. Chris Noble Says:

    Our bet would be that HIV such as it is has had a long evolutionary history with humans as well, like 98,000 other retroviral bits in the genome.

    If HIV was an endogenous retrovirus that has been in the human genome for a long evolutionary time then HIV DNA should be detecable in every cell in every human. It isn’t.

    Even “rethinkers” make a big deal of the observation that HIV DNA can only be found in a fraction of T-cells.

    If HIV is an endogenous retrovirus then it should be present in not only every CD4+ cell but every single cell in the body.

    So how much was the bet?

  12. trrll Says:

    Nice try, T, and plausible enough on the face of it. Your premise, however, that HIV is newly arrived in humans, courtesy of some chimp treated as bush meat and not roasted long enough, and of a randy airline steward, is that right? is a little shaky.

    Regardless of what you may choose to believe about the evolutionary history of HIV in primates, the fact remains that there are many examples of infectious agents causing severe disease in one species, but not in a related species. So it would have been quite irrational to conclude that because HIV does not cause illness in chimps, it cannot do so in humans. I cannot imagine any unbiased person making such an argument.

  13. Truthseeker Says:

    irrational to conclude that because HIV does not cause illness in chimps, it cannot do so in humans. I cannot imagine any unbiased person making such an argument.

    True enough, there are many differences in the two species, even though the DNA is quite similar, but still, given the basic assumption that chimps are good subjects for experimentation, on the basis on what we have in common, then anything they do not have in common requires explanation, and is an indication that assumptions may be incorrect.

    This reexamination never occurred, because of the extraordinary bias inherent in the HIV∫AIDS faith, which is the bias which you should be objecting to, not our bias towards reexamination of premises which is indicated by the evidence.

    No one said it was proof of the invalidity of the HIV∫AIDS claim. So you have just given yet another example of your frequent resort to the straw man method of countering valid reasoning. In fact, one would have to say that most of your arguments are of this nature.

    But then, so are Nobel’s, including in particular his incessant complaint that Duesberg misled by stating the consequences inherent in the HIV∫AIDS theory, because he (Chris the Unstoppable Noble) is unable to understand the meaning of ceteris paribus.

    Minsunderstanding the argument and misstating it as a result renders your critique meaningless. But the problem is that you both seem not to understand that you are misunderstanding it. So explaining the argument to you becomes rather like describing green to a color blind man.

    The fact that chimps were unaffected by HIV is an indication which when combined with 30 other indications adds up to a conclusion which only the most adamant believer in his enormous bias would deny, which is that HIV is a pussy cat and no tiger.

    It is certainly not an attack rabbit of a retrovirus unless you come from the world of Monty Python.

  14. Chris Noble Says:

    The fact that chimps were unaffected by HIV is an indication which when combined with 30 other indications adds up to a conclusion which only the most adamant believer in his enormous bias would deny, which is that HIV is a pussy cat and no tiger.

    31 bad arguments =/= 1 good argument

    We actually have a good idea what factors determine the speciies specificity of these retroviruses.

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/14/5514

    We can also modify HIV to make it tropic for other species.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5796/95

  15. Chris Noble Says:

    The effort was abandoned, the documentary explains, because the chimps didn’t get AIDS. There is no answer to the obvious question, why then didn’t the researchers conclude that HIV didn’t cause AIDS in humans?

    No one said it was proof of the invalidity of the HIV∫AIDS claim.

    First you imply that the researchers should have concluded that because most HIV infected chimps do not progress to AIDS that HIV does not cause AIDS and then you deny it.

  16. Martin Kessler Says:

    Chris Noble made a statement that HIV DNA would be present in everyone. The test that is presently used dilutes the specimen by 1/400th – if they didn’t do that, everyone would test positive.

  17. pat Says:

    “First you imply that the researchers should have concluded that because most HIV infected chimps do not progress to AIDS that HIV does not cause AIDS and then you deny it.”

    Chris, this blog is FULL of other reasons why HIV/AIDS should be questioned. This just being another one. Yawn!

  18. Glider Says:

    Trrll wrote:

    “…the fact remains that there are many examples of infectious agents causing severe disease in one species, but not in a related species.”

    OK, but “related species” is vague. How far down the phylogenetic tree do you go and still consider two species “related”? Since the discussion is about humans and chimpanzees, can you give me examples of infectious agents that cause disease in homo sapiens but not in pan troglodytes?

    Glider

  19. trrll Says:

    Chris, this blog is FULL of other reasons why HIV/AIDS should be questioned. This just being another one. Yawn!

    This just seems like the usual bait and switch dodge. When somebody points out that a particular argument is illogical, you insist “but we’ve got lots of others.” But a bunch of bad arguments does not equal one good one. And making an obviously irrational argument such as this one hardly increases confidence that the other arguments are any better. Indeed, so far the ones that I’ve seen are not.

  20. Dave Says:

    “bait and switch dodge”

    How ironic coming from Trrll.

    In 1984: We inject chimps with HIV

    If chimps get AIDS => we’ve proven causation!
    If chimps not get AIDS=> virus limited to humans!

    Don’t folks find it a bit unusual that there really isn’t a peer-reviewed published paper on what happened to the HIV infected chimps?

    The best I’ve come across is from Gallo, Temin, Blattner in their famous debate with Duesberg.

    It is true that HIV does not cause AIDS in chimpanzees
    (Gallo et al, Science 241, pg 518, (1988)

    But, of course, this is unreferenced.

    Typical

  21. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    Hank …. Dave , you missed one:

    J Infect Dis. 2000 Oct;182(4):1051-62. Epub 2000 Sep 8. Related Articles, Links

    Progressive infection in a subset of HIV-1-positive chimpanzees.

    O’Neil SP, Novembre FJ, Hill AB, Suwyn C, Hart CE, Evans-Strickfaden T, Anderson DC, deRosayro J, Herndon JG, Saucier M, McClure HM.

    Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA. soneil@rmy.emory.edu

    Chimpanzees are susceptible to infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1; however, infected animals usually maintain normal numbers of CD4(+) T lymphocytes and do not develop immunodeficiency. We have examined 10 chronically infected HIV-1-positive chimpanzees for evidence of progressive infection. In addition to 1 animal that developed AIDS, 3 chimpanzees exhibit evidence of progressive HIV infection. All progressors have low CD4(+) T cell counts (less than 200 cells/microL), severe CD4:CD8 inversion, and marked reduction in interleukin-2 receptor expression by CD4(+) T cells. In comparison with HIV-positive nonprogressor chimpanzees, progressors have higher plasma and lymphoid virus loads, greater CD38 expression in CD8(+)/HLA-DR(+) T cells, and greater serum concentrations of soluble tumor necrosis factor type II receptors and beta2-microglobulin, all markers of HIV progression in humans. These observations show that progressive HIV-1 infection can occur in chimpanzees and suggest that the pathogenesis of progressive infection in this species resembles that in humans.

  22. trrll Says:

    In 1984: We inject chimps with HIV

    If chimps get AIDS => we’ve proven causation!
    If chimps not get AIDS=> virus limited to humans!

    This is a straw man. The goal was not to prove causation, which was already established to the satisfaction of most scientists by that time–it was to establish an animal model that could be used to test therapeutic interventions. It was understood that it might not work, but it was a reasonble thing to try.

  23. trrll Says:

    Chris Noble made a statement that HIV DNA would be present in everyone. The test that is presently used dilutes the specimen by 1/400th – if they didn’t do that, everyone would test positive.

    The PCR method is sensitive enough to detect even a single copy of a specific nucleic acid sequence. If the virus was indeed present in everybody, then everybody would be positive by PCR, regardless of dilution.

  24. MacDonald Says:

    So, Trrll, you are saying the virus is present in every single chimp?

    but when will you learn that every time you say “illogial” you should direct it at the authors of the DURBAN DECLARATION, not poor unscientific rethinkers who can only go by what they are told is important by the HIV experts.
    In the paragraph of said ultimate document on HIV/AIDS beginning with The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest scientific standards , you can read following:

    Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. Further compelling data are available. . .

    The argument TS is trying to express is this from Dr. Harvey Bialy:

    There is no other virus (than HIV)that causes a disease in humans which will not reproduce that disease in chimps.

    Why is it that one is “compelling data” and the other “illogical”?

  25. trrll Says:

    Macdonald:

    So, Trrll, you are saying the virus is present in every single chimp?

    No. Where do you get that notion?

    Glider:

    OK, but “related species” is vague. How far down the phylogenetic tree do you go and still consider two species “related”? Since the discussion is about humans and chimpanzees, can you give me examples of infectious agents that cause disease in homo sapiens but not in pan troglodytes?

    Dr. Harvey Bialy (as quoted by Macdonald):

    There is no other virus (than HIV)that causes a disease in humans which will not reproduce that disease in chimps.

    Dr. Noble:

    We actually have a good idea what factors determine the speciies specificity of these retroviruses.

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/14/5514

    We can also modify HIV to make it tropic for other species.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5796/95

    I thought that it was worth highlighting these comments because they provide such a clear contrast between nonscientific argumentation by analogy and real scientific thinking.

    Glider and Bialy try to address the issue by arguing about what is the proper example for drawing an analogy: Are there any other infectious agents that don’t cause disease in species this close? If we follow this fallacious mode of thinking, we can then get into fruitless arguing about the validity of the analogies. Just how “close” are chimps and humans? What other viruses infect chimps and humans, and what are their symptoms really the same in the two species?

    In contrast, real scientists understand the limits of analogy. They know that valid conclusions can never be drawn from analogies, and regard them only as a starting point for suggesting hypotheses. After all, HIV is not exactly the same–in a molecular sense–as any other virus, so there is no logical basis for assuming that it will behave like any other virus. Similarly, there is no pair of species that have exactly the same molecular differeces as chimps and humans. In principle, a difference as small as a single base change could determine susceptibility to infection.

    So to an actual scientist, the difference in the behavior of HIV in chimps and humans is not a basis for drawing conclusions, but rather raises a question: “What molecular determinants are responsible for the differences in the behavior of HIV in humans and other primates?” And as Dr. Noble cites, scientists have proceded to investigate this question experimentally.

  26. Dan Says:

    In their bones, do they know it’s false?

    In their behavior, he and the woman who rescued the chimps “with HIV” are certainly smarter than the scientists who research HIV∫AIDS, which is odd. The woman who was the retired chimps’ savior in this case, when warned that the chimps “had HIV”, did not panic and abandon the project. Her immediate reaction was “I have to save these chimps.”

    It doesn’t sound like “they know it’s false”. It sounds much more like their compassion overrides any fear they may have.

    There are people who, in their bones, know it’s false. I happen to work with a person fitting this description. It just never rang true for him. I fit that description as well.

    At some point in life, you’ve GOT to go with what your gut is telling you, especially concerning matters as potentially grave as “AIDS”. Unfortunately, denying this very natural vehicle of information and communication is almost a hallmark of western civilization. I suspect one of the reasons some Africans may not be keen on swallowing toxic “AIDS drugs” is because their guts are telling them something. Poor, stupid Africans. Don’t they know that the west is right? Our knowledge supersedes their knowledge.

  27. Truthseeker Says:

    It doesn’t sound like “they know it’s false”. It sounds much more like their compassion overrides any fear they may have.

    True in the beginning, but one suspects from the confidence they gain that their gut tells them that there may be nothing there after all. Of course, that may be bias on our part, but we always think that the public may have that subconcious wisdom about HIV, simply because no one they know is affected by it.

    For some reason it struck us yesterday that in some ways the HIV issue is rather as if one told a friend that one had seen a cook in the kitchen spit in the food he was served. Even though investigation might demonstrate the we are certainly lying, his feeling about the food would never recover.

    Similarly, there is no rooting out the meme that HIV is deadly from the minds of its converts, and they will never view any of the material without that fearful prejudice as a premise which confounds the objectivity and the sense of what they write, which is why is its logic is so often very mediocre and deals with weak points that go without saying.

    The fact plain to any 12 year old is that if there is no case where a microbe causes health problems to a human and not to a chimp, and vice versa, then it is unlikely that HIV is the one marvelous exception and that its nil effect in chimps is an indication that we must acknowledge its vicious effect in humans, rather than salute the chutzpah of the cheerful rogues in science who have made their fortunes by spoiling everyone’s dinner, on the basis of a specious claim with no more content than perpetual motion.

    Let us salute our Noble hero, Bob Gallo,

    Who has shaken the world with a claim so shallow,

    That in two years it was rejected as spurious,

    But yet in a development more than curious,

    It became a world wide, mythic belief,

    That promoted another genius to NIAID chief,

    That rendered a nation’s media hamstrung,

    That covered the pages of Nature with dung,

    That milked the nation of billions we needed

    To fund the solutions to real ills superseded.

    How odd it is that Bob has no Nobel,

    Perhaps in Stockholm they have a different story to tell.

  28. MacDonald Says:

    Trrll, it seems you’re so busy trying to divert attention from the fact that you’e arguing against the Durban Declaration, that you’ve completely lost the plot. So in the true spirit of NAR, let me help you catch up on those read and comprehend classes.

    1. I restate the question so even Chris can understand you didn’t answer it: Why is the fact that Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS , allowed to stand as compelling data, part of the clear-cut etc. evidence that HIV causes AIDS in humans, when the chimp argument, according to you is irrational and unscientific?

    2. The chimp argument is not an analogy since it doesn’t postulate that because humans and chimps are similar in one respect they are similar in another. It simply says chimps and humans are similar in this ONE respect that what causes disease in one causes disease in the other.
    HIV DOES infect chimps, it just doesn’t produce AIDS.

    3. So, Trrll, you are saying the virus is present in every single chimp?

    No. Where do you get that notion?

    Let me recap so we can all see where the argument changed:

    If HIV was an endogenous retrovirus that has been in the human genome for a long evolutionary time then HIV DNA should be detecable in every cell in every human. It isn’t. (Chris Noble)

    back then nobody knew that the virus had a long evolutionary history in chimps, with plenty of time for the virus and chimps to become evolutionarily co-adapted. (Trrll)

    Chris Noble made a statement that HIV DNA would be present in everyone. The test that is presently used dilutes the specimen by 1/400th – if they didn’t do that, everyone would test positive. (Martin Kessler)

    The PCR method is sensitive enough to detect even a single copy of a specific nucleic acid sequence. If the virus was indeed present in everybody, then everybody would be positive by PCR, regardless of dilution. (Trrll)

    I hope you can follow the ‘evolution” of the argument now, along with everybody else.

    Instead of demonstrating you don’t know what an analogy is, you should spend your ‘real science’ lectures clarifying why HIV should be present in every human cell if it had a long evolutionary history in humans, but not so in chimps.

    Or alternatively you could clarify the apparently interchangeable terms ‘THE virus’ introduced by you and HIV DNA and nucleic acid which CN and Martin Kessler were talking about.

    Following that you could go on to explain the difference between a supposedly HIV specific marker test that has to be diluted a LOT to avoid everybody, including my dog, testing positive on it, and PCR which looks for. . . what was it again? nucleic acid or THE (whole) virus . . .?

    4. If you’re impressed with Chris’s lazy and pretentious habit of throwing pubmed. at us without even an attempt at summarizing and stating succinctly the argument he has in mind, I guarantee you’re the only one.- and, as I said, it ain’t for lack of pretensions:

    We can also modify HIV to make it tropic for other species

    I guess ‘we’ stands for Chris and everybody else whose knowledge of molecular biology is just sufficient to google the term.

  29. Dave Says:

    Trrll,

    The goal was not to prove causation, which was already established to the satisfaction of most scientists by that time

    Oh really? You claim that viral causation was established before they started infecting HIV in chimps? That would have been in 1985. Please name the experimental paper that actually tested the hypothesis that HIV was a pathogenic virus, rather than a passenger paper.

    Your major error is simple: You have abandonned the sine qua non of science — the testable hypothesis.

    That is the mistake Gallo made in 1984, that is the mistake Padian made in 1986.

    Here’s how it should have gone down:

    1984: I, Robert Gallo, hypothesize that a virus, HTLV-111, is the cause of AIDS. I predict that I will find this virus in all 72 AIDS patients I am studying.

    If he find the virus in all or close to the 72, he is right, Duesberg shuts up.

    But, in fact, he found it in only 26. (See, Gallo et al, “Science, 224:503-503 (1984).

    Therefore, the hypothesis was tested, but not proven.

    Same with Padian in 1986:

    Here’s how it should have gone down:

    1986: I, Nancy Padian, hypothesize that the virus is sexually transmitted. I predict that when 176 discordant couples have sex, several of the healthy uninfected partners will contract HIV.

    If all or close to the 176, get HIV, she is right, and Duesberg shuts up.

    But, in fact, after 10 years, she found “no seroconversions”. (See Padian, Am.J.Epidemiology, pg 354.)

    Therefore, the hypothesis was tested, but not proven.

    Why and how your minions abandonned these solid scientific principles for this voodoo and witchcraft that poses as modern day “AIDS science” is a truly remarkable phenomenom.

    It would be merely an interesting, historical blunder — except for one thing — the indiscriminate use of cancer chemo (AZT) that killed all those patients from 1986-1996.

  30. Truthseeker Says:

    It would be merely an interesting, historical blunder — except for one thing — the indiscriminate use of cancer chemo (AZT) that killed all those patients from 1986-1996.

    Excuse me, Dave, but you overlook the fact that this was the unfortunate collateral damage of a heroic effort to save them from the effects of a deadly inert virus.

  31. Dave Says:

    TS,

    In principle, you are probably right. But, that makes it harder for sycophants — like Trrll — to reassess their opinions. Who wants to acknowledge a mistake that lead to the death of all these people?

    For some, it is just too hard to face up to this logical conclusion. It is much easier to either: (a) ignore Duesberg’s scientific claims or (b) attack him personally than to face this fact.

  32. Chris Noble Says:

    Chris Noble made a statement that HIV DNA would be present in everyone. The test that is presently used dilutes the specimen by 1/400th – if they didn’t do that, everyone would test positive.

    You are very confused.

    The 1:400 dilution that you refer to was the dilution used in a particluar ELISA test. It was an antibody test and not a nucleic acid test. One component of the diluent used in many antibody tests is Bovine and Goat sera. These are added for the express purpose of binding non-specific antibodies from the test serum and make the test much more specific. That the tests lose accuracy when you don’t follow the instructions is hardly surprising to anyone with a passing knowledge of the subject.

    http://www.aidstruth.org/howimmunoassayswork.php

    Nucleic acid tests are very sensitive and have no problems detecting very low levels of DNA in a small fraction of cells. If HIV were an endogenous virus then HIV DNA would be detected in every cell in every human. People making the claim that HIV is an endogenous virus are only displaying a profound ignorance of the subject or a desire to deceive. I think the former is more likely.

  33. Chris Noble Says:

    1986: I, Nancy Padian, hypothesize that the virus is sexually transmitted. I predict that when 176 discordant couples have sex, several of the healthy uninfected partners will contract HIV.

    If Nancy Padian were attempting to test the hypothesis that the cause of AIDS, HIV, is sexually transmitted (she wasn’t) then she would not have deliberately done all that she could to prevent the couples transmitting HIV.

    She was not attempting to test this hypothesis. Padian’s main goals were to determine how to prevent HIV transmission. As a means to this goal she attempted to obtain an *estimate* of the transmission risk of HIV via heterosexual sex.

    Your continued misrepresentation of this work despite corrections from the author herself is nothing short of dishonest.

    On the other hand Duesberg’s hypothesis has been tested and falsified. Get over it.

    Does Drug Use cause AIDS?

  34. trrll Says:

    Why is the fact that Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS, allowed to stand as compelling data, part of the clear-cut etc. evidence that HIV causes AIDS in humans, when the chimp argument, according to you is irrational and unscientific?

    While not a key piece of evidence that HIV causes AIDS, it does demonstrate that viruses in the SIV/HIV family are potentially capable of producing immunodeficiency disease.

    The chimp argument is not an analogy since it doesn’t postulate that because humans and chimps are similar in one respect they are similar in another.

    The claim is that because chimps are similar to humans at the genetic level, then all viruses should produce similar effects in chimps and humans. This is argument by analogy, not scientific reasoning.

    Instead of demonstrating you don’t know what an analogy is, you should spend your ‘real science’ lectures clarifying why HIV should be present in every human cell if it had a long evolutionary history in humans, but not so in chimps.

    You seem to be confusing the (mistaken) notion that HIV has a long evolutionary history of vertical transmission in the genome in humans with the very different idea that chimps have a long evolutionary history of horizontal transmission (i.e. by infection).

    Or alternatively you could clarify the apparently interchangeable terms ‘THE virus’ introduced by you and HIV DNA and nucleic acid which CN and Martin Kessler were talking about.

    I’m not sure exactly where your point of confusion is here. HIV is an RNA virus which is transcribed into DNA by reverse transcriptase. RNA and DNA are both nucleic acid. The PCR assay is capable of detecting HIV nucleic acid with extraordinary sensitivity, even at the level of a single molecule, so if HIV really was present in every human cell, the PCR assay would detect it in all people. It does not.

    ollowing that you could go on to explain the difference between a supposedly HIV specific marker test that has to be diluted a LOT to avoid everybody, including my dog, testing positive on it, and PCR which looks for. . . what was it again? nucleic acid or THE (whole) virus . . .?

    The PCR assay detects a specific nucleic acid sequence that is present in all HIV, and which is also present in HIV infected cells. Because of the extraordinary sensitivity of the PCR test, dilution is irrelevant. If there is even a single copy of the virus present in a cell, the PCR test will detect it.

    If you’re impressed with Chris’s lazy and pretentious habit of throwing pubmed. at us without even an attempt at summarizing and stating succinctly the argument he has in mind, I guarantee you’re the only one.

    I thought that Dr. Noble’s point was quite clear–that rather than perseverating in irrational argumentation by analogy, scientists are investigating the exact molecular determinants that dictate whether or not a particular type of cell is subject to infection and damage by HIV. Which part of this do you find difficult to understand?

  35. Truthseeker Says:

    As a means to this goal she attempted to obtain an *estimate* of the transmission risk of HIV via heterosexual sex.

    Those who were cavalier about the use of condoms ie didn’t bother to try and prevent transmission, about fifty seven couples if casual memory serves, scored zero in the study.

    Whatever the objectives of the study you claim, it makes no difference to this finding. A heterosexually transmitted pandemic or epidemic or mini epidemic is therefore impossible to achieve ie ruled out, unless you have some other way of transmission which all have overlooked.

    Nil transmission is nil transmission. That’s the estimate she achieved. Are you suggesting that her results were inaccurate for some reason? What is your reason? Has she stated this herself? What was her reason, if she did?

    Her statement on AIDSTruth is a transparent piece of obligatory double talk, the kind that is demanded if you wish to keep on the right side of Dr Fauci, but does not alter the finding in the slightest.

    As we have told you several times, her only supplementary claim to try and rescue the paradigm she tossed her firebomb into is that transmission is somehow higher in Africa, accompanied by childish and insulting speculation as to why African heterosexual sex might differ from white North American sex.

    Our advice to Padian is to keep an eye out for the collapse of the paradigm’s political support, and when she sees it coming for sure, to switch to taking credit for her finding, and for exploding the African pandemic part of the gimcrack Heath Robinson paradigm, for which she might get a Lasker, or if not, at least the gratitude of “AIDS” patients around the world who are taking vile and misdirected substances on the basis of scientifically ignorant advice.

  36. trrll Says:

    The fact plain to any 12 year old is that if there is no case where a microbe causes health problems to a human and not to a chimp, and vice versa, then it is unlikely that HIV is the one marvelous exception and that its nil effect in chimps is an indication that we must acknowledge its vicious effect in humans

    Dismissing a hypothesis based on some sort of intuitive notion of what is “unlikely” is another example of an irrational argument that may fool a 12 year old, but not a scientist. Susceptibility to illness as a result of a virus is not a random process to which statistical concepts such as likelihood can meaningfully be applied–it is dependent upon specific molecular determinants. A biologist is obligated to ask specific molecular questions: What are the specific molecular factors that determine infection and damage? Are these molecular determinants the same or different in humans and other primates?

  37. Chris Noble Says:

    Whatever the objectives of the study you claim, it makes no difference to this finding. A heterosexually transmitted pandemic or epidemic or mini epidemic is therefore impossible to achieve ie ruled out, unless you have some other way of transmission which all have overlooked.

    You say this without the briefest attempt to define what rate of transmission is necessary for an epidemic. Most people believe that transmission from shared needles has been a contributing factor to the African epidemic although the exact fraction is disputed.

    Nil transmission is nil transmission. That’s the estimate she achieved. Are you suggesting that her results were inaccurate for some reason? What is your reason? Has she stated this herself? What was her reason, if she did?

    Except there were transmissions in the Padian cohort. She meticulously looked at the seroconversion history of the couples and found transmission events.

    Padian has also argued that transmission risk will vary with viral load and that this will vary with the stage of infection. More recent studies by other authors including Ronald Gray with the Rakai cohort have confirmed this.

    None of the HIV+ partners in the discordant couples were in the acute infection stage. Hence Padian’s figures are likely to underestimate the transmission risk. As I have pointed out transmission risk per act can be much, much higher.

    I shouldn’t need to explain but monogamous couples do not create epidemics. People having sex with multiple partners during the acute infection stage will make a much, much greater contribution to an epidemic than monogamous couples.

    Epidemiology: Dimensions of superspreading

    These observations led to the proposal of the 20/80 rule2, 8, which suggests that roughly 20% of the most infectious individuals are responsible for 80% of the transmission

  38. Chris Noble Says:

    The fact plain to any 12 year old is that if there is no case where a microbe causes health problems to a human and not to a chimp, and vice versa, then it is unlikely that HIV is the one marvelous exception and that its nil effect in chimps is an indication that we must acknowledge its vicious effect in humans

    The only source for this contention is Duesberg. As usual his iron rule is not as exact as he makes out.

    1) A subset of chimpanzees infected with HIV do show progressive CD4+ cell depletion.

    2) Chimpanzees infected with other viruses such as HBV and HCV show quite distinct symptoms both in severity and type than humans.

    Cue AL to give his normal ceteris paribus response.

  39. Truthseeker Says:

    Glad you can spell the phrase, at least Chris.

    But it would be appreciated if you did not repeatedly mar this blog with poor logic and incorrect statements, which interfere with the process of clarifying error by compounding it, and we suspect your motives in doing so.

    The above two messages are such blindingly dazzling examples of both tendencies that they need no comment, since they have already been very thoroughly dealt with more than once here, and we have to get to a conference by 9am.

    But if you truly think that you are making valid points, and cannot recall how they were trounced before, then we will rescue you from your befuddlement when we return.

  40. MacDonald Says:

    Trrll:

    The claim is that because chimps are similar to humans at the genetic level, then all viruses should produce similar effects in chimps and humans. This is argument by analogy, not scientific reasoning.

    No. The claim is that all (other) known disease causing microbes produce similar effects in humans and chimps.

    One explanation given for this correlation is that chimps and humans are genetically similar.

    Standing the chain of reasoning on its head does not make analogy of induction.

    The animal model was not established succesfully where it was most reasonable to expect it.
    The anomality is therefore cause for investigation.

    If you, who supposedly have the necessary background to inform us, are in possesion of the molecular explanation why HIV kills humans but spares infected chimps, please share it with all of us in that inimitable pedagogical style of yours.

    Until then the fact remains that the authors of the Durban Declaration, as well as Duesberg’s opponents in the legendary Nature debate, had nothing to say about molecules, but chose instead to resort to monkeys and cats for their animal model ‘analogy’, which they obviously find more important than you do (could it have something to do with Koch?), since it was chosen in the Durban Declaration to represent evidence according to the “highest standards of science”.

    So, Dr. Trrll, once more, take all your lectures on analogy and lay it at the feet of well known HIV scientists, who have nothing but analogy and ever more shaky correlation to trumpet as the highest standards of science.

  41. MacDonald Says:

    Anomality = anomaly for those who have a basic grasp of written English, MacDonald obviously not belonging in that category these days

  42. Dan Says:

    Similarly, there is no rooting out the meme that HIV is deadly from the minds of its converts

    I think you’ve hit upon a key word, Truthseeker.

    This is why I think the “gay community” may be the last to understand that HIV=AIDS=CROCK. Not only did the meme take root, we’ve created a symbiotic relationship with it. Gay culture might very well collapse without “AIDS”. What would we do without the belief system and the rituals (the most profound being the “guilty until proven innocent” “HIV test”)?

    Sorry about getting off track again, but the word “rooting”, caught my attention.

  43. Dave Says:

    MacDonald,

    HIV has killed 40 million humans — but not one chimp:)

    Chris Noble wrote:

    Except there were transmissions in the Padian cohort. She meticulously looked at the seroconversion history of the couples and found transmission events .

    This is, at best, misleading; at worst, a bald-faced lie.

    Let me quote from Padian:

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

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

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

    If she wanted to compare the heterosexual transmission rates of HIV for 2 groups:(discordant couples who used condoms) and (discordant couples who didn’t use condoms), she easily could have done so. She didn’t. She came up with 1 rate for men=>women (1/1000) and 1 rate for women=>men (1/10,000).

    Bottom line: She biased her own study, assuming a priori that HIV was transmitted by sex, but couldn’t figure out how to handle her factual finding of “no seroconversions.”

  44. Dave Says:

    Chris Noble wrote:

    If HIV was an endogenous retrovirus that has been in the human genome for a long evolutionary time then HIV DNA should be detecable in every cell in every human.

    This is actually a good scientific hypothesis. It makes a prediction. Well done.

    The problem is that you taint it, almost immediately, with this little tidbit at the end. It isn’t.

    For that 2 word statement to be true, Chris, you would have had to cite a paper, where the authors tested the hypothesis, actively scoured the human genome to find endogenous HIV, to no avail. You didn’t.

    But, let’s flesh it out a bit:

    1. Human genome has about 3 billion nucleotides;

    2. Retroviruses make up about 8% of the human genome;

    “Human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) sequences, which account for 8% of the human genome” (Lander et al., 2001). (See Schroder et al, “HIV-1 Integration in the Human Genome Favors Active Genes and Local Hotspots”
    Cell, 110 (4), 521-529 (2002))

    3. So, that means roughly 26 million nucleotides per human cell are retroviral sequences.

    4. HIV has about 9100 nucleotides. (See Li, Journal of Virology (1992).

    So, why would it be so extraordinary that of the 26 million nucleotides in the human cell, characterized
    as endogenous retrovirals, that a mere 9100 correspond with the HIV genome?

    The one paper that I know of where researchers at the University of Minnesota looked at this issue, wrote this:

    Endogenous retrovirus-related sequences exist within the normal genomic DNA of all eukaryotes, and these endogenous sequences have been shown to be important to the nature and biology of related exogenous retroviruses and may also play a role in cellular functions. To date, no endogenous sequences related to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) have been reported. Herein we describe the first report of the presence of nucleotide sequences related to HIV-1 in human, chimpanzee, and rhesus monkey DNAs from normal uninfected individuals.

    Horwitz et al., “Novel human endogenous sequences related to human immunodeficiency virus type 1“, J Virol. 66(4):2170-9 (1992).

    Does Horwitz prove that HIV is an endogenous retrovirus? Probably not. Proof is a high standard. But, it certainly provides evidence supporting that proposition, and certainly suggests further research into the question.

    So, to recapulate:

    1. You claim HIV is not a human retrovirus (“It isn’t’)
    2. Yet, you fail to note that the human genome is 3 billion base-pairs
    3. You fail to note that HIV is only 9100 base pairs
    4. You fail to note that the human genome has millions of retroviral sequences (8%)
    5. And, you fail to note a paper (Horwitz) which actually looked at the issue.

    That is why few of us here respect you. On this issue, you do not act like a scientist; you act like an AIDS activist, who merely toes the party line, cloaking his biased opinions with a thin veneer of science.

  45. Truthseeker Says:

    Sorry about getting off track again

    Seems very much on track, since our distinguished deniers of reason and evidence here seem to have this particular LSD mushroom rooted deep into their synaptic network such that only major physical surgery would be enough to remove it and that would probably risk the end of all semblance of ratiocination in their uniformly reliable frontal cortices, and we certainly would not want that, given the entertainment they afford to all who peruse this humble blog.

  46. trrll Says:

    No. The claim is that all (other) known disease causing microbes produce similar effects in humans and chimps.

    So what? That says nothing about HIV. To draw a conclusion about HIV based on that statement, you need to also assume that HIV is “like” all other known diseases. That’s an analogy.

    One explanation given for this correlation is that chimps and humans are genetically similar.

    But not, however, identical. And since biochemical studies of how disease organisms affect cells depend upon the molecular details of how a cell is constructed and how a cell functions, one cannot rationally expect that all disease organisms will affect both species the same way.

    To make this clearer, let’s contrast an irrational vs. a rational argument:

    Irrational:

    All known diseases other than HIV affect chimps and humans the same way, therefore if HIV doesn’t make chimps sick, it cannot make humans sick.

    Rational:

    There genetic difference between chimps and humans is small, therefore, if HIV affects chimps and humans differently, it must be the result of one or more of the things that are different. This provides an important clue as to the genetic determinants of HIV infectivity and cytotoxicity. As Dr. Noble has pointed out, this sort of reasoning has already led to significant insights into molecular determinants of host specificity.

  47. trrll Says:

    So, why would it be so extraordinary that of the 26 million nucleotides in the human cell, characterized
    as endogenous retrovirals, that a mere 9100 correspond with the HIV genome?

    Whether or not you think it extraordinary, the fact is that it is not true. The PCR test is sensitive enough to detect those 9100 nucleotides if they are present in all humans. They aren’t.

    It is not, however, at all surprising that there are HIV related sequences. This means sequences that are not derived from HIV itself, but are remnants of an infection, sometime in human evolutionary history, with a virus of the same family as HIV.

    From the abstract of the paper you cited:

    With use of low-stringency Southern blot hybridization, complex banding patterns were detected in human DNA with 5′ and 3′ HIV-1-derived probes.

    The key word here is “low stringency.” PCR as typically used is a high-stringency test. It will detect only sequences that actually are HIV, excluding sequences that are only somewhat like HIV sequence. In contrast a “low stringency” assay is specifically designed to also detect sequences that are different from authentic HIV sequence, but bear some degree of “family resemblance” to HIV.

  48. Chris Noble Says:

    So, why would it be so extraordinary that of the 26 million nucleotides in the human cell, characterized as endogenous retrovirals, that a mere 9100 correspond with the HIV genome?

    Because if the human genome did contain a 9100 bp sequence corresponding to the HIV genome then nucleic acid tests using primers based on parts of the 9100 bp sequence would detect this DNA in every single cell in every single human. There is no escaping this blindingly obvious fact. It doesn’t matter how much of the human genome contains related retroviral sequences no sequences with any significant similarity to HIV exist in the human genome.

    Duesberg and other “rethinkers” have repeatedly made a big deal of the observation that in HIV infected people HIV DNA can only be found in a small percentage of CD4+ cells in serum. “Rethinkers” have also made a big deal of the observation that HIV DNA is not found in Kaposi Sarcoma tissue. I don’t expect much from “rethinkers” but some consistency would be good. Which is it? Are HIV sequences in the human genome or are they absent from most CD4+ cells?

    You offer the paper by Horwitz as evidence for the presence of HIV sequences in the human genome and accuse me of failing to mention it. I must be covering it up!

    That’s probably why I gave you the reference in March.

    Hank’s endogenous HIV theory

    The authors deliberately used low stringency hybridisation so that they could find sequences that only partially matched the HIV primers that they used. Even then they only found very short sequences of 28-31 bps that were a) highly repetive and b) low similarity with HIV sequences.

    In contrast if a 9100 bp sequence corresponding to the HIV genome was in the human genome Horwitz et al would have found it in every single cell.

    Only a scientifically illiterate person would make the claim that HIV is an endogenous virus. There is no evidence for the claim and the maount of evidence that contradicts the claim is overwhelming.

    That is why few of us here respect you. On this issue, you do not act like a scientist; you act like an AIDS activist, who merely toes the party line, cloaking his biased opinions with a thin veneer of science.

    The real question is why a scientifically illiterate lawyer is held in such high regard in HIV “rethinker” circles. Why don’t you ask your buddies like Bialy if HIV is in the human genome?

    Really your claim to be an arbiter of what is and what isn’t science is laughable.

  49. Dave Says:

    Chris Noble,

    Typical hocus-pocus. Typical ad hominem. Typical weasle.

    You made the claim on this thread — that HIV was not an endogenous retrovirus — without any supporting evidence.

    If HIV was an endogenous retrovirus that has been in the human genome for a long evolutionary time then HIV DNA should be detecable in every cell in every human. It isn’t.

    But, you didn’t cite anything. That’s how you guys operate. You make claims, but don’t cite references.

    Then you get fussy, when called on it.

    Had you mentioned Horwitz on this thread, you would have at least had something. But you didn’t. I don’t keep track of all the silliness you have printed all over the internet, so its ridiculous to say, Hey, I cited Horwitz 8 months on another blog!

    Then, you intentionally mistate and personalize the charges:

    Only a scientifically illiterate person would make the claim that HIV is an endogenous virus .

    Well, I think it is a valid claim, for the reasons stated above. 8% of the human genome translates to 240 million base pairs in each cell. That’s a lot of room for a genetically, inconsequential 9000 nucleotide retrovirus called HIV.

    I would enjoy having a molecular biologist make this claim, get funding, actually investigate it and publish his findings. Has this been done? It surely would put the scientific issue to rest.

    So, in sum, unless this claim has been investigated,(it should be a simple experiment), you still remain an AIDS activist spouting the party line, not a scientist, because you don’t know the answer.

    The key point to take away from this is that every human has an abundant number of retroviruses in the cellular DNA of each of his 10 trillion cells — so what makes HIV, biochemically, so special?

    According to Gallo and Temin, it doesn’t kill chimps.
    According to Padian, it doesn’t transmit by sex.
    According to Montagnier, it isn’t sufficient to kill T4-cells in vitro, without “co-factors.”
    According to Hoffman, only a surprisingly low number of T4- cells are infected with HIV in AIDS patients.

    So, again, I ask, what makes this sparse, little retrovirus so special?

  50. Dave Says:

    Trrll,

    You claimed above that HIV was established to cause AIDS, sometime before they started infecting chimps with HIV (probably ’85-’87.)

    The goal was not to prove causation, which was already established to the satisfaction of most scientists by that time

    Please provide the reference(s) for the paper during that time frame that tested the hypothesis that HIV was a pathogenic virus, not a passenger virus.

    Again, we’re looking for a paper that made a testable hypothesis, not one that merely presumed that HIV caused AIDS.

    BTW, Here’s a wiki on passenger virus that doesn’t quite get it right, but will work.

    Funny thing, when trying to find a medical definition of “passenger virus,” it’s almost as if the scientific community has forgotten about this simple phenomenom –viruses that don’t do anything.

  51. Truthseeker Says:

    According to Gallo and Temin, it doesn’t kill chimps.
    According to Padian, it doesn’t transmit by sex.
    According to Montagnier, it isn’t sufficient to kill T4-cells in vitro, without “co-factors.”
    According to Hoffman, only a surprisingly low number of T4- cells are infected with HIV in AIDS patients.

    So, again, I ask, what makes this sparse, little retrovirus so special?

    The fact that a sizeable proportion of the human race believes it is deadly in a supernatural way ie without any scientific evidence for its deadliness or as yet for its machinations.

    All the admirable neuroscientist Terrell and the distinguished not-a-statistician Noble ever do is argue for exceptions to plain and simple rules, and the reason they do this so strenuously is evidently because they believe in the guidance of Bob Gallo and Tony Fauci, plus all the “cows that graze the pasture of science” (in Peter Medawar’s phrase) that follow the lead of these gentlemen.

    Well, one has to grant that it is always possible that our teeny pseudo virus (which is what HIV really is, one of a brethren not otherwise active in causing anything interesting at all) may well be an exception, as far as strict logic goes, since there is not something physically preventing it from being so, as Noble points out time and again, as if this proved it was so, rather than being simply an extremely outside possibility with no firm evidence at all that it is so or even that it is possible, mechanically speaking.

    And indeed, if the power of belief is sufficient to turn water into wine perhaps it can turn insignificant wisps of RNA into deadly biological entities causing fatal harm to humans and no other species, at some point in the vague future which ranges from immediately (well, two months if the recent HAART study is valid) to twenty or more years after infection.

    In fact, it is fairly clear that the power of belief is sufficient to knock over some people, so there is truth in what they claim. Though not in the sense they imply, which is that the entity rather than the belief is at work.

    Only brain science can tell us the mechanism with which belief prevails over reason, but we have already posted on that.

    Perhaps Terrell should read a little of Sam Harris and his Letter to a Christian Nation to see how a fellow neuroscientist can find his way amid religious dogma ie have the courage to disrespect it and respect reason, rather than cherish it as some kind of solution. Religion has no place in science.

  52. Chris Noble Says:

    But, you didn’t cite anything. That’s how you guys operate. You make claims, but don’t cite references.

    Don’t you read Duesberg’s articles?

    Pharmacology &Therapeutics 55: 201 277, 1992

    On average only 1 in 500 to 3000 T-cells, or 1 in 1500 to 8000 leukocytes of AIDS patients are infected by HIV (Schnittman et al., 1989; Simmonds et al., 1990). (About 35% of leukocytes are T-cells (Walton et al., 1986).) A recent study, relying on in situ amplification of a proviral HIV DNA fragment with the polymerase chain reaction, detects HIV DNA in 1 of 10 to 1 of 1000 leukocytes of AIDS patients. However, the authors acknowledge that the in situ method cannot distinguish between intact and defective proviruses and may include false-positives, because it does not characterize the amplified DNA products (Bagasra et al., 1992). Indeed the presence of 1 provirus per 10 or even 100 cells is exceptional in AIDS patients. This is why direct hybridization with viral DNA, a technique that is capable of seeing 1 provirus per 10 to 100 cells, typically fails to detect HIV DNA in AIDS patients (Duesberg, 1989c). According to one study, The most striking feature . . . is the extremely low level of HIV provirus present in circulating PBMCs (peripheral blood mononuclear cells) in most cases (Simmonds et al., 1990).

    Then, you intentionally mistate and personalize the charges

    I have pointed out very clearly that your theory is completely untenable. If HIV were part of the human genome then nucleic acid tests would detect it in every human cell in every human. A key argument from Duesberg involves the observation that only a small proportion of circulating PBMCs have HIV DNA in them so you can’t claim that there is no evidence that completely falsifies your theory.

    Your arguments, which I am criticising are completely scientifically illiterate. They display profound ignorance coupled with perverse illogic. This of course reflects badly of you but it is not in iteslf an ad hominem because I criticise first and foremost your arguments.

    You on the contrary repeatedly imply political motivations on my part.

    Had you mentioned Horwitz on this thread, you would have at least had something. But you didn’t. I don’t keep track of all the silliness you have printed all over the internet, so its ridiculous to say, Hey, I cited Horwitz 8 months on another blog!

    I have been citing Horwitz for years. Your ignorance is no excuse. Have you actually read the article?

    Well, I think it is a valid claim, for the reasons stated above. 8% of the human genome translates to 240 million base pairs in each cell. That’s a lot of room for a genetically, inconsequential 9000 nucleotide retrovirus called HIV.

    PCR and other nucleic acid detection methods are extremely sensitive. They can detect HIV DNA even if it is only present in a small fraction of cells. If HIV sequences were present in the human genome then they would be found by PCR. Your repeated assertion that your claim is valid only demonstrates your profound ignorance. There is no more polite way I can put it. Why don’t you ask Duesberg?

    According to Hoffman, only a surprisingly low number of T4- cells are infected with HIV in AIDS patients.

    The source for this claim is this article


    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 April 15; 88(8): 3060–3064.

    The reference that Hoffmann gives is this one from 1989.

    The reservoir for HIV-1 in human peripheral blood is a T cell that maintains expression of CD4.

    And guess what? They used PCR to look for HIV DNA in various subsets of T-cells. In most types apart from CD4+ cells they found no or very little HIV DNA. In CD4+ cells they found HIV DNA in about 1/100 cells.

    You cannot claim that nobody has looked for HIV DNA. The very studies that you cite show that they have looked and typically find HIV DNA in only a small fraction of CD4+ cells and little in other cells.

    The fact that you are simultaneously arguing both that HIV DNA is only present in a small fraction of T-cells and that it is present in the human genome is self-contradictory and frankly stupid.

    All it reveals is your profound ignorance and remarkable illogic. It is clear to most observers that your reasons for supporting Duesberg have nothing to do with the science that you obviously do not understand.

    The fact that you are apparently encouraged in your ignorance by Bialy and Duesberg reveals their lack of integrity.

  53. Dave Says:

    Chris,

    You are beyond lost. It’s like communicating with a hysterical teenager.

    I love this non-sequitur of yours right of the box:

    Me: But, you didn’t cite anything. That’s how you guys operate. You make claims, but don’t cite references.

    You:Don’t you read Duesberg’s articles?

    Umm, yes I have. Did you cite it above in support of your claim that HIV was not an endogenous retrovirus? Further, what does this have to do with my small observation that you made a claim, but failed to cite a reference to it?

    I have pointed out very clearly that your theory is completely untenable.

    It’s not my theory — it’s a theory.

    If HIV were part of the human genome then nucleic acid tests would detect it in every human cell in every human .

    Well, I agree in principle. It would be in every human cell — that’s a testable hypothesis, isn’t it? That’s good science, isn’t it? Has it been tested or not?

    I have been citing Horwitz for years. Your ignorance is no excuse. Have you actually read the article?

    Really, for years? Wow, I am impressed! Where? And, why didn’t you cite it above in this thread to support your claim? But, Yes, I’ve read the entire article.

    You cannot claim that nobody has looked for HIV DNA.

    Boy, you are dense beyond belief. I haven’t made that claim. I said I didn’t know if a researcher made the hypothesis above and then specifically tested for it.

    The very studies that you cite show that they have looked and typically find HIV DNA in only a small fraction of CD4+ cells and little in other cells.

    Wrong. That’s a separate issue and separate paradox — how can HIV simultaneously infect so few cells and, cause so much harm (in humans, but not in chimps!)

    The hypothesis would be to test healthy, humans cells and look for the HIV sequence among the 240 million base-pairs of retroviral DNA.

    In theory, this seems like it would be easy to do. But, I haven’t found a paper where it was done. By your glaring omission, I guess you haven’t either.

    The rest of your post is just silly verbiage. On AIDS, you’re just not a scientist. You’re simply a true believer — no different than an evangelical in Mississippi singing the gospels, no different than a muslim fanatic praising Allah.

    Finally, I note with glee that you have run full speed away from your vapid, demonstrably false statement regarding the Padian the study above:

    You: Except there were transmissions in the Padian cohort. She meticulously looked at the seroconversion history of the couples and found transmission events .

    Padian:

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

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

  54. Chris Noble Says:

    It’s not my theory — it’s a theory.

    It’s a theory that you are unsuccessfully attempting to defend.

    Wrong. That’s a separate issue and separate paradox — how can HIV simultaneously infect so few cells and, cause so much harm (in humans, but not in chimps!)

    No, it is not a separate issue at all. Various researchers such as Schnittman et al have specifically looked for HIV DNA in human cells. The vast majority of cells in a human infected with HIV do not contain HIV DNA. The exception are CD4+ cells which by some wild coincidence just happen to decline in people infected with HIV.

    The hypothesis would be to test healthy, humans cells and look for the HIV sequence among the 240 million base-pairs of retroviral DNA.

    Well the paper from Schnittman et al did look at healthy human cells. Perhaps you mean in HIV- people.

    Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 detected in all seropositive symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

    The authors looked for HIV in the PBMCs from 131 healthy HIV- subjects and could not find any. By contrast they found HIV DNA in the PBMCs of all HIV+ subjects.

    Duesberg cites this very article by Jackson et al in his attempt to win the Continuum prize.

    For example Jackson et al. have tested blood cells of 409 antibody-positives including 144 AIDS patients and 265 healthy people. In addition 131 antibody-negatives were tested. HIV-specific DNA subsets -defined in size and sequence by HIV-specific primers (start signals for the selective amplification) – were found in 403 of the 409 antibody-positives, but in none of the 131 antibody-negative people (Jackson et al., 1990).

    Your ignorance is breathtaking.

    In theory, this seems like it would be easy to do. But, I haven’t found a paper where it was done. By your glaring omission, I guess you haven’t either.

    Your inability to read and understand scientific papers might be part of the problem.

    The rest of your post is just silly verbiage. On AIDS, you’re just not a scientist. You’re simply a true believer — no different than an evangelical in Mississippi singing the gospels, no different than a muslim fanatic praising Allah.

    I have presented the evidence that HIV is not an endogenous retrovirus that has been present in the human genome for millennia. There is nothing at all religious about my argument.

  55. trrll Says:

    Well, I agree in principle. It would be in every human cell — that’s a testable hypothesis, isn’t it? That’s good science, isn’t it? Has it been tested or not?

    This is pretty silly. Of course it has been tested, as anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of HIV testing knows. The PCR test, which so sensitive that it is fully capable of detecting even a single copy of HIV genetic material out of the entire human genome, is recognized as the most accurate and reproducible test for HIV infection. Quite obviously, it would be useless if it read positive for everybody (as it would if HIV sequence were present in everybody’s genome). This is very elementary information.

    Wrong. That’s a separate issue and separate paradox — how can HIV simultaneously infect so few cells and, cause so much harm (in humans, but not in chimps!)

    You can’t have it both ways. HIV cannot simultaneously be present in every cell in everybody and also be present in “so few cells.”

  56. trrll Says:

    All the admirable neuroscientist Terrell and the distinguished not-a-statistician Noble ever do is argue for exceptions to plain and simple rules

    In biology, it is very hard to find reliable “plain and simple rules.” Evolution produces complexity and elaboration. Things that at first appear plain and simple almost always turn out on further investigation to be more complex.

    Well, one has to grant that it is always possible that our teeny pseudo virus (which is what HIV really is, one of a brethren not otherwise active in causing anything interesting at all) may well be an exception, as far as strict logic goes, since there is not something physically preventing it from being so

    This actually approaches a rational statement, although you still seem incapable of stating the idea in an unbiased way (e.g. “pseudo virus”). And do you really believe that the “brethren” of HIV are “not otherwise active in causing anything at all”? How about SIV in rhesus monkees? FIV in cats?

  57. Marcel Says:

    There is, or was, a lady in the UK who theorized that vivisection blunts a scientists’ “emotional intelligence” which might explain why they are such arrogant insensitive twits. I would like to take that one step further.

    I’m sure she is right that torturing animals makes a medical or biology student insensitive to suffering. How could it not? But I wonder if, in addition to that, insensitive youngsters who like to torture animals are attracted to the biological and medical sciences, where their sadism will not just be tolerated, but rewarded, maybe even with Nobel prizes and the like.

    I think it’s a theory worth thinking about, and I’d appreciate comments. Alas, even our own Peter D., who wants to experiment on rats, is not an enlightened man in this area.

    I also take exception to some of the posters who argued that chimps’ similarities to humans are the reason why we should not torture them. Why does an animal have to be similar to us to merit being spared pain? Don’t you think that birds and cats and dogs and, yes, even rats, also feel pain and hate being isolated in cages? We know that they do. We who have been close to them also know that they are as fully capable of love as any human or chimp. To argue that only humans or similar primates should be spared suffering is really missing the point, IMO.

  58. Marcel Says:

    To Celia’s and Dan’s point about intimacy, yes, the condom is the most perfect way yet invented to keep people from connecting to one another. And people who can’t connect with one another cannot see that we are all really one, and that our individual existences are an illusion.

    It’s vitally important for David R. and the other master controllers to keep people from realizing that, because if people realize that we are all one, that “I am you and you are he and he is me and we are all together,” as John Lennon put it if memory serves correctly, our civilization that exalts the individual above the common good breaks down. And with that breakdown, David R. and Bill G. and Bill C. and all the rest lose their exalted status. Which is of course unthinkable.

    Preventing such terrifying realizations is also one of the reasons that the establishment connived to kill off the sixties spirit and replace it with Yuppyism. But that’s another story.

  59. Dan Says:

    To Celia’s and Dan’s point about intimacy, yes, the condom is the most perfect way yet invented to keep people from connecting to one another.

    Marcel,
    condoms can be a physical barrier to intimacy, but our minds and belief systems are the strongest forces keeping us from intimacy. “AIDS”, which is a very powerful belief system, is a perfect example.

  60. Chris Noble Says:

    How about SIV in rhesus monkees?

    Duesberg said that retroviruses such as HIV (and SIV) cannot possibly cause AIDS.

    Duesberg said it. That it settles it.

  61. Truthseeker Says:

    Your arguments, which I am criticising are completely scientifically illiterate. They display profound ignorance coupled with perverse illogic. This of course reflects badly of you but it is not in itself an ad hominem because I criticise first and foremost your arguments.

    You on the contrary repeatedly imply political motivations on my part.

    Alas, the principled attempt to avoid ad hominem reactions breaks down when faced with sufficiently repetitive amd wilfully dense responses to responsible skepticism, especially when the repetition begins to smell of purposeful sabotage of the process of enquiry. After all, how does one reconcile the evident brilliance and profound knowledge exhibited by our stalwart believers concerning the deadly cunning of a mere 9kb wisp of RNA which has so far evaded the combined expertise and research investigations of 17,845 Ph.Ds in search of its modus operandi with their insistence that it causes harm?

    Noble and Trrll’s combined savvy and ability to jockey the PubMed data base is positively breathtaking, second only to the storied accomplishment of our Robert Houston, but yet they still persist in peddling misstatements and misinterpretations and other dead end lines of resistance to what is as plain as a pikestaff mounted on Nelson’s hat on Nelson Column in the middle of Trafalgar Square, which is that play it whatever way they like, there is only the disturbing truth apparent that there are 41 reasons why the most credulous person finds it impossible to believe that HIV is the cause of anything at all other than the release of large amounts of lucre from the public purse, and not a single viable and reasonable point in its favor as a lethal agent, other than the nightmarish religion which has attached itself to their own brain cells and thus rides hobby horse over their neuronal connections and disturbs their normal razor sharp logic.

    Apart from that excuse one woukd naturally suppose that they are doing it on purpose to annoy and gain the cheaply won attention that comes from acting as a road block rather than a facilitator of productive thought, which naturally incenses their interlocutors, who for a moment may be under the initial impression that they actually want to get at the truth and advance the cause of enlightenment in an area where lives are at stake.

    But this is not the case, as far as we are concerned. As far as we can see, the brilliant, ineffably far seeing minds of both our correspondents would never stoop to anything so low as to purposely interfere with the search for truth. It is quite clear to us that it is the horrible distortion of that fine machinery introduced by the dread AIDS meme which is having this effect, and we plead for all here to have forbearance and forgive these lost souls, who we are quite certain will publicly repent and gnash their teeth and rent their garments with sorrowful and despairing apology for what they have wrought when the time comes and Fauci and Gallo are on their plane to Rio de Janeiro, where we imagine they have already bought condos near the Copacabana and its beautiful array of sand covered bosoms and buttocks.

    This actually approaches a rational statement, although you still seem incapable of stating the idea in an unbiased way (e.g. “pseudo virus”). And do you really believe that the “brethren” of HIV are “not otherwise active in causing anything at all”? How about SIV in rhesus monkees? FIV in cats?

    Everything we write is rational, so you must mean that occasionally we write a meta level survey of the proceedings which doesn’t address your arguments specifically, for which we apologize, but the competing responsibility of finding anything at all cogent to post on this HIV∫AIDS topic at the advanced stage of obviousness it has now achieved – obvious that HIV has no involvement whatsoever in the ills of AIDS, that is – is now taking more and more time, since there is so little that is intelligent to report and so much of the stupidity is repetitive and has already been noted and analyzed.

    As far as FIV is concerned you saw what the cat lady posted a while back about what she thinks of this scam by Max Essex, the well known shame of Harvard in his business dealings, and as for SIV, we seriously doubt that any harm caused by this entity occurs without a great deal of quantitative assistance from desperate researchers unable to find any evidence in simians that any retrovirus does anything more than any retrovirus does in humans, which is nil, if you accept that Bob Gallo’s HTLV-1 has as much chance of producing leukemia as Babe Ruth scoring a home run if he was pitched a grapefruit.

  62. MacDonald Says:

    Irrational:

    All known diseases other than HIV affect chimps and humans the same way, therefore if HIV doesn’t make chimps sick, it cannot make humans sick.

    To draw a conclusion about HIV based on that statement, you need to also assume that HIV is “like” all other known diseases. That’s an analogy.

    And if I expect, like John Moore, that when I drop an object it will fall to the ground, I would have to assume that object is “like” all other objects in this respect, wouldn’t I?

    So what you’re saying now is that John Moore’s analogies meant to illustrate the truth of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis are based on analogy themselves, thus doubly irrational.

    Rational:

    There genetic difference between chimps and humans is small, therefore, if HIV affects chimps and humans differently, it must be the result of one or more of the things that are different. This provides an important clue as to the genetic determinants of HIV infectivity and cytotoxicity. As Dr. Noble has pointed out, this sort of reasoning has already led to significant insights into molecular determinants of host specificity.

    It is a truly revolutionary outcome of scientific reasoning that IF something is different, it is a result of something else being different.
    But, although I’m sure we’re all dazzled by your superior demonstration of the inherent explanatory power of rational thought, as opposed to the entirely irrational mode of John Moore, I must point out for the 3rd time that you and the esteemed Dr. Noble are strangely reluctant to tell us what those “significant insights” so often mentioned are; and how exactly they explain the method of cell killing in humans and the lack thereof in chimps.

  63. MacDonald Says:

    The above to Trrll in case somebody’s just switched to this channel

  64. Chris Noble Says:

    ….and as for SIV, we seriously doubt that any harm caused by this entity occurs without a great deal of quantitative assistance from desperate researchers unable to find any evidence in simians that any retrovirus does anything more than any retrovirus does in humans, which is nil…

    Once again you display a profound ignorance of the literature.

    There are many, many papers that demonstrate that SIV reproducibly infects CD4+ cells in rhesus macaques and produces a profound CD4+ cell depletion followed by a simian AIDS with opportunistic infections and death.

    These viruses are commonly used to test the efficacy of vaccines. The macaques are given the vaccine and then they are exposed to SIV. Controls that are not vaccinated become infected progress to AIDS and die.

    In an attempt to make the results of these vaccine challenge experiments more comparable to HIV and human infection HIV/SIV hybrids have been developed these are HIV with some SIV genes added so that they infected macaques.

    More recently a virus that is essentially HIV-1 with only a couple of small SIV sequences has been developed.

    Generation of Simian-Tropic HIV-1 by Restriction Factor Evasion

    A cursory knowledge of the literature would provide you with the evidence that SIV and SIV/HIV hybrids reproducibly produce AIDS in macaques.

    These viruses are available from AIDS reagent programs.

    To continue to hold Duesberg’s authoritarian dogmatic claim that retroviruses cannot cause AIDS above clear experimental evidence that viruses such as SIV and SHIV do is antiscientific

  65. Chris Noble Says:

    Alas, the principled attempt to avoid ad hominem reactions breaks down when faced with sufficiently repetitive amd wilfully dense responses to responsible skepticism, especially when the repetition begins to smell of purposeful sabotage of the process of enquiry.

    99% of David Steele’s diatribes are ad hominem attacks on people like John Moore. So far I have seen no evidence of any priciples whatsoever on his part.

    David Steele’s “skepticism” is neither skeptical nor responsible.

    Anyone that simultaneously argues that HIV is an endogenous retrovirus and that HIV is not present in a sufficient number of T-cells to cause disease is remarkably stupid and incapable of serious debate let alone passing judgement on real scientists.

    The points I have made are simple. Endogenous retroviruses are present in the human genome and are contained in the DNA in every single cell in every single human. If HIV were an endogenous retrovirus then HIV DNA would be present in every single cell in every single human.

    Early papers including the paper by Schnittman that Duesberg has cited have specifically looked for HIV sequences in the DNA of human cells. Only one subset of T-cells, CD4+ cells, has a significant number cells with HIV DNA. Even then only 1-10% of CD4+ cells have HIV DNA.

    In addition other researchers have tested the specificity of nucleic acid tests for HIV by looking for HIV DNA in the PBMCs of healthy HIV- subjests. They don’t contain HIV DNA.

    The only possible conclusion is that HIV is not an endogenous retrovirus.

    The fact that I have had to repeat this several times is a testament to David Steele’s ignorance, pigheadedness and stupidity.

  66. trrll Says:

    And if I expect, like John Moore, that when I drop an object it will fall to the ground, I would have to assume that object is “like” all other objects in this respect, wouldn’t I?

    And that analogy would serve you very well until your first encounter with a helium balloon. At which point you would have to abandon comfortable but often misleading analogical reasoning, and start thinking rationally–about messy details such as what gravity actually is (which after decades of intensive investigation by legions of physicists is still imperfectly understood) and how the physical properties of objects dictate their behavior in a gravitational field.

    I must point out for the 3rd time that you and the esteemed Dr. Noble are strangely reluctant to tell us what those “significant insights” so often mentioned are; and how exactly they explain the method of cell killing in humans and the lack thereof in chimps.

    Yes, and you can be assured that neither one of us has any intention of attempting to summarize in a few paragraphs the over 100,000 papers in the scientific literature regarding HIV and AIDS. Particularly since Dr. Noble has pointed you toward a number of quite interesting studies, and I have seen no indication that anybody here has bothered to read them, much less think about them in any rational way. Rather than any serious attempt to survey the massive scientific literature on the subject, all I see on this site is incessant harping on misinterpretations of a few isolated studies that can be twisted (over the protests of the actual authors) into some kind of appearance of agreement with the popular obsession on this site.

  67. MacDonald Says:

    Trrll, you’ve personally read over 100,000 papers on the molecular differences between chimps and humans? Or did you split the task with Chris? Howsoever I rest assured that neither of you has an answer.

    BTW, have you mentioned the helium balloon to prof Moore? If so, did he call you a denialist?

    H.I.V. causes AIDS. This is not a controversial claim but an established fact, based on more than 20 years of solid science. It is as certain as the descent of humans from apes and the falling of dropped objects to the ground.
    (Prof. John P. Moore “Deadly Quackery”)

  68. trrll Says:

    Trrll, you’ve personally read over 100,000 papers on the molecular differences between chimps and humans? Or did you split the task with Chris? Howsoever I rest assured that neither of you has an answer.

    It seems that I’ve read more than anybody here, and it isn’t even my field. Chris has already cited a number of papers on the subject, without the least indication that anybody here has bothered to look at them. If you can manage some meaningful discussion of the research already cited, beyond a kneejerk dismissal of anything that doesn’t reinforce your prejudices, perhaps we can have a serious discussion of the real science (but I’m not holding my breath).

    BTW, have you mentioned the helium balloon to prof Moore? If so, did he call you a denialist?

    H.I.V. causes AIDS. This is not a controversial claim but an established fact, based on more than 20 years of solid science. It is as certain as the descent of humans from apes and the falling of dropped objects to the ground.
    (Prof. John P. Moore “Deadly Quackery”)

    If he were actually basing his scientific conclusions on irrational analogies like “HIV doesn’t make chimps sick, so it can’t make people sick,” rather than merely offering a point of comparison to illustrate the level of confidence that most scientists have regarding the HIV/AIDS theory, then I certainly would have such a criticism. But he quite obviously is not, so I don’t.

  69. MacDonald Says:

    If he were actually basing his scientific conclusions on irrational analogies like “HIV doesn’t make chimps sick, so it can’t make people sick

    John Moore and the authors of the Durban Declaration base their scientific conclusions on analogies like SIV makes monkeys sick, so it seems my quote from “Deadly Quackery” is representative of the high scientifc standards of Moore et al.

    But since you mention it, is “the level of confidence that most scientists have regarding the HIV/AIDS theory” a scientific argument in your opinion?

    What would that be then, argumentum ad consensus or confidensus?

  70. Truthseeker Says:

    Once again you display a profound ignorance of the literature.

    There are many, many papers that demonstrate that SIV reproducibly infects CD4+ cells in rhesus macaques and produces a profound CD4+ cell depletion followed by a simian AIDS with opportunistic infections and death.

    Chris Noble, we hereby accuse you on the basis of this statement to be a brother to Pinocchio, since you must know (after being told countless times) that this is nonsense.

    These viruses are commonly used to test the efficacy of vaccines. The macaques are given the vaccine and then they are exposed to SIV. Controls that are not vaccinated become infected progress to AIDS and die.

    This statement also (the last sentence).

    We are making this precipitate accusation without reference to any papers but on the basis of common knowledge that one of the difficulties of the whole theory is that SIV really doesn’t mimick “AIDS” in any convincing way.

    So if you can produce the precise papers that say this is indeed so and that we are wrong we apologize in advance. But if you wish to prove us wrong you will have to justify your statement that SIV reliably kills “unvaccinated” macaques when present in the tiny quantities that HIV is present in the bodies of “AIDS” patients.

    If not, you will presumably retire in confusion from any further discussion on this board for at least a day, since your willingness to make outright baseless exaggerated claims will have been exposed and embarrass you beyond endurance, we would expect, as well as vitiating your credibility for evermore.

  71. Truthseeker Says:

    Here’s a quote for you, just to help you along, Chris:

    A threshold virus load value which remained below 104 RNA equivalents/ml of plasma was indicative of a nonpathogenic course of infection.

    That’s from “Journal of Virology, December 1998, p. 10281-10285, Vol. 72, No. 12 A Pathogenic Threshold of Virus Load Defined in Simian Immunodeficiency Virus- or Simian-Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Macaques
    Peter Ten Haaft,1 Babs Verstrepen,1 Klaus Ãœberla,2 Brigitte Rosenwirth,1 and Jonathan Heeney”.

  72. MacDonald Says:

    Alas TS, I fear the endurance of Dr. Noble is far from exhausted yet.

    Your petition for disclosure of the substance said to be contained within certain arcane documents darkly hinted at seems equally ill-fated:

    you can be assured that neither one of us has any intention of attempting to summarize in a few paragraphs the over 100,000 papers in the scientific literature regarding HIV and AIDS (Trrll)

    You are instead recommended to “survey” them yourself, which presumably will earn you equal right to cite obscure references, or better yet “the literature” in its seamless, monolithic entirety, instead of “harping on isolated studies”. Most importantly, you too will then be in the enviable position of being under no obligation to apologize in advance (or retrospect) for any accusation however precipitate.

    Failing initiation into the exclusive PubMed longterm non-progressor jockey club, you will in all likelihood never know if the apparently effective vaccination campaign so benefitting maqacues, otherwise brutally assaulted with laboratory created “SIV/HIV hybrids”, would reproduce in humans, or if it will turn out that the molecular determinants, subject-matter of true scientists, are ultimately aligned against it.

  73. trrll Says:

    John Moore and the authors of the Durban Declaration base their scientific conclusions on analogies like SIV makes monkeys sick, so it seems my quote from “Deadly Quackery” is representative of the high scientifc standards of Moore et al.

    The discovery that SIV causes an AIDS like disease in rhesus monkeys disproves the claim that retroviruses in the HIV/SIV family are capable of causing immune deficiency disease. However, it is at best a plausibility argument, and if that was all that the HIV-AIDS theory had to support it, it would be regarded as little more than a hypothesis.

    But since you mention it, is “the level of confidence that most scientists have regarding the HIV/AIDS theory” a scientific argument in your opinion?

    No. The scientific arguments and evidence are what have led scientists to that level of confidence, but confidence itself does not constitute evidence. It does, however, suggest that the evidence must be quite strong, and that one should not dismiss it without thoroughly understanding why so many scientists with years of experience interpreting such evidence have found it so compelling–and certainly not on the basis of crude analogies or naive notions of “plain and simple rules” of biology.

  74. trrll Says:

    So if you can produce the precise papers that say this is indeed so and that we are wrong we apologize in advance. But if you wish to prove us wrong you will have to justify your statement that SIV reliably kills “unvaccinated” macaques when present in the tiny quantities that HIV is present in the bodies of “AIDS” patients.

    A while back you were insisting that viruses in the HIV/SIV family are “not otherwise active in causing anything at all.” Now you want to add additional requirements that must be “present in the tiny quantities that HIV is present in the bodies of ‘AIDS’ patients.” This is known as “moving the goalposts,” and is one of the hallmarks of denialist thinking. Rather than re-evaluating the validity of your reasoning when you find out that your premises are wrong, you want to go back and retroactively change your argument.

  75. Truthseeker Says:

    This is known as “moving the goalposts,” and is one of the hallmarks of denialist thinking.

    Please, it is not we who deny, it is your honorable selves who are denialists, denying that a face has a nose, that Europe is larger than Ibiza, and that one and two make three, not 767.

    Salt is an element we all need to ingest at a certain level every day. If, however, you are marooned in the tropical sea without fresh water, and try to survive on seawater, you die.

    This is not “activity”, this is quantity.

    In other words, we have monkeys being sacrificed to the stupidity of men, which is what the post is about, and which you deny.

  76. trrll Says:

    Please, it is not we who deny, it is your honorable selves who are denialists, denying that a face has a nose, that Europe is larger than Ibiza, and that one and two make three, not 767.

    What distinguishes denialist thinking from rational thinking is not the subject matter or the specific conclusions, but rather the presence of specific modes of irrational thinking, such as reasoning by analogy, or moving the goalposts.

    What moving the goalposts is symptomatic of is backwards reasoning–starting with a particular conclusion that you are emotionally attached to, and then reasoning backwards to try to construct an argument that will lead to that desired conclusion. So when the premise of the argument that SIV/HIV type viruses cannot produce illness in apes, and therefore cannot produce illness in man (itself an example of irrational reasoning by analogy) turns out to be incorrect (because SIV has been well established to produce immune system damage in rhesus monkeys), instead of questioning your conclusion that such retroviruses cannot produce illness in man, you go back to your desired conclusion and, reasoning backwards, try to come up with a new set of premises–“SIV/HIV viruses cannot produce illness in man, because the illness that they produce in rhesus monkeys is not absolutely identical to AIDS in every particular”–in order to rescue your desired conclusion.

  77. Chris Noble Says:

    Chris Noble, we hereby accuse you on the basis of this statement to be a brother to Pinocchio, since you must know (after being told countless times) that this is nonsense.

    I have heard countless “rethinkers” claim that SIV does not cause AIDS. Rather than simply accepting the word of “rethinkers” I read the scientific articles.

    We are making this precipitate accusation without reference to any papers but on the basis of common knowledge that one of the difficulties of the whole theory is that SIV really doesn’t mimick “AIDS” in any convincing way.

    Convincing to whom? You? Scientifically illiterate lawyers? It may surprise you but whether or not a few ignorant people find something convincing is of little importance.

    Here’s a quote for you, just to help you along, Chris:

    A threshold virus load value which remained below 104 RNA equivalents/ml of plasma was indicative of a nonpathogenic course of infection.

    That’s from “Journal of Virology, December 1998, p. 10281-10285, Vol. 72, No. 12 A Pathogenic Threshold of Virus Load Defined in Simian Immunodeficiency Virus- or Simian-Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Macaques

    Peter Ten Haaft,1 Babs Verstrepen,1 Klaus Ãœberla,2 Brigitte Rosenwirth,1 and Jonathan Heeney”.

    I take it this was supposed to make me fall over in astonishment at your extensive knowledge of the scientific literature and concede that SIV disease in macaques is nothing at all like HIV disease in humans.

    If you had read the paper that goes with the abstract that you quote from you would have learnt something- that is if you are capable of understanding it which you have not yet demonstrated.

    You might have followed the references to find this article.

    Quantitation of HIV-1 RNA in Plasma Predicts Outcome after Seroconversion

    Conversely, the absence of HIV-1 RNA ( less than 1 x 104 Eq/mL) in all or most samples was associated with stable CD4+ T-cell counts (19 of 23 patients) and a lower risk for AIDS or decline in the CD4+ T-cell count (10 of 39 patients; P less than 0.001). In multivariate analysis of all laboratory values at the seroconversion visit, a plasma HIV-1 RNA level greater than 1 x 105 Eq/mL was the most powerful predictor of AIDS (odds ratio, 10.8; P = 0.01).

    This is actually very good evidence that SIV disease in macaques is similar to HIV disease in humans. The early stage of infection – around 6-12 weeks – is very important for future disease progression. High viral loads at this point are a highly predictive of disease progression.

    It all comes down to Duesberg’s completely unsupported claim that retroviruses cannot possibly cause AIDS in humans or monkeys. You and other “rethinkers” credulously take his word as gospel. More skeptical people bother to read the literature.

    Do you think that people that work in vaccine development using SIV macaque models will take Duesberg’s gospel over the experimental evidence that they see all the time.

    This really makes me wonder. Who is Duesberg trying to convince? It isn’t scientists with a knowledge of the field.

  78. Truthseeker Says:

    Moving goalposts is the habit of the defenders of the paradigm, who have often been called on it. No goalposts were moved by us, what transpired above was merely that we were offered a causal theory of HIV in human AIDS and a reason for believing it in the supposedly analogous SIV and certain monkeys, with the desperate claim that SIV acts in rhesus monkeys in a way which demonstrates HIV probably does the same thing the saem way in humans. But then we discovered that this was not true, the analogy is vitiated by various differences in the two systems, not least of which is that SIV doesn’t cause monkeys to die unless you throw enough at them to defeat them by quantity more than any “activity”.

    This is not demanding that the systems are identical in every subtle particular but merely that they are analagous in important ways, one being that the rhesus monkey system shows SIV to be fatal in and of its self at normal levels, rather than souped up levels which to happen at all need a gang of theoretically desperate white coated scientists standing by to force feed SIV into their systems like forcefeeding geese to enlarge their livers and make pate de foie gras.

    What moving the goalposts is symptomatic of is backwards reasoning–starting with a particular conclusion that you are emotionally attached to, and then reasoning backwards to try to construct an argument that will lead to that desired conclusion.

    This describes exactly the problem with the thinking of those such as yourself who show such an admirable loyalty to the current paradigm kite flown by Bob Gallo in 1984 without any justification even in his Science papers (only one third of his samples had the claimed HIV proteins!!) that they will argue backwards from any evidence to show how it must go along with the HIV∫AIDS meme even though it flatly contradicts it as in the recent JAMA and HAART studies which show that what happens to CD4 cells and other AIDS symptoms is independent of HIV levels in the blood, and instead correlate only with medicinal drugs, which is hardly likely to happen if HIV causes CD4 decrease or AIDS symptoms.

    What distinguishes denialist thinking from rational thinking is not the subject matter or the specific conclusions, but rather the presence of specific modes of irrational thinking, such as reasoning by analogy, or moving the goalposts.

    But the analogy was drawn by you and other supporters of HIV∫AIDS, between monkeys and man and between SIV and HIV. So your description of denialist thinking is a very precise description of your own thinking, which is indeed denialist, since it denies the obvious in all its manifestations, as if you were hypnotized by the AIDS meme, which you continually show you are.

    You believe in one of the most absurd, unlikely and fatuously inconsistent schemes ever claimed in science, which is continually being disproved in papers produced by the mainstream researchers themselves who research it, and yet you have no idea this is the case, or that you are involved in the phenomenon.

    This is a pretty good definition of hypnosis, since there is no other reason for this happening to such brilliant, skeptical and objectivs scientific debaters such as your two exemplary selves.

  79. Truthseeker Says:

    Do you think that people that work in vaccine development using SIV macaque models will take Duesberg’s gospel over the experimental evidence that they see all the time.

    Do you think that people who work in vaccine development have any prospect of success at all, given the logic of their work?

    HIV vaccinates any humans it invades, if it does, since it creates antibodies which do an excellent job of kicking out HIV from their system to an extent that it is impossible to find it without using PCR which creates multiple needles in a haystack and finally produces enough needles by doubling that they can be detected.

    Short of PCR detection it is a plain fact that it is impossible to find ie there is no HIV worth a damn in any healthy person’s system, and that is why the HIV test is actually a test for HIV antibodies, which you suppose against all science and logic somehow cause AIDS and are transmitted from man to woman and vice versa, even though studies show that this is impossible, as one would expect for antibodies.

    Is there something about these eternal verities of HIV∫AIDS that you don’t accept or don’t understand Chis? Why do you think that no vaccine work has been fruitful, and that Ho and gang now babble about a vaccine being so problematical that it may take twenty more years to find one, and perhaps as Gallo says it may never happen, but it is of course essential to make sure the effort is funded to the hilt, let’s not argue about that, ladies and gentlemen, that is what public funds are for.

    Until Dr Fauci snaps his fingers and tells you to wake up, it is of course impossible to tell you anything that contradicts the claims he has told you to believe in, so we don’t expect you to realize what we are talking about Chris, that’s OK.

    Nor do we feel guilty at being amused by the antics he had induced in you.

  80. Chris Noble Says:

    But then we discovered that this was not true, the analogy is vitiated by various differences in the two systems, not least of which is that SIV doesn’t cause monkeys to die unless you throw enough at them to defeat them by quantity more than any “activity”.

    You either have not read the article you cited or you are incapable of understanding it.

    The study looked to see whether SIV/SHIV viral load in the early infection stage predicted progression.

    In animals inoculated with nonpathogenic strains, shortly after the primary peak of viremia viral RNA levels declined and remained below 10(4) RNA equivalents/ml of plasma between 6 and 12 weeks postinoculation. Animals infected with documented pathogenic strains maintained viral RNA levels higher than 10(5) RNA equivalents/ml of plasma. In animals infected with strains with low virulence, a decline in plasma RNA levels was observed, but with notable individual variation. Our results demonstrate that the disease-causing potential was predicted and determined by a threshold plasma virus load which remained greater than 10(5) RNA equivalents/ml of plasma 6 to 12 weeks after inoculation. A threshold virus load value which remained below 10(4) RNA equivalents/ml of plasma was indicative of a nonpathogenic course of infection.

    Compare that with a study that looked to see whether HIV viral load in the early infection stage predicted progression.

    Conversely, the absence of HIV-1 RNA ( less than 1 x 104 Eq/mL) in all or most samples was associated with stable CD4+ T-cell counts (19 of 23 patients) and a lower risk for AIDS or decline in the CD4+ T-cell count (10 of 39 patients; P less than 0.001). In multivariate analysis of all laboratory values at the seroconversion visit, a plasma HIV-1 RNA level greater than 1 x 105 Eq/mL was the most powerful predictor of AIDS (odds ratio, 10.8; P = 0.01)

    Far from demonstrating a difference you have highlighted a similarity.

  81. Truthseeker Says:

    Sorry Chris, but the study is not proof of the generality, we didn’t state that. What you have to state is which statement you disagree with, and what you consider to be correct, and produce the paper that backs your contention, which in this case is SIV killing monkeys in some way that can be taken as impressively analagous to the way HIV works in human beings to kill them, and thus suggestive that HIV causes death in humans after all, which is the claim you made last night, which we challenged rather rudely, though we have in the light light of day changed that wording so that we merely ally you fraternally to Pinocchio, rather than anything more direct, for which we apologize, as a contravention of the traditions of NAR.

  82. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    TS,

    We seem to be approaching the point of critical mass, whereby, the reclusive McKiernan feels impelled to come out of temporary
    leave to introject yet another poem. YossariansGhostbuster has been making a buncha bum comments of late and may be relegated to the psych ward for attitude rehabilitation and re-education.

    What think ye ?

  83. Chris Noble Says:

    AL before we go any further can you tell me what your purpose was in citing this paper:

    Here’s a quote for you, just to help you along, Chris:

    A threshold virus load value which remained below 104 RNA equivalents/ml of plasma was indicative of a nonpathogenic course of infection.

    That’s from “Journal of Virology, December 1998, p. 10281-10285, Vol. 72, No. 12 A Pathogenic Threshold of Virus Load Defined in Simian Immunodeficiency Virus- or Simian-Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Macaques
    Peter Ten Haaft,1 Babs Verstrepen,1 Klaus Ãœberla,2 Brigitte Rosenwirth,1 and Jonathan Heeney”.

  84. MacDonald Says:

    YGB,

    What think we, although ‘we’ be in this case not TS?

    First we must congratulate the scientists on the revolutionary finding, well worth years of animal torture, that “documented pathogenic” stuff results in a more consistently high viral load than “non-pathogenic stuff , and eventually leads to disease -or was the disease part just a foregone, because previously documented, conclusion?
    Never mind, it doesn’t detract from the enormous significance of this milestone study, carried out on the daring hypothesis that pathogenic stuff is more pathogenic than non-pathogenic stuff .

    Only one small inconvenience, “in animals infected with strains with “low virulence”, a decline in plasma RNA levels was also observed”.
    But fortunately it didn’t remain that way, so we can conclude 1. That there was after all a difference between documented pathogenic stuff and “less virulent” stuff 2. When we know exactly what we’re looking for, namely documented pathogenic live virus under controlled laboratory conditions, viral load measures were (in the end) not all over the map – according to the benevolent executioners

    Of course high values of the same strain “at seroconversion visit” (the HIV study), and a viral load which “remains high” because injected with different stuff (the milestone SIV study)is not exactly the same. But then again, who says strict analogy must be the alpha and omega of science?

    TS, I think YGB may be right, the viral load of crap has just about reached critical mass here. Even a McKiernan poem would be a welcome improvement.

  85. trrll Says:

    what transpired above was merely that we were offered a causal theory of HIV in human AIDS and a reason for believing it in the supposedly analogous SIV and certain monkeys, with the desperate claim that SIV acts in rhesus monkeys in a way which demonstrates HIV probably does the same thing the saem way in humans.

    Now you are attempting to rewrite the history of this thread. Perhaps you might want to read it again? To refresh your memory, you made the following claim:

    which is what HIV really is, one of a brethren not otherwise active in causing anything interesting at all

    When Chris and I pointed out that SIV, a close relative of HIV, fatally damages the immune system of rhesus monkeys, you revised your argument as follows:

    if you wish to prove us wrong you will have to justify your statement that SIV reliably kills “unvaccinated” macaques when present in the tiny quantities that HIV is present in the bodies of “AIDS” patients.

    So you are the one who

    1) invoked a supposed analogy between humans and other primates as an argument against the HIV-AIDS theory, not the other way around. (irrational reasoning by analogy),

    2) falsely attributed to me the “statement that SIV reliably kills “unvaccinated” macaques when present in the tiny quantities that HIV is present in the bodies of “AIDS” patients” (straw man)–a statement that I never made–apparently to distract from the fact that you were

    3) revising your own argument (moving the goalposts). Now, rather than insisting that SIV does not cause any kind of disease in any monkey, you are merely insisting that it doesn’t cause damage “when present in the tiny quantities that HIV is present in the bodies of “AIDS” patients.”

    And of course, it is quite clear that you still do not perceive how irrational your argument is.

  86. Truthseeker Says:

    Trllll, what is irrational is your account of your understanding of our argument, which is so off the mark and upside down that one can only put it down to being an extreme effect of the blankness of the computer screen and the lack of body language inherent in the medium, which allows enormous misunderstanding of simple statements if one is under the hypnotic effect of Dr Fauci’s Famous Giant Conundrum Generator, which has such a distorting effect on the brain that one can be said to live in a parallel universe, which mirrors exactly our own, but reverses in its reflection every facet of the logic of the original.

  87. McKiernan Says:

    Mac,

    Thank you for your inspiration. The following poem could be a metaphor for a certain paradigm of which some have been examining of late. The title of the poem could even be re-labelled Paradigm Lost. Once again we present the late, great Sam Walter Foss 1856-1911.

    The Poster-Painter’s Masterpiece

    “Let us paint a landscape in June,” he cried;
    “A Landscape in high June.”
    And the poster-painter swelled with pride
    And trilled a merry tune.
    And he painted five cows in Antwerp blue
    (For he was a poster-painter true),
    And the grass they browsed was a light écru
    And a dark maroon.
    And the foot of one cow was in the sky,
    And her horns were pink and green;
    Her amber tail it curled on high–
    A bright and beauteous scene.
    And a lavender river flowed at her feet
    With gamboge lilies fragrant and sweet,
    But some were the color of powdered peat,
    Some light marine.
    And another cow’s tail was round the sun
    (Her horns hung limply down);
    And her tail was white as wool new-spun,
    And the sun was a neutral brown.
    In the drab background was a pale-blue lamb
    Who stood by the side of her turquoise dam,
    And the sky–a pink parallelogram–
    On the lamb closed down.
    And the rhomboid hills were of ochre hue
    With trees of lilac white,
    And rectilinear forests grew
    In a limpid cochineal light.
    An isosceles lake spread fair and pink,
    And, gathered about its damask brink,
    Triangular swans came down to drink
    With glad delight.
    Then a milkmaid came with cheeks of dun
    And a smile of dark maroon,
    One arm was on the setting sun,
    One on the rising moon.
    And she seemed to float from a Nile-green sky,
    With an ebony arm and an ivory eye,
    And her gown swelled from a point on high,
    Like a pink balloon.
    But all the things the painter drew
    ‘Twere hard to tell–
    The cow, the sky, the swans of blue,
    Lamb, maid, he painted well.
    But which was the cow and which the maid,
    And which were the swans or the trees of shade,
    And which were the sky or the hills, I’m afraid,
    No soul could tell.

  88. trrll Says:

    Well then, Truthseeker, let’s see if you are capable of expressing your argument into a rational hypothesis. Here is what you said:

    Salt is an element we all need to ingest at a certain level every day. If, however, you are marooned in the tropical sea without fresh water, and try to survive on seawater, you die.

    This is not “activity”, this is quantity.

    So it sounds like you are arguing that damage to the immune system of rhesus monkeys by SIV is not a consequence of viral infection, but rather a nonspecific toxic effect of the viral particles, analogous to the way that salt at high levels is toxic? Is this correct?

    Would you agree, then, that this predicts:

    1. Mutation of enzymes involved in infectivity, such as reverse transcriptase, will not affect viral levels or pathology?

    2. Drugs that specifically inhibit reverse transcriptase will not affect viral levels or pathology?

    3. A rhesus monkey with the virus will be incapable of transmitting it to other rhesus monkeys?

    If you disagree that these are predictions of your hypothesis, please explain why.

  89. Truthseeker Says:

    The cow, the sky, the swans of blue,

    Lamb, maid, he painted well.

    But which was the cow and which the maid,

    And which were the swans or the trees of shade,

    And which were the sky or the hills, I’m afraid,

    No soul could tell.

    Says it all, McK, thanks. Excellent taste you have in verse, we must say.

    Is this correct?

    Trlll, if one takes a gigantic bicycle pump, fills it with salt water containing .0001% of SHIV, sticks it up the backside of a rhesus monkey, pumps the rhesus monkey full of said solution, until the monkey is seven times the normal size, and finally explodes, and the monkey dies, then yes, it would be clear that SHIV is a deadly weapon, and under an enlightened system in a civil society, should only be licensed to Max Essex and colleagues, who will no dount develop a richly remunerative test for the feds to apply to the blood bank.

    Short of that, we wait to see if SHIV can kill monkeys at the level at which HIV infects humans.

  90. trrll Says:

    Trlll, if one takes a gigantic bicycle pump, fills it with salt water containing .0001% of SHIV, sticks it up the backside of a rhesus monkey, pumps the rhesus monkey full of said solution, until the monkey is seven times the normal size, and finally explodes, and the monkey dies, then yes, it would be clear that SHIV is a deadly weapon

    What is the relevance of this? Who, specifically, has done such a nonsensical experiment or attempted to draw conclusions from it?

    When you come back to reality, you might attempt to address the questions asked in my previous post regarding your “quantity not activity” claim.

  91. Truthseeker Says:

    Thank you, trlll, for that priceless response. You are the most dignified and civil poster here, apart from your brother in arms and scientific colleague Chris Noble, and we appreciate your qualities. Without them, this blog would be a dull place.

  92. MacDonald Says:

    There is no mistaking the lethal effect of the stuff applied to the backside or wherever (although, to the disappointment of some I’m sure, not via a gigantic bicycle pump) of the maqacues in the study introduced by TS. Within the 12 weeks of study, the philantropist researchers managed to terminate at least 4 out of “more than 50” specimens.

    One died of (unspecified) non-AIDS related disease (perhaps from banging its head against the cage), 2 fell victim to the “documented pathogenic” strains, producing (unspecified) AIDS, and the last died (presumably) from one of the non-pathogenic strains(!!) likewise producing an (unspecified) “AIDS-like disease”.

    This last sacrifice on the altar of science was the only one deserving an epitaph. In the touching words of its executioners:

    Interestingly, one animal infected with SHIVsf33 was reported to have developed AIDS-like disease (21), suggesting that SHIVsf33 may possess some pathogenic potential.

    An unexpected but fortunate discovery which obviously makes the study all the more exciting, while bringing the discovery of an HIV vaccine a giant step closer.

    So all in all not a bad score for a so called lentivirus with no help from AZT. Except of course all 4 simians were victims of primary. . . infection? before the immune system ever kicked in. Not exactly the HIV scenario.

    But who says an analogy has to be perfect?

    Special thanks to McK, whose poem gave me the fortitude to go through one last viral load of crap.

  93. Lise Says:

    Dear Dr Trrll,

    I’m really beginning to think all you biologists are the same. My husband also persists in calling me the most irrational creature in the entire biosphere, despite the fact he wouldn’t know on which foot to put his right shoe if left alone.

    And just like you, he won’t tell me which molecular determinants it is that keep HIV infected chimps from developing AIDS. He says the mechanism is well known and documented, and if I don’t already understand it there’s no point in trying to explain.

    He was more forthcoming about the gigantic bicycle pump study. He said he’s never heard anything so irrational and unscientific as a sevenfold magnification of a rhesus monkey. In all the animal experiments he’s ever performed (he likes performing hands on science) he’s never managed to blow up a monkey to more than twice its normal size
    before it exploded regardless of salt levels in the solution.
    But he says some independent researchers – my husband is not independent as you may have guessed – have elected to inject themselves with saltwater to find out just how infectious it really is. So far none of them has developed any AIDS-like diseases.

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_
    world/2006/11/views_from_the__2.html#comments

  94. Chris Noble Says:

    So all in all not a bad score for a so called lentivirus with no help from AZT. Except of course all 4 simians were victims of primary. . . infection? before the immune system ever kicked in. Not exactly the HIV scenario.

    Now the goalposts have moved again. Maybe SIV does cause progressive CD4+ cell depletion in macaques leading to severe immune deficiency and opportunistic infections such as PCP but it supposedly does it too fast. Apparently according to “rethinker” logic a retrovirus can cause immune deficiency fast or not at all.

    Different strains of SIV and SHIV vary in their virulence and pathogenesis. Some strains result in high viral loads and rapid progression. Some strains result in lower viral loads and slower progression over the period of years despite strong SIV antibody responses.

    There are also differences in the progression rates seen in macaques of Chinese origin and of Indian origin when infected with the same SIV.

    Likewise humans vary in their susceptibility to HIV due ot genetic factors and different strains of HIV vary in their virulence. Some people progress to AIDS shortly after infection.

    Most of the SIV/SHIV macaque models used in vaccine development use highly pathogenic viruses for the simple reason that you can’t afford to wait ten years to see whether your vaccine has been effective.

  95. Truthseeker Says:

    Most of the SIV/SHIV macaque models used in vaccine development use highly pathogenic viruses for the simple reason that you can’t afford to wait ten years to see whether your vaccine has been effective.

    Another angle not to be overlooked in these attempts to endanger the lives of our monkey brethren, in the cause of Dr Fauci’s loyal army trying to make a monkey out of us, as well as Bill Clinton, Chris Noble, Bill Gates, Oprah, Trrrllll, President George “Often Unfairly Cartooned as a Chimp” Bush, Warren Buffett, Elizabeth Taylor, Jeffrey Sachs and Magic Johnson, is the age of the subjects, which are said to be typically young enough to lack a proper immune response, ie babies.

    How odd that “highly pathogenic” viruses pumped into baby monkeys at seven times normal air pressure result in so few casualties.

    Some people progress to AIDS shortly after infection.

    We thought you could spell ‘ceteris paribus’, Chris.

  96. Truthseeker Says:

    The link Lise mentioned is not described, or properly written in html, so when we had finished laughing at her post (3.5 minutes) we rewrote it as follows: Jan Spreen’s Post on Barnesworld (YBYL) claiming Shipwrecked Raft Occupying Folk can Drink Seawater without Much Harm has Dean Esmay’s Comment stating A Diet of Fatty Meat can provide Complete Nutrition.

    Two most fascinating claims.

    =========================

    (By the way, Lise, please add html to any url quoted by writing

    left pointing circumflex

    then

    a href=”

    then

    the url

    then

    then

    right pointing circumflex

    then

    the ordinary language title

    then close the link with

    left pointing circumflex

    then

    /a>.

    Sorry cannot write out the thing in html without it disappearing.

    Thanks.)

    ============================

  97. trrll Says:

    How odd that “highly pathogenic” viruses pumped into baby monkeys at seven times normal air pressure result in so few casualties.

    Over 12 weeks? That’s a pretty short time to see much death from immune system damage, even if a fast acting viral strain was used.

    And where do you get this nonsense about “7 times normal air pressure?” And what does the pressure have to do with it, anyway? Any time you get an injection, it is being pumped into your body at more than normal air pressure. How else do you think you squeeze liquid through a narrow needle?

  98. Chris Noble Says:

    How odd that “highly pathogenic” viruses pumped into baby monkeys at seven times normal air pressure result in so few casualties.

    McDonald is complaining that these viruses were killing the macaques too fast and you are complaining that not enough were killed within 12 weeks.

    If you want an example of a highly pathogenic virus then you could just follow some of the citations in the article you mentioned.

    The PBj14 isolate of simian immunodeficiency virus from sooty mangabey monkeys (SIVSMM-PBj14) is the most acutely pathogenic primate lentivirus so far described, always causing fatal disease in pig-tailed macaques (Macaca nemestrina) within 8 days of inoculation.

    Remember what Duesberg was saying in the past.

    Retroviruses do not kill cells

    Any sign of Duesberg admitting he was wrong?

    You also keep on implying that the macaques are pumped full of abnormally high levels of virus.

    The rate of progression to AIDS is independent of virus dose in simian immunodeficiency virus-infected macaques.

  99. MacDonald Says:

    Chris,

    For a lenti-virus – defined as any of a group of animal viruses that cause various diseases that exhibit an unusually slow progressive course – to cause fatal illness within 8 days IS most impressive.

    As a matter of fact, with all the innumerous, for some reason previously completely unknown, super lethal animal lenti-viruses discovered lately, it is remarkable all our furry friends are not wiped out by now.

    In the meantime, average life expectancy of HIV infected Americans is now estimated at 24 years, despite the fact that almost half of them don’t take the life saving medicine when they’re supposed to. So there are presumably not too many strains capable of super power endowing mutations that made it into homo sapiens through all those dry sex and wet blood rituals practiced on the dark continent.

  100. Truthseeker Says:

    And where do you get this nonsense about “7 times normal air pressure?”

    Good point, trrlll, and well worth pointing out. Not much gets past you, that’s for sure.

    This is a rough estimate, based on the coefficient of expansion (seven times the initial volume).

    One thing perturbs us. You have never expressed any sympathy for these unfortunate inflated animals. Are you among those hardened souls that work with them, and are thus prevented from empathizing with them at the normal level of response?

    You are, after all, a neuroscientist, perhaps involved in removing parts of their skulls to insert electrodes, etc.

  101. Chris Noble Says:

    For a lenti-virus – defined as any of a group of animal viruses that cause various diseases that exhibit an unusually slow progressive course – to cause fatal illness within 8 days IS most impressive.

    As a matter of fact, with all the innumerous, for some reason previously completely unknown, super lethal animal lenti-viruses discovered lately, it is remarkable all our furry friends are not wiped out by now.

    Evolution to a less pathogenic virus and evolution of host resistance factors is expected.

    Read Frank Fenner’s work on the myxoma virus that was introduced to control rabbits in Australia for another example.

    In the meantime, average life expectancy of HIV infected Americans is now estimated at 24 years, despite the fact that almost half of them don’t take the life saving medicine when they’re supposed to.

    That figure was for people undergoing ARV treatment. It takes a huge illogical 180 degree turn to then present this as evidence that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.

    What is your point?

    Are you still denying that SIV causes AIDS in macaques?

  102. Chris Noble Says:

    As a matter of fact, with all the innumerous, for some reason previously completely unknown, super lethal animal lenti-viruses discovered lately, it is remarkable all our furry friends are not wiped out by now.

    I thought it would be obvious but perhaps this is an unwarranted assumption.

    Sooty Mangabeys are native to West Africa. Pig-tailed macaques are native to South-East Asia. Viruses that are non-pathogenic in their original host can be extremely pathogenic when introduced to other animal.

  103. Truthseeker Says:

    OK, this is not AIDS, but the latest headline news on CNN: Foul play suspected in a death once ruled a suicide

    The younger DeFusco said a local police chief was so insistent that his father had committed suicide that he stood on a chair to give a demonstration of how it could have happened.

    It seems reasonable to ask, is this fellow related to either Trrlll or Chris Noble? Fellas, either one of you related to this guy, whose behavior seems strangely reminiscent of your side of the debate here, for some reason?

    He is a police chief (position of some responsibility and no flake) who having been presented with a corpse shot in the mouth (supposedly) and weighed down with a heavy anchor tied to it, stuck to his theory that the guy had shot himself in the mouth, failed to kill himself, so then wrapped a heavy anchor round his feet and jumped into the sea. All this maintained steadfastly in the face of the victim’s family telling him there was no way the guy had any reason for or showed any signs of interest in suicide. The fellow even jumped up on a chair to demonstrate his theory.

    There has to be a name for this syndrome.

    Here is the full story for future reference:

    PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island (AP) — Louis James DeFusco was found floating in Narragansett Bay in August 1964, a ship’s anchor tied around his legs and a bullet in his mouth. Authorities called it a suicide. But relatives were left with lingering doubts and questions.

    Some four decades later, his relatives had his body exhumed so it could be moved to a family burial plot and asked the medical examiner’s office to perform another autopsy.

    The second examination this past summer revealed a bullet wound to the back of the head — a finding that switched the official cause of death from suicide-by-drowning to homicide.

    Family members say that if they can’t find out who killed DeFusco, at least they have it on record that he didn’t take his own life.

    “We didn’t want this thing to go on anymore, with the injustice of it being recorded as a suicide,” Robert DeFusco, who was 15 when his father died, told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

    Louis DeFusco was 38 when he disappeared the night of August 6, 1964. He was last seen leaving a marina in Warwick that he and his brother had just sold.
    Autopsy missed head wound

    Twelve days later, his body was found floating in the water.

    An initial autopsy found a bullet in the mouth and damage to his teeth, but didn’t spot a gunshot to the back of the head, said Dr. Thomas Gilson, the state’s current chief medical examiner.

    “He’d been in the water for a period of time, maybe as much as 12 days, and it was overlooked,” Gibson said.

    Now, the homicide classification provides a measure of vindication for DeFusco’s son and other relatives who have maintained for decades that the death was not a suicide.

    The youngest of six children, and a entrepreneurial son of Italian immigrants, DeFusco was considered a hardworking businessman.

    His younger brother, Anthony DeFusco, called him “a beautiful kid, a good-looking kid, a good boy.”

    At the time of his death, he was in the process of divorcing his wife, with whom he had three kids. Authorities looked into several theories, even questioning his estranged wife — who was in Arizona at the time — before ultimately settling on suicide.

    “He wasn’t despondent, none of the things that would indicate he would be suicidal. It just wasn’t him,” said Robert DeFusco.

    Signs of foul play

    Plus, there were the peculiar circumstances of his death — the heavy anchor tied around his legs, for instance, and the undetected gunshot wound to the head.

    After the first autopsy failed to find the entrance wound, Gilson said, doctors must have inferred that DeFusco shot himself in the mouth, survived, and drowned by attaching an anchor to himself. The gunshot wound identified in the mouth was initially thought to be nonfatal.

    The younger DeFusco said a local police chief was so insistent that his father had committed suicide that he stood on a chair to give a demonstration of how it could have happened.

    DeFusco said there was plenty of speculation as to who killed his father, but that it was hard to know the truth. He said his father was not involved in any way with the mob, but said there were “shady characters who had boats” and “some of them were mob-related figures.”

    “Nobody kills like that” but the mob, Robert DeFusco said.

    Gilson said the case was referred to the Warwick Police Department, which was investigating. A spokesman for Attorney General Patrick Lynch said the office was working with the police to evaluate any evidence.

    Warwick Police Chief Stephen McCartney did not return a call seeking comment.

    Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

  104. MacDonald Says:

    Are you still denying that SIV causes AIDS in macaques?

    Chris, I think it’s about time you go take your ARVs and perhaps do a little gardening, cuz you’re really starting to drift now. When have I expressed anything but pure admiration of the many ways in which the many strains of SIV, SHIV, FIV, HIV etc. produce AIDS-like diseases in various hosts?
    From Asia to Africa,, from monkeys to cats. And to think they’re all just newly discovered. Nothing short of amazing!

    Evolution to a less pathogenic virus and evolution of host resistance factors is expected

    I guess that explains the ever increasing life expectancy of HIV infected people.

  105. trrll Says:

    I guess that explains the ever increasing life expectancy of HIV infected people.

    It is a possibility, I suppose, that this is due to evolution of the virus to a less pathogenic strain, but it seems a bit fast for that to happen. I think that the most likely explanation is that understanding of the molecular details of how HIV infects cells and replicates has led to the development of more effective, less toxic antiretroviral drugs that are effective even in spite of the fact that people often don’t take their drugs exactly on the prescribed schedule.

  106. trrll Says:

    This is a rough estimate, based on the coefficient of expansion (seven times the initial volume).

    I think that you need to go back to your basic physics and review coefficient of expansion. Liquids are relatively incompressible. A liquid injected at 7 times atmospheric pressure would show negligible expansion. The only real practical concern with high pressure injection would be the possibility of local tissue damage at the site of injection if the liquid exits the tip of the needle too rapidly.

  107. Truthseeker Says:

    Trrlll, you make an excellent point, and certainly help to keep this thread on the rails, scientifically speaking.

    However, we were referring to the expansion of the monkey, not the liquid in the pump or even the air in the pump.

    And as we have noted, and the information from Lise’s husband’s laboratory seems to confirm, the expansion of the baby monkeys tends to result in a fatality at only double atmospheric pressure, rather than seven, as in adults.

    By the way, Chris states that the impact on the monkeys was not dose dependent. But this is incorrect. The monkey’s risk of disease is directly proportional to the titer of SIV, see Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus, Appendix B, and Flutz et al 1990. Any claim to the contrary needs to be closely examined. Did they vary only from heavy to very heavy, and then make the claim?

  108. MacDonald Says:

    HIV would cause AIDS in Clark Kent, given the right dose and the right strain of the virus. Given the right dose and right route of administration and the right time in someone’s life. Alone in and of itself. No doubt in mind.

    However, that doesn’t mean cofactors can’t make things more likely. The biggest cofactor is the virus itself – the dose – that’s a chance. The dose you get is critical like in all biology. People don’t seem to let that sink into their heads. Dose is important. One man’s dose is not another man’s dose.

    Route of infection is also important. Low dose, infection by some routes and you are going to ward off infection. But walloping dose, intravenously, it is unlikely you can escape the devastating effects of the virus
    (Robert Gallo to Anthony Liversidge, Spin Magazine)

    Since SIV seems to be dose independent, according to Chris, I think we can conclude it’s something else that blows up the monkeys to pathogenic levels.

  109. Chris Noble Says:

    By the way, Chris states that the impact on the monkeys was not dose dependent. But this is incorrect.

    Incorrect? You haven’t read the paper and yet you feel confident to make such a bold statement. You must have some authoritative source for your confidence.

    The monkey’s risk of disease is directly proportional to the titer of SIV, see Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus, Appendix B, and Flutz et al 1990. Any claim to the contrary needs to be closely examined.

    Duesberg said it. That settles it. Amen.

    Actually you have troubles interpretting the holy scriptures. Duesberg was referring to viral load after infection. The paper I cited looked at the effect of the initial dose of virus that was used to infect the macaques. If you had actually read the paper you would have realised this.

    Based on these as well as observations from other infectious disease models, we set out to determine the influence of the dose of the inoculum on the initial viral load, the threshold achieved, and thus the influence on disease progression. To address this question, different dilutions of the SIV8980 isolate were administered intravenously to ten mature rhesus monkeys. Animals were monitored for evidence of infection, plasma viral load, CD4+ T-cell decline and the rate of progression to AIDS. These results were compared to data compiled from other animals infected previously with different doses of the same virus stock.

    Did they vary only from heavy to very heavy, and then make the claim?

    They diluted the innoculum repeatedly by a factor of ten until a point where no macaques were infected.

    There was a 1000 fold difference in the doses but this played no role in the rate of progression. You don’t have to pump macaques full of SIV to induce AIDS.

  110. trrll Says:

    TS, I can’t help but notice that you have not yet attempted to answer the questions that I posed regarding your “quantity not infectivity” notion.

    To refresh your memory, here they are again:

    So it sounds like you are arguing that damage to the immune system of rhesus monkeys by SIV is not a consequence of viral infection, but rather a nonspecific toxic effect of the viral particles, analogous to the way that salt at high levels is toxic? Is this correct?

    Would you agree, then, that this predicts:

    1. Mutation of enzymes involved in infectivity, such as reverse transcriptase, will not affect viral levels or pathology?

    2. Drugs that specifically inhibit reverse transcriptase will not affect viral levels or pathology?

    3. A rhesus monkey with the virus will be incapable of transmitting it to other rhesus monkeys?

    If you disagree that these are predictions of your hypothesis, please explain why.

    Now to be perfectly honest, I didn’t really expect you to answer these questions. My experience with denialists has been that they tend to be extremely reluctant to formulate their beliefs into anything resembling a testable scientific hypothesis. They tend to be a lot more comfortable with analogies, which are vague and flexible enough to rationalize almost anything. What I’ve observed is that trying to pin denialists down to a testable hypothesis generally results in a ludicrous blizzard of attempts to sidetrack the discussion with, nonsequiturs, facetious remarks, personal comments, accusations, and insults etc. The discussants here certainly have run true to form.

    I used to regard such behavior as actively dishonest, an attempt to “win” the argument by deceptive means, but I’m beginning to think that there may be another explanation. I now suspect that despite their professions of certainty and their aggressive argumentation style, denialists subconsciously recognize the fundamentally irrational nature of their beliefs, and that being pressed to think rationally engenders great anxiety, which can only be relieved by distracting themselves with the avoidance strategies mentioned above.

  111. Chris Noble Says:

    I now suspect that despite their professions of certainty and their aggressive argumentation style, denialists subconsciously recognize the fundamentally irrational nature of their beliefs, and that being pressed to think rationally engenders great anxiety, which can only be relieved by distracting themselves with the avoidance strategies mentioned above.

    When “rethinkers” like David Steele come out with such abysmally moronic arguments such as simultaneously arguing that HIV is an endogenous retrovirus and that it cannopt cause AIDS because HIV DNA is not found in a “sufficient” number of T-cells I wonder who they are trying to convince. I think the answer is first and foremost themselves.

    David Steele’s assertion that HIV was an endogenous retrovirus was as far as I can tell the only firm testable hypothesis that he has put forward. If HIV were an endogneous retrovirus then it would falsify the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS.

    He seems to have run away now after shooting himself in the foot. Or perhaps he shot himself in the head, tied and anchor to his feet and threw himself into the water.

  112. Dave Says:

    Chris,

    Umm, nice try.

    It’d be nice if you stopped lying. I, Dave, did not argue that HIV was an endogenous retrovirus. I noted that 8% of the human genome is retroviral DNA — about 240 million nucleotides — that cause no harm whatsoever and kill no cells.

    So, I agreed with your hypothesis that if HIV were an endogenous retrovirus, it would likely be found in all humans. And, I specifically, noted that I hadn’t seen whether this had been investigated or not.

    I am fully aware that the Perth Group have danced around the issue of whether “HIV” is an endogenous retrovirus, or whether it’s just an artifact of sloppy lab techniques, and that Duesberg thinks it is exogenous.

    Now, I’ve let you have your tedious, repetitive, dense, wierd personal attacks, only because I have respect for Truthseeker’s ground rules here. He encourages open-minded intellectual inquiry, whereas AIDS activists posing as scientists (like you) simply bluster the party line. But my patience is waning.

    Finally, you made the claim above:

    Except there were transmissions in the Padian cohort. She meticulously looked at the seroconversion history of the couples and found transmission events.

    This is a lie. She found no seroconversions, and she did not “meticulously” look at seroconversion history, because she did not consider perinatal transmission — which all sides agree occurs. So, her retrospective invesetigation was sloppy and her prospective investigation revealed no seroconversions.

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

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

    So, deal with it, Chump. (Sorry TS!)

  113. Truthseeker Says:

    Now to be perfectly honest, I didn’t really expect you to answer these questions. My experience with denialists has been that they tend to be extremely reluctant to formulate their beliefs into anything resembling a testable scientific hypothesis. They tend to be a lot more comfortable with analogies, which are vague and flexible enough to rationalize almost anything. What I’ve observed is that trying to pin denialists down to a testable hypothesis generally results in a ludicrous blizzard of attempts to sidetrack the discussion with, nonsequiturs, facetious remarks, personal comments, accusations, and insults etc. The discussants here certainly have run true to form.

    Trrlll, you have nailed us. We failed to provide a testable hypothesis. Instead, we indulged in the antics you have listed. You have shamed us into confessing this, and we beg your forgiveness, hat in hand. Our motives don’t bear inspection. The temptation is always too great to degenerate into playfulness, when faced with arguments of the quality you have purveyed, rather than answer them in the serious spirit in which they are posed, which in your ordered and resolute manner, you exemplify, refusing to be derailed or diverted by misplaced humor or invidious comparisons with current news stories.

    Not sure about the analogies part, though:

    They tend to be a lot more comfortable with analogies,

    Is not the macaque/rhesus research meant to suggest that HIV causes AIDS by analogy with the HIV case?

    If not, what are we arguing about, exactly?

    Our testable hypothesis in this case would be, if humans, chimps, macaques or rhesus are infected with HIV, they will not demonstrate AIDS, in the absence of co factors such as drugs, starvation of essential nutrients, other disease agents etc.

    Is this “denialist”? or in the absence of any convincing evidence that this is so, is it not “denialist” for you to deny such an obvious point.

    What reasons, exactly, do you have for belief in HIV as the cause of AIDS? We weren’t aware that there were any scientific ones, but perhaps you have heard of one. All we know are reasons why HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS, which we will list for you if you wish.

    The analogy of SHIV with rhesus monkeys was one you were advancing, we thought. But the analogy doesn’t hold up for many reasons, which we don’t have to list here, since you have in your comment above already ruled out an analogy as a valid argument, which is very true, and a fine example of the keenness of your debating style.

    In fact, in this case you agree with Duesberg, who as Chris Noble keeps pointing out, is an impeccable authority on these matters, as he states, even though he thinks he is being sarcastic. For instance, on p 559 Appendix B of Inventing the AIDS Virus, an admirable book which should be the bedside reading of all who are interested in this topic, he writes:

    “Moreover, the observation that a retrovirus that is 60% unrelated to HIV causes disease in monkeys cannot prove that HIV causes AIDS in humans, even if all parameters of infection were completely analogous.

    It can only prove that under analogous conditions other retroviruses may also cause disease, which has been demonstrated with numerous avian and murine retroviruses long ago.” (Weiss et al., 1985)

    As we have long ago noticed, your arguments are on a par with Duesberg’s in keenness of intellect so we are not surprised that you have reached the same conclusion in this respect.

  114. trrll Says:

    It’d be nice if you stopped lying. I, Dave, did not argue that HIV was an endogenous retrovirus. I noted that 8% of the human genome is retroviral DNA — about 240 million nucleotides — that cause no harm whatsoever and kill no cells.

    I’m can’t see what the relevance of that would be if it is true, but let me ask a more basic question, one that goes to the fundamental logic of your argument–how do you even know that it is true? After all, people suffer in large numbers from a variety of largely unexplained ills–Alzheimer’s disease, cardiovascular disease, arthritis, many types of cancer, as well as many poorly-defined syndromes such as chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, etc., not to mention the many other infirmities associated with aging. How do you know that endogenous retroviruses do not contribute to some of these diseases? Do you have some individuals lacking endogenous retrovirus that you can point to to show that they are not any more healthy than people who have retrovirus in their genomes?

  115. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    Chris,

    Umm, nice try.

    It’d be nice if you stopped lying. I, Dave, did not argue that HIV was an endogenous retrovirus. I noted that 8% of the human genome is retroviral DNA — about 240 million nucleotides — that cause no harm whatsoever and kill no cells.

    So, I agreed with your hypothesis that if HIV were an endogenous retrovirus, it would likely be found in all humans. And, I specifically, noted that I hadn’t seen whether this had been investigated or not. Dave

    Nice try, Hank… Dave. But your friend Dave… Hank did say on March 6, 2006 at 11:54 AM the following:

    Quoting Chris: Chris,

    Hank, you still haven’t attempted to support your claim that HIV is an endogenous virus.

    I offered above to do that on a separate thread. Tell me when and where?

    Hank

    Posted by: Hank Barnes | March 6, 2006 11:54 AM

    So why should anyone believe you, Hank/Dave ?

  116. Chris Noble Says:

    It’d be nice if you stopped lying. I, Dave, did not argue that HIV was an endogenous retrovirus. I noted that 8% of the human genome is retroviral DNA — about 240 million nucleotides — that cause no harm whatsoever and kill no cells.

    5. Don’t the Padian results lend greater support to the hypothesis that HIV is a garden-variety endogenous retrovirus, rather than a sexually-transmitted pathogenic killer of t-cells?

    Grade: D+. The better answer is that HIV is probably an endogenous retrovirus, that is passed from mother-to-child at birth, and resides in the cell doing nothing. Remember, it is estimated that 8% of the human genome consists of viral DNA incorporated therein.

    BTW, I’d be happy to argue the endogenous virus theory. But, it’s a 2-way street. You, Orac, and others have to answer this question:1. What evidence would falsify the contention that HIV causes AIDS?

    All this is taken from this thread which coincidentally discusses your continuous misrepresentation of the “Padian Paper”.

    Discussion of the Padian paper

    The funniest thing in this thread is where you have the gall to pretend to be in a position to evaluate scientific statements and give grades such as D+.

    PS. If HIV were an endogenous retrovirus it would falsify the contention that HIV causes AIDS.

  117. Chris Noble Says:

    For instance, on p 559 Appendix B of Inventing the AIDS Virus, an admirable book which should be the bedside reading of all who are interested in this topic, he writes:

    I imagine it must be comforting to have the Book close at hand in case you have a moment of doubt. You can easily find a passage and recite it several times before falling asleep with the absolute cerntainty that you are right and thousands of scientists are all stupid.

    “Moreover, the observation that a retrovirus that is 60% unrelated to HIV causes disease in monkeys cannot prove that HIV causes AIDS in humans, even if all parameters of infection were completely analogous.

    It can only prove that under analogous conditions other retroviruses may also cause disease, which has been demonstrated with numerous avian and murine retroviruses long ago.” (Weiss et al., 1985)

    Nobody except “rethinker” strawmen are arguing that animal models by themselves prove that HIV causes AIDS in humans. They do prove that retroviruses are capable of causing AIDS which “rethinkers” such as Duesberg go to incredible lengths to deny.

    Duesberg argues that for various reasons that HIV cannot cause AIDS.

    For instance he argues that HIV has the same genes as all other retroviruses (not true), lacks an “AIDS gene” and therefore cannot cause AIDS. SIV is a retrovirus without an “AIDS gene” that causes AIDS so Duesberg’s argument is plainly false.

    In addition SHIV models are mostly HIV and many of these are definitely pathogenic.

    Recently a simian-tropic HIV has been developed that is HIV with only a couple of short sequences modified so that infects macaques.

    This result confirms that we do understand many of the species specific factors that control the host range of these retroviruses.

  118. trrll Says:

    The analogy of SHIV with rhesus monkeys was one you were advancing, we thought.

    Nope. You were the one who first suggested an analogy between chimps and humans, in the following quote: “There is no answer to the obvious question, why then didn’t the researchers conclude that HIV didn’t cause AIDS in humans?

    When I pointed out the irrationality of that reasoning, you went on to make a broad claim of the nonpathogenicity of HIV related retroviruses, in the following quote: “Well, one has to grant that it is always possible that our teeny pseudo virus (which is what HIV really is, one of a brethren not otherwise active in causing anything interesting at all) may well be an exception”

    Is not the macaque/rhesus research meant to suggest that HIV causes AIDS by analogy with the HIV case?

    Nope. It is meant as example of the way that you are basing your arguments on false claims, in this case the claim that the “brethren” of HIV are incapable of producing illness.

    When Chris and I pointed out a well-documented example of pathogenetic effect, SIV induced immunodeficiency in rhesus monkeys, you insisted, that the pathogenetic effect of SIV is analogous to the effect of salt “Salt is an element we all need to ingest at a certain level every day. If, however, you are marooned in the tropical sea without fresh water, and try to survive on seawater, you die. This is not “activity”, this is quantity.

    All I’ve asked you to do is confront the logical implications of your “quantity not activity” hypothesis.

    You still have failed to do so, retreating now to “Our testable hypothesis in this case would be, if humans, chimps, macaques or rhesus are infected with HIV, they will not demonstrate AIDS, in the absence of co factors such as drugs, starvation of essential nutrients, other disease agents etc.”

    Although you describe it as testable, it is of course no such thing, because the defining symptom of immune deficiency disease is enhanced susceptibility to other infectious agents. So in the absence of “other disease agents,” there is no way of detecting AIDS (other than by surrogate markers, which you do not accept as valid). Not to mention the fact that, aside from animals raised in a completely sterile environment, no animal is ever completely free of “other disease agents.”

    So just to make it clear, are you now retracting your claim that the “brethren” of HIV are incapable of causing disease?

  119. Dave Says:

    Appeal to the Judge!

    Truthseeker,

    At what point can I respond with ad hominem to the continuous ad hominem attacks by Noble and his friend, Yossarian?

    In any event, Trrll is the one misusing analogies. Is there a simian polio virus? Is there a simian flu virus? Is there a simian herpes virus? If so, who cares?

    The only reason these fallback arguments by analogy arose, was because of the utter failure of HIV to cause AIDS in chimps –after repeated efforts to infect them.

    So, again, we are faced with the paradox: HIV has supposedly killed 40 million humans, but not one chimp?

    If HIV did cause disease in chimps, nobody on the planet would care about SHIV or feline immunodeficiency virus or any other “analagous” animal virus. This is goal-post moving writ large.

    This, coupled with the fact, that human retroviruses (the family to which HIV belongs) also do nothing — except, ironically, for claims made by Dr. Bob “Maximum Fraud” Gallo that 2 of his retroviruses, HTLV and HTLV-11, cause leukemia in trivial numbers of villagers somewhere in Asia.

    And, the rest is history — Gallo discovered HTLV-111 (via the French Post Office), claimed it was the cause of AIDS, (26/72 AIDS patients) and later had it renamed, HIV by committee to solve all the legal problems after Montagnier sued him for patent infringement.

    It was a political mess — the science got crowded out. Yes, a consensus formed, but only a political consensus among cowardly scientists, not a scientific consensus.

    That’s the distinction.

  120. Chris Noble Says:

    At what point can I respond with ad hominem to the continuous ad hominem attacks by Noble and his friend, Yossarian?

    Why is it that many “rethinkers” confuse criticism with ad hominem attacks. I have repeatedly attacked your arguments. This is by definition not ad hominem .

    Saying that only a scientifically illiterate person would make the claim that HIV is an endogenous virus it is not an ad hominem attack.

    When the same person simultaneously argues that HIV cannot cause AIDS because it’s DNA has only been found in a small fraction of T-cells then he is also stupid.

    I have detailed in depth exactly why HIV cannot be an endogenous retrovirus. The very references you cited are sufficient evidence to falsify your assertion.

    You a) have not admitted being wrong and b) still persist in the delusion that you are in a position to judge real scientists like John Moore.

  121. Truthseeker Says:

    Saying that only a scientifically illiterate person would make the claim that HIV is an endogenous virus it is not an ad hominem attack.

    When the same person simultaneously argues that HIV cannot cause AIDS because its DNA has only been found in a small fraction of T-cells then he is also stupid.

    Both these are ad hominem, even if they are prompted by what you consider evidence of “stupidity” etc.

    You correctly make the distinction between attacking the argument and attacking the person, the latter being what ad hominem means in Latin, as you know – directed toward the person. You understand this, of course.

    But this is a blurred distinction, in practice. Any word like stupid tends to be ad hominem even if not directed explicitly at the person. If you did not understand the distinction, for example, one could say you were “being stupid”, and while this phrase is not entirely ad hominem, it surely is somewhat ad hominem – try it on Mike Tyson – but then to say that you were stupid would be very ad hominem (try THAT on Mike Tyson).

    You claim to attack the argument but you really insult the person. To avoid this you have to say very specifically eg this is a dishonest argument, not even that “you are being dishonest”. Certainly not “you are dishonest”.

    Similarly, to say John Moore is a real scientist is a compliment to him, perhaps deserved, perhaps not (seems evident to us that after his Op Ed piece in the Times and his AIDSTruth site this is prima facie wrong, since he may be a scientist of sorts in label and role and function but he is obviously not a real scientist by any definition we have ever heard of “real scientist”, which would have to include an open mind to new ideas including the possible flaws in his own thinking, ie enough interest in the world he doesn’t yet know to add to that curiosity a willingness to listen to counterargument, and certainly not censor it with bullying and other political means. This is the very definition of a scientist who is not a real scientist.)

    Meanwhile the implication that your addressee is not a real scientist is ad hominem.

    The point of all this is that arguments stand or fall according to their merits and not the merits of the one who voices them. So ad hominem arguments are just distractions which cause ill will, which is even more distracting.

    Even the intellectually limited can present worthwhile arguments as this blog and its comments demonstrate.

    For example, what are your credentials in this realm? You have always refused to state them, which is an indication that they are minimal, unless they are so great that you dare not draw more attention to yourself in case you are outed as in the pay of the interests served by HIV∫AIDS, which seems unlikely, since you do not sound like an architect of science, but rather, like one of its bricklayers (oops, that’s ad hominem, we profoundly regret the slip).

    But if you are a bricklayer it doesn’t prevent you from advancing quibbles of extremely practiced sophistry, enhanced with logic of such subtle inversion as to baffle HIV critics by their sheer effrontery, especially when they are factually misleading.

  122. nohivmeds Says:

    I’m gonna drop in here just to make a single point, and then let it go. People wonder why I stay on the fence regarding the question of causation. The answer is simple, and can be found easily in this thread. It’s clear that the research on chimpanzees and macaques does not provide anything near clear and unequivocal proof that HIV or SHIV causes AIDS. It’s also clear however that there is data indicating that SHIV damages the immune system. These kinds of ambiguous data are more common than either “side” of the argument would wish for. When confronted with ambigous data (like, for another example, Gallo’s 26/72 split on HIV in culture), the most reasonable position is to sit on the fence. I find both “sides” bring interesting considerations to the table, but neither has a firm, unequivocal argument, because neither has a firm set of unequivocal data.

  123. nohivmeds Says:

    As to the question of whether or not non-scientists should comment on all of this, I think that the answer is easy: non-scientists, and scientists trained in disciplines other than microbiology, should probably state theories and hypotheses tentatively — really, all scientists studying this issue should state theories and hypotheses tentatively. But I do respect the fact that many non-scientists have spent a great deal of time exhaustively studying this issue, and therefore, are equipped to comment. At the same time, I always keep in mind what Celia Farber often says when confronted with the question on causation — that she is not equipped to answer that question, and in truth, none of us really is. I’ve made the point before — there is too much certainty being expressed on both sides of this debate, when the one thing that is clear, is how much uncertainty there actually is when one considers all theories and hypotheses.

  124. john Says:

    The research for a rational mechanism in this disease is a very exciting matter. The mechanism by explosion of the cell T4 by proliferation of the virus is for a long time obsolete, and nobody knows how to explain how this virus would provoke the disease.
    The last discoveries in biochemistry seem all the same rather exciting, and can claim to explain the process of appearance of marker pens as well as the disease.
    But to be rational, it is necessary to release itself from the viral definition

    In their last publication, the researchers of the university of Greensboro (North Carolina) showed that ” -1 frameshifting induced by the HIV-1 env-fs sequence AAAAAGA (which contains a potential “hungry” arginine codon, AGA) increases during arginine deficiency, which has been associated with increased oxidative stress”.

    They indicate so a little higher that the more the person suffers from a declared AIDS, the more the protein that they study ( the GPx) undergoes this frameshifting and goes away from the structure of the GPx of mammals.

    When we disregard the intervention of a virus, we realize that this deficiency it arginine is easily provoked by its conversion in NO under the influence of divers oxidizers and catalysed by the iNOS. Furthermore, this forming of NO, conjugated to that of ion superoxide, creates the conditions of appearance of the ions peroxynitrites, responsible of the apoptosis of the lymphocytes.

    In summary: the oxydatif stress provokes the forming of new proteins ( the molecular marker pens) and the disappearance of lymphocytes.

    But all this is, naturally, only a hypothesis.

  125. nohivmeds Says:

    So what you’re saying, John, is that the Greensboro findings can be productively interpreted both with HIV, as they have done, and without HIV. That HIV could potentially cause the frameshifting seen by the researchers, but so could other potenital cellular mechanisms. The Greensboro data is an excellent example, in this case, of a very important truth here — that much of the data proferred in HIV/AIDS research can be produtively interpreted in multiple ways. Meaning that such data do NOT argue well for either HIV or non-HIV hypotheses, because they argue well for both. That’s what I mean when I say the lay of the land is not yet remotely unequivocal, and this is the battle of interpretations discussed most eloquently by Celia Farber in her reply in Harper’s.

  126. MacDonald Says:

    John,

    “Only a hypothesis, naturally”, and as such not likely to settle the matter either. However, Dr. Trrll’s profound analysis of denialists’ subconscious determinants appeared no less than a mirror held up:

    denialists subconsiously recognize the fundamentally irrational nature of their beliefs, and that being pressed to think rationally engenders great anxiety, which can only be relieved by distracting themselves with the avoidance strategies mentioned above.

    The depth of Dr. Trrll’s insight into the dark netherworld of the human mind could only stem from years of sawing off skulls and applying electrodes to naked animal brains, out of which not yet conscious biological systems our own brains evolved with the same certainty as the falling of dropped objects to the ground and the fact that HIV (and HIV-2 and SIV and FIV and SHIV etc.) cause AIDS all by themself(es)

    Improved by Dr. Trrll’s analysis, I have noticed above that our scientific and VERY serious friends (it is their job after all and no laughing matter) once again have assured us that even if they lose every single simian argument they advance against the vile, ad hominem spewing, joke cracking and generally offensive denialists, it does nothing to sow doubts that HIV=AIDS.

    In recognition of the error of my now former rethinker denialist ways, mainly to mistake the Durban Declaration for an authoritative document, I propose we distract ourselves no further with immaterial discussions, but let our distinguished connoisseurs of real science (including the science of the intentional directedness of the sub-conscious), Dr. Trrll and Dr. Noble, lay out the substantive arguments that prove HIV the sole cause of AIDS, including predictions that support the hypothesis, so we can examine, discuss and enlighten ourselves by the undiluted waters gushing from the true fountain head of that supreme certainty among certainties.

    I propose, in other words, that Dr. Trrll and/or Dr. Noble author a document for the record, that presents in detail the essential proofs of the certainty they champion.

    What could be more rational, high minded and fair?

  127. Truthseeker Says:

    At the same time, I always keep in mind what Celia Farber often says when confronted with the question on causation — that she is not equipped to answer that question, and in truth, none of us really is. I’ve made the point before — there is too much certainty being expressed on both sides of this debate, when the one thing that is clear, is how much uncertainty there actually is when one considers all theories and hypotheses.

    NHM, we have brought to your attention before what we believe is the fallacy of this statement, and attitude, which to our mind serves only to play into the hands of the true denialists, ie those who like Nelson raising his telescope to his blind eye at Trafalgar, deny the 100% force of the critics of HIV∫AIDS.

    The fallacy, once again, is that while all hypotheses, even the most convincing, are in theory at least subject to displacement by better ones, or at least improvements which don’t disturb their foundation, there are some hypotheses which have nothing to recommend them, and are shown by critics to have nothing to recommend them, and are therefore must be taken down, as an embarrassment to reason and good science.

    HIV∫AIDS is one such abomination, being nothing more than a kite flown without much conviction by Gallo to which the NIH attached the rocket booster of federal funding.

    There is no reason to allow anyone polite leeway, in this case. If something has nothing to recommend it, then it should be despatched, not allowed out of politesse or kindness, as in “I’m OK and You’re OK”, or “You have every right to differ in your belief”, which properly applies to issues of religion, not science. There is nothing to recommend the scientific belief that HIV causes AIDS, except that many respectable people believe it. Please, respect them if you like, but not their belief.

    There is not one single valid piece of scientific evidence, epidemiological or laboratory, which justifies the scientific claim that HIV causes AIDS symptoms. This is not a matter of judgement, it is a matter of fact. Neither Gallo, nor Fauci, nor Temin, nor Baltimore, nor Science, nor Nature, nor Ho, nor Moore, nor Montagnier has ever come up with a single justifiable scientific reason to believe that HIV causes AIDS. Period.

    In fact, as we have pointed out in this blog, Gallo originally pointed out in his Science papers the reason that HIV did not cause AIDS, which is that he was unable to find it in more than a third of the patients he sampled. Fauci has come up with nothing but admissions that he is emptyhanded when it comes to explaining how HIV could possibly cause immune dysfunction. All of them have tacitly admitted severe doubt by cutting off review.

    Ho and Montagnier have since distinguished themselves by finding another cause altogether in mycoplasma, and Montagnier has secured his reputation as the only decent scientist in the whole bunch by also moving to the oxidative stress theory first launched by the Perth Group even before Gallo flew his HIV kite in 1994.

    Of course, Noble and Trrlll may have discovered some reason to believe in HIV as the cause of AIDS unknown to us, and if so they are welcome to say what it is. We asked them to do this a few comments ago, and as yet there is no reply. However, now MacDonald has asked them to make a formal statement along these lines, so perhaps they cannot ignore it.

    In fact, we hereby back up the MacDonald-Truthseeker offer by promising to make any decent response a post on this blog, especially if Trrlll wants to say why he believes that HIV causes AIDS. Subject to comment, of course, in Comments.

    There is just one proviso. The statement cannot be boilerplate copied from the Durban declaration or the NIAID web site etc. What we are asking are your genuine personal reasons for belief in HIV∫AIDS, if any.

  128. trrll Says:

    You correctly make the distinction between attacking the argument and attacking the person, the latter being what ad hominem means in Latin, as you know – directed toward the person. You understand this, of course.

    Not quite. “Ad hominem” is not a highfalutin synonym for insult. “Ad hominem” means to attack the argument by attacking the person.

    For example, if I say, “You do not have a PhD, therefore you don’t know what you are talking about and there is no point in debating with you”, that is ad hominem.

    Similarly if I say, “Dr. Padian has to support the HIV-AIDS model to get funded, so her insistence that her results don’t disprove transmission of AIDS should be disregarded,” that is also ad hominem.

    But if I say, “SIV causes immune deficiency disease in rhesus monkeys, and the fact that you don’t know this proves that you are an idiot,” that is insulting and rude, but it is not ad hominem.

  129. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    TS,

    Pardonez moi, fer just a minute. Yossarian is missing one ad hominem and cannot locate any other ad hominems that remotely resemble a continuous string of attacks as in:

    “the continuous ad hominem attacks by Noble and his friend, Yossarian? ” (Dave/Hank)

    And Hank/Dave still has never responded to Chris’s question:

    ” Hank, you still haven’t attempted to support your claim that HIV is an endogenous virus.” to which Hank/Dave responded:

    “I offered above to do that on a separate thread. Tell me when and where? ”

    For that Dave is awarded a green border. That is insultive
    from the guy that calls others smuckface and Sir Smuckface and his pal who emails others asking, “how’d you like the picture, on wiki ?”

    Next the borders and the goal posts are not just moved they are erased and in comes old Macdonald to further smear the discussion from which you and he are now challenging nohivmeds and others to prove hiv=aids.

    That’s slick. But it ain’t honest. Please inform Dave/Hank to come clean and deal with the readership with honest and truthful dialogue. And quit pandering to them.

    It seems from here, that if you had had a sincere vested interest in the subject matter of this blog you wouldn’t have jerked around nohivmeds during his recent clinical treatment with which you obviously disagreed.

    Now you give a green border to MacDonald ? For what, reading or changing the subject ?

  130. Truthseeker Says:

    Anyone who wishes to turn the above message from the distinguished YGB into something more comprehensible to the dimwitted is welcome, but short of that, we cannot immediately understand it. It is written it appears by someone who lives on an elevated plane and who fondly believes that whatever catches his attention is the focus of attention for everyone else, but we regret his mental acuity is on a far higher plane than we can aspire to and we need directing to whatever it is that he is referring to.

    If the issue is why MacDonald deserves a green border, that is entirely the work of the green border awarding software, which is currently set to recognize any sign of truth, wit, enlightenment, or barefaced effrontery, so all we can say it is a function of one or more of these parameters.

    The subject of this blog is the question of whether we accept the paradigm or its debunking. All contributions on this vexed issue are welcome, even though the conclusion is already obvious, and has been for twenty years.

    Ad hominem” is not a highfalutin synonym for insult. “Ad hominem” means to attack the argument by attacking the person.

    Trrlll, have to say that anyone who characterizes the use of Latin as “high falutin” may not have the level of education that is required to comprehend the points traded in this blog or its Comment threads.

    This seems to be demonstrated by your comments. As we recall, “Ad” means “to” and “hominem” means “the person”, and the meaning of “ad hominem” means any statement in a debate which is directed at the person speaking rather than at his/her arguments.

    For instance you conclude that

    “But if I say, “SIV causes immune deficiency disease in rhesus monkeys, and the fact that you don’t know this proves that you are an idiot,” that is insulting and rude, but it is not ad hominem.”

    is not ad hominem. The only reason we can suppose you think this is that you are distinguishing between an argument and a statement, and you believe that only an argument can be ad hominem. But a statement can be ad hominem, too, if one lacks the kind of discriminatory taste in language that you exhibit. Since we used it in this looser sense, we can only apologize for our lack of taste, though we plead that 65% of the advisory committee of the American Heritage Dictionary agree with us, see below, thus suggesting that we are in our crudeness in line with more people that you are, and this is a democracy after all, where things are decided by majority.

    However, we still believe that the best way to decide whether something is ad hominem or not is to try saying it to Mike Tyson and see what happens, eg try telling him “the fact that you don’t know this proves that you are an idiot”, and you will have your answer.

    ad ho‧mi‧nem  /É‘d ˈhoÊŠmɪˌnÉ›m; Eng. æd ˈhÉ’mÉ™nÉ™m/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahd hoh-mi-nem; Eng. ad hom-uh-nuhm] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation

    Latin.

    1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.

    2. attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

    [Origin: lit., to the man]

    Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)

    Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

    American Heritage Dictionary – Cite This Source

    ad hom·i·nem (hm-nm, -nm) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of “ad hominem” [P]

    adj.

    Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents’ motives.

    [Latin : ad, to + hominem, accusative of hom, man.]ad homi·nem adv.

    Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener’s emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans’ evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one’s opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn’t in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. ·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their recourse… to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women’s leadership on campus” (Donna M. Riley).

    (Download Now or Buy the Book)

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

    Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

  131. Dan Says:

    At the same time, I always keep in mind what Celia Farber often says when confronted with the question on causation — that she is not equipped to answer that question, and in truth, none of us really is

    Causation of what, though?

    Causation of malaria, tuberculosis, pneumonia, candida, Kaposi’s Sarcoma?

    Causation of a “syndrome” consisting of a hodge-podge of illnesses that are tied together by a microbe that weakens the immune system through an amazing array of(nearly unbelievable!) methods? All the while turning our heads from such immune-weakening conditions as malnutrition, starvation, poor sanitation, excessive drug use, overuse of antibiotics, “AIDS drugs”…the list goes on.

    “AIDS” is a fake syndrome. “AIDS” is tunnel vision. We don’t need “AIDS”. We don’t need “HIV”, either. We need to abandon “AIDS”.

  132. Truthseeker Says:

    AIDS” is a fake syndrome. “AIDS” is tunnel vision. We don’t need “AIDS”. We don’t need “HIV”, either. We need to abandon “AIDS”.

    Why? The issue is, what is the real cause of immune dysfunction once HIV is swept out of the way as irrelevant, even as an indicator?

    Broadening the analysis of the cause of the problem from HIV, rejected as without sense or science, to the other causes you list, doesn’t seem to demand changing the name from Auto Immune Deficit Syndrome, does it? Which word do you object to – Auto?

    Or do you mean that the cultural association of HIV and AIDS in HIV∫AIDS is now like inseparable twins with one heart?

  133. nohivmeds Says:

    I agree with Dan (now don’t everyone get too surprised) —
    we aren’t seeking to find the cause of “AIDS” — that jumble of crap doesn’t meet the scientific standards I’m aware of for the word “syndrome” to be applied (and yes, such standards do exist). I think that Celia Farber and I, and apparently TS too, are talking about immune deficiency, immune decline, and then, of course, the deaths that result. That’s what we need a causal explanation for. It was “my bad” for using the term “AIDS.” It’s like a reflex at this point, thanks to the meme, I’m afraid. But it’s the immunodeficiency that needs a causal explanation — and it’s the immunodeficiency for which there are currently at least 2 dissident causal explanations. At least. Even the dissidents are not in agreement on this question.

  134. nohivmeds Says:

    Also, YSG said:

    It seems from here, that if you had had a sincere vested interest in the subject matter of this blog you wouldn’t have jerked around nohivmeds during his recent clinical treatment with which you obviously disagreed.

    Thanks, YSG. I appreciate that, but at the same time, it’s okay that I was a bit “jerked around.” People are entitled to their opinions, and I offered my clinical picture up publicly, so I was prepared for those responses. Besides, I have found support from a very prominent AIDS dissident regarding my choice of treatment — which again brings home the point that there is no single line of dissident think — not about causation or about treatment. And again, that’s why I find the level of certainty expressed on this blog alarming at times, but, again, people are entitled, and all I wish to do is to point out the level of uncertainty that actually pervades even dissident thinking on these topics.

  135. Dan Says:

    Truthseeker,

    bear with me for a moment, as I bombard you with a bunch of questions inspired by your post.

    It seems we’re in agreement that “HIV” is irrelevant, at the least. Correct?

    So, taking “HIV” out of the “AIDS” equation, what have we got?

    Is there really a “syndrome” that affects gay men in the US and tens of millions of people in Africa?

    Without “HIV” how would this syndrome be defined? Would Tcell counts be part of the equation? If so, should it be renamed to Tcell Deficiency Syndrome?

    How would “AIDS” (without “HIV”) be medically useful?

    Do we need “AIDS” to understand malaria and Kaposi’s Sarcoma?

    Let’s say that I’ve been diagnosed with lymphoma. With “HIV” out of the equation, would it be “AIDS lymphoma” or just lymphoma? Would the treatment for “AIDS lymphoma” be different from the treatment for garden-variety lymphoma?

    I’m curious, Truthseeker, since you often focus on the psychological effects of the meme, how does keeping “AIDS” disable the meme?

  136. nohivmeds Says:

    I have a question for you Dan.

    Why is it that my immune system, over almost a decade now, seems to have lost so much steam? It can’t be the ARVs as I’ve spent about 1/6th of the time on those. It has resulted in multiple opportunistic infections, same as Noreen, so it can’t be a gay male thing. And nobody seems to get KS anymore, so what’s the fascination with that? What do you think explains what happened to Noreen and myself? She and I have both used ARVs, but neither until decimation of cellurlar immunity was apparent. As you wish — take HIV out of the equation and explain how it is that both Noreen and I suffered serious compromises in cellular immunity and a host of opporutnistic infections. I don’t care what name you give it — we’re not talking semantics here. We’re talking about two people, one a gay man, the other a heterosexual woman, with the exact same profile of problems.

  137. nohivmeds Says:

    And while you’re thinking that through — add in those chimps or macaques or whatever simian sample that has also shown serious immunodeficiency.

    So we’ve got:

    1. A gay man with serious immunodeficiency and opportunitistic infections
    2. A straight woman with serious immunodeficiency and opporutnistic infections (and we’re not talking tuberculosis or malaria here — we’re talking thrush, HSV, other bothersome little infections).
    3. A bunch of apes with serious immunodeficiency.

    Now, explaining that — that’s an interesting question. Please go for it, Dan.

  138. nohivmeds Says:

    I think, by the way, we can rule our your favorite topic — semantics, as those poor old apes didn’t know they were “labelled” with anything. So, if it isn’t the meme, which it clearly can’t be, then what is it that ties myself, Noreen, and a bunch of simian samples together?

  139. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    So, if it isn’t the meme, which it clearly can’t be, then what is it that ties myself, Noreen, and a bunch of simian samples together?

    Could it be HIV ? That seems the common denominator if you toss in the simians. No, I’m not being facetious. Next qt. Is it auto immune deficiency or acquired ?

  140. nohivmeds Says:

    That’s a good, good, good, good quesiton YSG, and I think it takes us beyond Dan’s “none of this exists” premise. Dan, please cross the bridge and leave that behind. Although I appear to be only text displayed on your video monitor, the truth is that I exist , I know Noreen exists , and from what I understand, all those defenseless simians exist as well . Come, brother and cross that bridge. There’s much more going on that the meme here.

  141. Truthseeker Says:

    ?Would the treatment for “AIDS lymphoma” be different from the treatment for garden-variety lymphoma?

    No (although lymphoma is a cancer, is it not, and therefore not caused by immune dysfunction anyway, is it?). But are you talking on a medical or cultural level? Are you talking philosophy or science? On the philosophical and cultural level, the discussion is too complex for our poor intellect to grasp. We are merely discussing the science, or lack of it, in this field.

    Scientifically and medically, this blog is addressing a fantasy, a supposedly widespread immune deficiency and its consequences, supposedly caused by HIV, which is now a universal meme.

    When that fantasy is contradicted by a critic as an empty invention, since HIV shows no sign to date of any causing anything other than the release of massive funding, the natural response in believers lay and professional is to ask, why are people dying, then? In other words, the fantasy still has content for them, even if the alleged cause is spurious.

    The proper answer to their question, of course, is that people are ill or dying of whatever illness they are suffering from, which is relabeled “AIDS” instead of “TB”, or whatever. Medically speaking, as you say, there is no difference between AIDS TB and TB. What is happening is that some part of TB that is occurring is being relabeled AIDS. This is why you suggest getting rid of the whole idea of AIDS as spurious, isn’t that right? If it is nothing but relabeling, let’s get rid of the concept and the relabeling.

    But the idea is bigger than that. It is that there is some extra immune deficiency causing extra TB, which is called “AIDS with TB”. Even though as you rightly point out, AIDS X (X = some illness caused by immune dysfunction) is just X, the idea is that we have an extra wave of it, an epidemic in the US, a pandemic elsewhere. “AIDS” is the idea that we have a new addition to the world’s ills, and that its cause is more immune dysfunction than we would otherwise have, and that HIV is the cause, and that if it is not the cause, then we have to find some other new cause.

    This seems to be perfectly true in the US, where there was a wave of new “GRID” immune dysfunction resulting from the gay sex-drug binge of the late seventies, a wave that was eventually labeled HIV∫AIDS, and boosted and maintained by the medical profession who were misguided by scientists into supplying dangerous drugs to counter the effect of dangerous drugs. This wave has now retreated somewhat as the drugs administered have become less toxic, though they still clearly account for many if not all of the deaths of AIDS patients. But as an “epidemic” it was an additional amount of illness, and still is, that otherwise wouldn’t exist, and you have to call it something. AIDS still seems suitable, but you could relabel it Drug Induced Immune Dysfunction and be more accurate, perhaps. What are you suggesting?

    On the global front, there is no extra wave of illness, no real pandemic at all, merely a wave of HIV testing, or conventional illness reinterpreted with the HIV causal assumption, which is spreading across the world as the AIDS meme. This is a fantasy pandemic, so the total illness remains the same, with part of it reinterpreted. This is shown by the death rate in South Africa remaining more or less constant, for example. If you mean that it would be as well to get rid of this reinterpretation by getting rid of the AIDS fantasy, fine. That would be mentally and politically very beneficial.

    As experience to date has shown, however, this is a tough one, because uprooting a meme of this caliber from the minds of believers is akin to deprogramming the victims of a cult, a cult established and maintained by the highest secular authority (the NIAID and the highest government, academic, research, corporate, and media institutions) which actively fights deprogramming with all the massive resources available to it.

    The UN Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2006 is 630 pages of small print, printed on heavy glossy paper, with many color pictures of smiling people, and weighs five or six lbs. It is only one item in a propaganda stream fed by whole forests which includes the finest newspaper in the world, etc. Apart from Dr Harvey Bialy’s insurgent email campaign, the propaganda stream of the critics consists of about 24 excellent but unread books, 12 pages of Harper’s March issue, the AIDS Wiki, the RA site and ten or twenty other sites, and two or three blogs read by a few hundred people, most of whom are already aware of the situation, and can or will do very little about it.

    Good luck.

  142. Dan Says:

    I think it takes us beyond Dan’s “none of this exists” premise.

    NHM,
    I seriously question your reading and comprehension skills. Or maybe you read and comprehend just fine, but are compelled to mischaracterize for some reason.

    First, what do you mean by my “none of this exists” premise? Awfully vague. Could be interpreted in more than one way.

    Immune impairment is real, so are the various illnesses that get placed under the “AIDS” umbrella. So, what is it you’re reading of mine that says “none of this exists”? I haven’t questioned the existence of immune deficiency/impairment OR any of the illnesses lumped together as “AIDS”. So…please enlighten us all and tell us how you’ve ascertained my “none of this exists” premise.

  143. Dan Says:

    Truthseeker,
    that was a nice, lengthy post.

    Would you be interested in answering all the questions I posed…with statements, not more questions?

    I’m asking direct questions. They aren’t philosophical or cultural.

  144. Truthseeker Says:

    Would you be interested in answering all the questions I posed…with statements, not more questions?

    Normally your posts are the most sensible around here, but this dimissal of our answer to your point strikes us as foolish. Perhaps you need to answer your questions yourself.

    Is there really a “syndrome” that affects gay men in the US and tens of millions of people in Africa?

    Our reply answered this question. A drug binge caused unexpected immune dysfunction in the US among reckless gays but there is no evidence of any unusual level of immune dysfunction in Africa. The syndrome in the US was caused by stupidity and ignorance about the effect of drugs and poor nutrition on health. If a syndrome is the right word for a complex of resulting ailments, then use it.

    Without “HIV” how would this syndrome be defined? Would Tcell counts be part of the equation? If so, should it be renamed to Tcell Deficiency Syndrome?

    As AIDS, unless you insist that AIDS is always HIV∫AIDS, which is what this blog argues against. If so, the answers to the other two questions is Why not?

    How would “AIDS” (without “HIV”) be medically useful?

    Because it refers to the unexpected additional wave of immune dysfunction, and would therefore help to call attention to the stupidity and ignorance of the celebrants who suffer it, and would warn others off the suicidal behavior they have practiced.

    Do we need “AIDS” to understand malaria and Kaposi’s Sarcoma?

    No and yes. Read my reply.

    There really is no excuse for confusion on any of these points, as you well know.

  145. Dan Says:

    Truthseeker,
    I’m unhappy that you find my questions to be foolish.

    Now that I’ve gotten more succinct answers from you, I have a few new insights that I didn’t have before. Sorry to come off as dismissive. “Impatient” is closer to the truth. I apologize.

  146. nohivmeds Says:

    TS wrote:

    Our reply answered this question. A drug binge caused unexpected immune dysfunction in the US among reckless gays but there is no evidence of any unusual level of immune dysfunction in Africa. The syndrome in the US was caused by stupidity and ignorance about the effect of drugs and poor nutrition on health. If a syndrome is the right word for a complex of resulting ailments, then use it.

    So maybe that explains my immune deficiency (it doesn’t, but for the sake of sane argument, sometimes concessions are made), but how does it explain Noreen’s immune deficiency, or the simians? I notice that those questions have been covertly swept under the carpet. Time to drag them out again.

  147. nohivmeds Says:

    I do have to say that I think it’s funny (in a dark humour sort of way) that there is this impression that ALL gay guys who are immuno-suppressed are that way because they acted like drunken, drug-addicted sluts. I mean, that is a laugh! If only it were actually true.

  148. Chris Noble Says:

    However, we still believe that the best way to decide whether something is ad hominem or not is to try saying it to Mike Tyson and see what happens, eg try telling him “the fact that you don’t know this proves that you are an idiot”, and you will have your answer.

    If you reduce the term ad hominem to anything that may cause offence then it is completely meaningless. In that case it is not a logical fallacy.

    David’s argument that HIV is an endogenous retrovirus is directly contradicted by his second argument that HIV DNA is only found in a small fraction of T-cells in HIV+ subjects. There is no other way to characterise this argument as anything other than stupid. Dose this reflect poorly on David’s scientific literacy and intellect? Yes. Is it likely that David might be insulted by the manner in which I have pointed out the stupidity of his argument? Yes. Does this make it an ad hominem attack? No,

    An ad hominem attack would be to attribute political motivations to your opponents as an alternative to addressing the actual arguments. This what David Steele and other “rethinkers” do all the time.

  149. nohivmeds Says:

    Thanks for that non-sequitor on the nature of logical fallacies, Chris. It was right on point (not). Maybe you want to attempt to address the very simple question I put out there on the collection of immuno-deficiencies we seem to have amassed here at NAR. What do one high-brow faggot, one lovely straight lady, and a bunch of tortured great apes with immunodeficiencies have in common? We seem to have determined that it can’t be the “meme” (those apes don’t pay too much attention to memes, after all). We also seem to have established that it wasn’t sex, drugs, and rock and roll either. No one seems to have any good ideas here beyond that.

  150. Chris Noble Says:

    Maybe you want to attempt to address the very simple question I put out there on the collection of immuno-deficiencies we seem to have amassed here at NAR. What do one high-brow faggot, one lovely straight lady, and a bunch of tortured great apes with immunodeficiencies have in common?

    Infection with one of a family of related retroviruses.

  151. Truthseeker Says:

    Sorry, Dan, didn’t mean to be impatient with you, just thought our oh-so-brilliant and provocative response would tell all.

    but how does it explain Noreen’s immune deficiency, or the simians? I notice that those questions have been covertly swept under the carpet. Time to drag them out again.

    I do have to say that I think it’s funny (in a dark humour sort of way) that there is this impression that ALL gay guys who are immuno-suppressed are that way because they acted like drunken, drug-addicted sluts. I mean, that is a laugh! If only it were actually true.

    Whether you have behaved like a slut or not is entirely for you to claim, and we did not include all immunodeficient gays in that category.

    Immune deficiency is due to recreational drugs, lack of essential nutrients and/or poisonous medications, or the assault of real disease if that is overwhelming, which is not usual in the well fed and protected West, if people do not have a weak constitution to begin with.

    Yes, most gays who acted like drug-addicted sex crazed idiots – sluts in your vernacular – risked immune deficiency and came down with it often enough to be noticed as a new disease, marked by KS, in the early eighties (GRID).

    The rest who exhibited immune deficiency then or later must have either taken fewer drugs or been brought down by one of the other causes listed, in most cases presumably the deadly AZT that was the first medication.

    That this was indeed the case is suggested by the fall off in numbers with time as the really lunatic and self destructive contingent was hit earlier than the more inhibited ones who came down later, which correlated with lower intake of drugs, thus creating the famous ‘latent period’ which slowly grew from an initial two or three to over 12 years.

    If you don’t want to confirm you acted like a lunatic yourself in this regard, presumably you are in the second box, where the numbers are now kept up with ARV’s and lower doses of AZT. Noreen has to account for her own experience in the same fashion, we assume. Let her tell you. We doubt she was a riproaring drug and sex addict, as you do.

    As for the monkeys, apparently you have been unable to read all the many posts here which have dealt with that topic. For your information, and perhaps to bring this silly thread and its misleading statements by Chris Noble to a close, here is the bottom line summary of the facts of the matter.

    Forget the monkeys:

    There is no viable analogy between a) HIV, humans and “HIV∫AIDS” and b) SIV, SHIV, monkeys and “simian AIDS” because the two are dissimilar in the following respects:

    1. The virus strains used on the monkeys are pathogenic strains selected out from the range available.

    2. The virus strains that occur in the wild cause no problems in their natural host nor in humans, only in a different subspecies.

    3. They cause problems only in baby monkeys before their immune systems have developed fully.

    4. They otherwise cause problems only to monkeys who have lived well beyond their normal life span.

    5. Lab monkeys are weakened by living in cages without exercise or sunlight (Vitamin A deficit, a key to combating Tumor Necrosis Factor, and your key to disarming Bird Flu if it ever arrives, as we have told you)

    6. The symptoms produced are not similar to human “AIDS” but merely to the initial impact of any virus, ie ARC in the case of HIV.

    7. The quantity of virus thrown at them is much higher than any HIV level in humans, certainly relative to antibodies.

    Any analogy between SIV and HIV is thus null and void, despite the desperate attempts of the HIV boys to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

    This is just off the top of the head out of impatience with this nonsense which has been going on at such length because we have given Chris Noble free rein, and he has littered this thread with a score of spurious claims and assertions. We regret that you have been taken in.

  152. Truthseeker Says:

    If you reduce the term ad hominem to anything that may cause offence then it is completely meaningless. In that case it is not a logical fallacy.

    Thank you Chris for providing such a clear example of your propensity to logical fallacy, not to mention misquoting and misunderstanding. Let us correct you, as usual. The term “ad hominem” means directed towards the person. That is what we said and what we meant.

    Is it likely that David might be insulted by the manner in which I have pointed out the stupidity of his argument? Yes. Does this make it an ad hominem attack? No

    Ditto. The answer is Yes. Given the ad hominem manner in which you pointed it out. What happened to your favorite ad hominem claim, “dishonest”, by the way?

    An ad hominem attack would be to attribute political motivations to your opponents as an alternative to addressing the actual arguments. This what David Steele and other “rethinkers” do all the time.

    Thank you for stating the definition correctly, even though you probably meant the opposite.

    By the way, when you say that rethinkers often ascribe political motivations to you, let’s point out that you have never denied this despite being offered many opportunities to do so, including the question of whether you are paid.

    Since you have been at the same repetitive effort without accepting any correction since 1998, it is fairly clear what the conclusion is.

    To argue on such a fixed basis without any room to take in new arguments and information and change your mind must be somewhat tedious over eight years, and we sympathise. On the other hand, the pay must be worth it, which is our final reason for believing in the obvious conclusion. It could hardly be worthwhile for an intelligent person simply to be motivated by the attention.

    Feel free to correct our impression any time you wish.

    Meanwhile, we beg you to try not to divert discussion here with casual errors of fact eg that SIV creates the same symptoms in monkeys as HIV in humans, see above. If one removed your misstatements from this thread, there would hardly be anything left.

    But thank you for providing the opportunity to scotch one of the three reasons why Luc Montagnier claims that HIV is involved in AIDS after all, when he has discovered so many co factors, as he states at the end of Chapter 7 in his book, Virus. These are

    1) HIV causes a decline in T cells

    2) simian “AIDS”

    3) The drugs “work”.

    Since none of these hold up under scrutiny, as this blog has demonstrated, it is clear that Montagnier is an HIV “denialist” at heart, and just being polite in tipping his hat to HIV, not to mention retaining his glory as the discoverer of this viral Beelzebub. Read his book to find out how “co factors” cause AIDS, Chris, it will interest you.

    No wonder he doesn’t get invited to World AIDS Conferences any more.

  153. MacDonald Says:

    Well I see that the very serious and very adult scientists, Dr. Trrll and Dr. Noble (and a couple others) have made their bid.

    To recap, when forced by the sheer weight of the available evidence to admit that a gigantic bicycle pump and saltwater can be a lethal weapon under certain circumstances, Dr. Trrll complained that,

    My experience with denialists has been that they tend to be extremely reluctant to formulate their beliefs into anything resembling a testable scientific hypothesis. They tend to be a lot more comfortable with analogies, which are vague and flexible enough to rationalize almost anything. What I’ve observed is that trying to pin denialists down to a testable hypothesis generally results in a ludicrous blizzard of attempts to sidetrack the discussion with, nonsequiturs, facetious remarks, personal comments, accusations, and insults etc. The discussants here certainly have run true to form.

    I used to regard such behavior as actively dishonest, an attempt to “win” the argument by deceptive means, but I’m beginning to think that there may be another explanation. I now suspect that despite their professions of certainty and their aggressive argumentation style, denialists subconsciously recognize the fundamentally irrational nature of their beliefs, and that being pressed to think rationally engenders great anxiety, which can only be relieved by distracting themselves with the avoidance strategies mentioned above

    This caused the denialists, TS and myself, to immediately repent of our ways and offer the real scientists, Dr. Trrll and Dr. Noble, a free hand to get the discussion back on its scientific rails: objective examination of the proof supporting the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

    We asked the above mentioned 2 scientists to lead the way by giving us an example of that which they rightly perceive as lacking in denialists, namely a willingness to let themselves get “pinned to a testable hypothesis”.

    We challenged them to “lay out the substantive arguments that prove HIV the sole cause of AIDS, including predictions that support the hypothesis”. And furthermore to do so in a personal way, giving their own reasons for thinking why this evidence is so strong.

    I hereby summarize the arguments they came up with in favour of HIV/AIDS:

    Dr. Trrll: “Ad hominem” is not a highfalutin synonym for insult. “Ad hominem” means to attack the argument by attacking the person.

    For example, if I say, “You do not have a PhD, therefore you don’t know what you are talking about and there is no point in debating with you”, that is ad hominem.

    Similarly if I say, “Dr. Padian has to support the HIV-AIDS model to get funded, so her insistence that her results don’t disprove transmission of AIDS should be disregarded,” that is also ad hominem.

    But if I say, “SIV causes immune deficiency disease in rhesus monkeys, and the fact that you don’t know this proves that you are an idiot,” that is insulting and rude, but it is not ad hominem.

    This powerful argument, going straight to the heart of the matter, was immediately linked to the equally central issues of border policy and football by the always fair minded Yossarian:

    Next the borders and the goal posts are not just moved they are erased and in comes old Macdonald to further smear the discussion from which you (TS)and he are now challenging nohivmeds and others to prove hiv=aids.

    NB! The denialists would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the discussion for further smearing it by asking proof that HIV=AIDS.

    Fortunately, the indefatigable Dr. Noble wasn’t discouraged by our low attempts at smearing the discussion. Instead of getting bogged down in the denialist quagmire, he stayed the course and threw his scientific bulk into the argument at the point where his experience told him it counts the most:

    If you reduce the term ad hominem to anything that may cause offence then it is completely meaningless. In that case it is not a logical fallacy

    An ad hominem attack would be to attribute political motivations to your opponents as an alternative to addressing the actual arguments. This what David Steele and other “rethinkers” do all the time.

    This excellent belabouring of Dr. Trrll’s previous argument clearly shows the moral integrity of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

    In the meantime NHM, who, as we saw above, is identical with Dr. Trrll and Dr. Noble according to Yossarian, provided more compelling data that the meaning of words isn’t pathogenic, regardless of titers, by presenting a flawless example of scientific analogy based on the animal model:

    I think, by the way, we can rule our your favorite topic — semantics, as those poor old apes didn’t know they were “labelled” with anything. So, if it isn’t the meme, which it clearly can’t be, then what is it that ties myself, Noreen, and a bunch of simian samples together.

    In the interest of scientific debate, denialists forbear to give any of the many obvious answers to this question. Instead we note that Yossarian and Dr. Noble successfully applied the HIV=AIDS explanatory model to the conundrum: That which ties together creatures that have tested positive on an antibody test for HIV-1, HIV-2, SIV, SHIV etc. (FIV possibly excepted) is that they have tested positive on an antibody test for HIV-1, HIV-2, SIV, SHIV etc. (FIV possibly excepted).

    Dr. Noble nails it admirably:

    Infection with one of a family of related retroviruses.

    The logical force of this argument, needless to say, is a hallmark of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, quite possibly its strongest feature.

    So on behalf of the denialists, I would like to thank the real scientists for obliging us in delivering all this compelling, up to date and extremely hard to argue with evidence to show that HIV causes AIDS, and that denialists are only interested in smearing the discussion.

  154. nohivmeds Says:

    That was all a brilliant display of this debate, and I am grateful to all participants for their answers. The conundrum I presented (especially our friend Noreen’s case) is easily answered by both the HIV=AIDS supporters, and not quite as easily, but also answered by our dissident friends, in the manner of a “dose-response” to toxins in my case (maybe I’m not one of those crazy gays from the early days who are not here to tell us if TS’s hypotheses about them is correct — but I MUST, if the dissidents are right, be suffering at the very least from the effects of the cytotoxic drugs I take). As for our friends the chimps, a more elaborate (and therefore less parsimonious, and so less likely to be correct) answer is arrived at by TS.

    But, alas, the dissidents cannot account for Noreen’s difficulties. Score one for the HIV=AIDS supporters, I’m afraid.

    And to all — I’m sitting very comfortably on my fence here. I refuse to endorse any of the answers provided. Why? Well, as TS and others have shown, there are still large unanswered questions and theoretical black holes in HIV= AIDS theory. And voila — it appears the same is true for dissident thinking as well (many thanks to my simian friends and to Noreen).

    It is most interesting to observe that the two sides state their claims so very emphatically, with what appears to be utter certainty. Of course, there is no call for that, as the mere existance of the other side provides evidence that at the very least, both sides have something wrong in their thinking. I present this as the Third Way of thinking about all of this. What if both the establishment and the dissidents were both partly right and partly wrong? Now I know this idea will receive short shrift here, but I put it out there for the readers, not my fellow posters. There is a Third Way.

  155. nohivmeds Says:

    And Yossarian, you never fail to disappoint. You appear and then disappear when the going gets interesting. I wonder if you are interested in the Third Way. Perhaps you’ll let us know sometime.

  156. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    On the thirty-second day of the thirteenth month on the eighth day of the week,

    On the twenty-fifth hour and the sixty-first minute, we’ll find all things that we seek.

    Sam Walter Foss 1858-1911

  157. nohivmeds Says:

    Hmmm. Thanks for that YSG. Very illuminating — or, I imagine it might be very illuminating if I understood what it was you were trying to say.

  158. nohivmeds Says:

    Perhaps YSG is indicating the existance of a Fourth Way — that being that we will never know the answers to the questions we discuss. As an optimist, I can’t endorse it, but as a fellow human, I can certainly validate it. Still, I hope you’re wrong, YSG.

  159. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    Actually, I was gone most of Friday and yesterday and wasn’t around to comment. Dr. Bialy does not have all the answers nor does TS. Yes, I am open to a third way, NHM, and align myself with your basic approach. Denialists are less than accurate in totally jetisoning HIV from paradigm.

    I seriously doubt NIH/CDC will ever remove HIV from the blood borne pathogen category.

  160. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    Lets try an analogy. If you study your family history geneaology with any seriousness, you will soon find out there isn’t an end point. As you go further and further back in time, the less information is advailable and you may or may not find yourself analysing yDNA or mtdna in relatives/cousins etc. That doesn’t mean you cannot be an optimist.

    Studying AIDS is like that. Its like listening to Sec of Defense Rumsfeld talk about the known knowns and the unknown knowns. Presumably there are also unknown unknowns.

    So my basic approach is optimistic. Now, don’t take this too serious, I haven’t had my morning coffee yet and am still in insomniac mode.

    Here’s a question:

    Do you think any of these discussions would take place if ARV’s didn’t exist ?

  161. nohivmeds Says:

    Studying AIDS is like that. Its like listening to Sec of Defense Rumsfeld talk about the known knowns and the unknown knowns. Presumably there are also unknown unknowns.

    I couldn’t agree more with that, and anyone who holds another opinion simply isn’t very informed on the nature of epistemology. Of course there are unknown unknowns. There are always unknown unknowns. If either highly polarized side could admit to this, then things might look very different. But my guess is that neither side will concede to what is a very obvious epistemological point.

    Do you think any of these discussions would take place if ARV’s didn’t exist?

    No, I don’t. At this point, the existance of the ARVs has become such an enormous confound in figuring all of this out — it is almost impossible to disentangle the phenomena of the illness with the treatment industry. Almost impossible, but not entirely. There are potential ways to examine the confounding effect of the meds — some that are actually happening with studies of “long-term non-progressors.” But again, in answer to your quesiton, I think the ARVs are just as vital to the dissident argument as they are to the establishment’s argument. Both sides claim that the ARVs prove their theory correct. Clearly, that is not tenable, unless one resorts to the Third Way, in which both sides could be partially right concerning the ARVs (i.e., they could be dangerous and helpful at the same time). Of course, I’m writing blasphemy here, but for the benefit of those who don’t post, I’ll just blast away with this blasphemy.

    Go have some coffee. Nice talking with you.

  162. john Says:

    The beneficial and toxic effects of the ARV’s can be completely explained in the model of the oxidative stress .
    So, the first one of the ARVs, AZT, certainly provoked the temporary increase of the CD4 +, and I think that the Fischl study was not so slanted that we sometimes think of it. But in the time, we did not know the impact of NO and of its by-products on the immune system.

    So, the chemical thermodynamics learns us that azides are oxidizing (towards thiols), and at the same moment reducers (towards peroxynitrites).

    The speed of the reactions between these two nitrogenous compounds (giving nitrogen monoxide or dinitrogen) is more important than that between azides and thiols.

    Furthermore, as well as shows it Kim and al ., compounds releasing NO are not toxic in the presence of thiols, and NO released in it conditions has an antiapoptotic role.

    So, we understand better the initial “virological” impact of AZT

    But, as well as we know it since 1988 thanks to the works of Oppenheimer and al ., AZT oxidizes slowly these same thiols, until make them unimportant.

    NO is not more managed by thiols, and its concentration increases strongly, what confers him now apoptotic properties, the rates of CD4 + decrease, and the death follows.

    And, when, in 1996, we fell (accidentally as usual), on an nucleosidic analog which allowed AZT to work again, we did not regrettably study if the sulfur of this 3TC allowed again to mobilize NO. What corresponds well the classic experimental data of chemistry.

  163. Dan Says:

    For the followers of “The Third Way” (sounds like a religion)…

    Please keep us up to date on your progress. I’m curious to know what aspects of “HIV” research you keep, and which ones you dismissm, and the reasoning for your choices.

    It sounds like HIV is still front and center, correct? You’re just not sure what it does, how it does it, or what help it may need to do what it does?

    If HIV is still a central part of “whatever is going on”, then are the tests 99.95% accurate? If I go get an “HIV” test, I will know for certain whether or not I have “HIV”? Let us know if you’re keeping this one. One of my “favorites” is “HIV”‘s amazing ability to mutate. Keeping that one? Well, there’s just so many to choose from. Keep us informed, please.

  164. john Says:

    The retroviral model passes necessarily, according to Montagnier, by the model of the oxidative stress , this one indicating moreover that we do not know how it arrives there.
    On the other hand the model of the oxidative stress is self-sufficient in itself. The principle of Ockham thus pleads in its favour.

    The tests are tests with limit, and the “cross-reactions”, which should give a background noise whatever is the concentration in these “cross-reactive” proteins, gives values of optical densities very superior when the serum is not diluted (Giraldo). Thus it is the same proteins, that are not thus specific of a virus, but a metabolic trouble : the oxidative stress

  165. kevin Says:

    nohivmeds (mail):
    I do have to say that I think it’s funny (in a dark humour sort of way) that there is this impression that ALL gay guys who are immuno-suppressed are that way because they acted like drunken, drug-addicted sluts. I mean, that is a laugh! If only it were actually true.

    This is one of those complicated biological situations for which the ignoble doctor Trlll is always longing.

    An examination of an immuno-compromised individual’s health history will almost always reveal past drug use, either hard, recreational drugs or otherwise illicit drugs via prescription. Of course, such thorough examinations are a medical relic in the HMO era. Doctors are expected to be able to provide a diagnosis and treatment is derived in a paltry 15 minutes for many patients. With HIV, passing out ARVs to the sick is absolutely easier than considering all the many, complicated circumstances of those individual health histories. This is especially problematic, given the new health dangers we face, living in enviroments that are increasingly toxic. We may certainly have conquered a few of the most insidious microbes, but we have also become fixated on that interpretation of disease, to the detriment of medical efficacy.

    As for the above quote from NHM…there is much irony in understanding the complexities of this major medical debacle. Case in point…I’m an HIV-, gay, immuno-compromised man who has never participated in the gay “druggie scene”. Honestly 😉 But I have participated in the “pill for every ill” lifestlye that is ruining the health of people of all sexualities. I was given hundereds of antibiotic prescriptions for sinus infections by nearly the same amount of doctors. Not one them objected. Not one of them suggested the other lifestyle changes that I now find so valueable. There are thousand more like me out there. Antibiotics, as well as other pharmaceuticals may have serious long-term effects for frequent users. We are the first generation to grow up with powerful anti-microbials. Sure, there are some doctors out there now who are being more prudent in prescribing antibiotics, but the proverbial damage is done for some of us.

    Regardless, go to any health-related messageboard and read the entries for “sinus sufferers”. They are legions; sinus infections are the number one reason for primary care. And this chemical experiment is growing day by day, while the medical industry continues to deny the need to treat the whole patient.

    Kevin

  166. Dan Says:

    Kevin,
    it’s posts like yours above that can pull us away from the HIV tunnel vision that so many of us cling to. Realizing that there’s just so much going on with health and healthcare that too often gets distilled into simplistic dogmas (HIV=AIDS, for example).

  167. Bialyzebub Says:

    To those who ask what the “sick with AIDS” “SIV infected monkeys” and the “HIV-infected humans” of all persuasions and demographics have in common, try a list that begins with this:

    A defective cytochrome monoxidase.

  168. MacDonald Says:

    I think the ARVs are just as vital to the dissident argument as they are to the establishment’s argument

    It’s incredible how the “third way” meme, also called the “sitting so comfortably on the fence that I don’t ever want to come down – EVER!” meme, makes its host repeat the most inane and misleading rubbish over and over with the sole purpose of keeping him balanced fifty-fifty between either side.

    The argument we are talking about here is proof of causation. The efficacy of ARVs is in NO way, shape or form “vital” to the dissident contention that the hypothesis ‘HIV causes AIDS’ remains to be proved.

    If truly effective drugs were to be developed that target HIV and absolutely nothing else, they would become meaningful as proof of causation.

    Until then it is a sign of utter bankruptcy that AIDS ‘scientists’ after 25 years have to rely on “the drugs work – well sort of – so it’s got to be HIV that causes AIDS” as their weightiest argument.

    So, Solomon, go chop up some other baby if you feel you must feed Gallo’s dogs at least half of every bone of contention.

    And Mr. Yossarian of course we would not be having this discussion if ARVs didn’t exist, because then there would be no product to fund, develop and sell, and therefore no need to perpetuate the HIV lie – unless you think antibody tests without drugs could keep the whole industry going.

    Next time have your coffee before you come up with the question of the day.

  169. nohivmeds Says:

    A defective cytochrome monoxidase

    Please say more for those of us not intimately familiar with the microbiological lingo. And Dan, the Third Way has nothing to do with HIV, or oxidative stress — you miss the entire point. That being simply that it is the skeptical position, so it takes no position. That isn’t hard to understand, I don’t think.

    Also, thank you to both John and Kevin for interesting and informative posts. I agree Kevin that one not need to have been involved with the gay drug scene – that was indeed my point — TS seems to have a hard time with that. Perhaps your post helped clarify. John, next time break it down even more simply if you can — I get the gist, but would like to understand the details better.

  170. kevin Says:

    MacDonald wrote:

    Failing initiation into the exclusive PubMed longterm non-progressor jockey club, you will in all likelihood never know if the apparently effective vaccination campaign so benefitting macaques, otherwise brutally assaulted with laboratory created “SIV/HIV hybrids”, would reproduce in humans, or if it will turn out that the molecular determinants, subject-matter of true scientists, are ultimately aligned against it.

    Very well said. Such fools make rich satirical fodder, and mocking them is the rare opporunity to inject a little humor into what is by most accounts a rather grave matter.

    Kevin

  171. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    So they just happened to accidentally have pick simians with a defective cytochrome monoxidase ?

  172. Truthseeker Says:

    A defective cytochrome monoxidase.

    Inscrutable as ever. You mean they have all been sniffing car polish which has been left too long with the lid off?

    Of course there are unknown unknowns. There are always unknown unknowns.

    Always the excuse of the weak minded and indecisive. What distinguishes the smart and decisive from the bewildered is that they can recognize the point when enough evidence accumulates to render one alternative inconceivable, because it becomes irreconcilable with the facts known, regardless of how many known or unknown unknowns might remain.

    This syndrome of indecision before the obvious is something which arises from a nervous temperament, aging, illness or lack of emotional and spiritual support. We therefore ask everyone’s indulgence of NHM in his travail and to provide maximum emotional and social support at this time of need, bound to be magnified by the double whammy of the holidays coming up.

    I was given hundreds of antibiotic prescriptions for sinus infections by nearly the same amount of doctors. Not one them objected. Not one of them suggested the other lifestyle changes that I now find so valuable. There are thousand more like me out there. Antibiotics, as well as other pharmaceuticals may have serious long-term effects for frequent users. We are the first generation to grow up with powerful anti-microbials.

    Hundreds over what period?

    On the other hand the model of the oxidative stress is self-sufficient in itself. The principle of Ockham thus pleads in its favour.

    We can look forward to Montagnier and the Perthies getting the Nobel for AIDS, then. Duesberg can be awarded the Nobel for Peace.

  173. kevin Says:

    Trlll wrote:
    Similarly if I say, “Dr. Padian has to support the HIV-AIDS model to get funded, so her insistence that her results don’t disprove transmission of AIDS should be disregarded,” that is also ad hominem.

    No it isn’t.

    Such a critique first examines the summary declarations submitted with the paper, and then, it is exceedingly easy to compare the conclusion of the written declarations to any “official” comments after publication. If those two analytical processes yield contradictory conclusions, it is not ad hominem to point out such inconsistencies. In fact, it would be intellectually weak-minded not to notice that such contradictions are out of hand.

    Kevin

  174. nohivmeds Says:

    TS wrote:

    his syndrome of indecision before the obvious is something which arises from a nervous temperament, aging, illness or lack of emotional and spiritual support. We therefore ask everyone’s indulgence of NHM in his travail and to provide maximum emotional and social support at this time of need, bound to be magnified by the double whammy of the holidays coming up.

    Honestly, TS, that really is below you, now isn’t it? You understand the role of the skeptic — if you don’t, well, I wouldn’t know where to begin with you.

    It seemed to me that there was room for doubt amidst all the certainty expressed by C.N. and trrll on the one side, and you, TS, and others on the other side. It seems clear that things have become too dichotomized when one side can’t even talk in a civil fashion with the other. My fingers are pointing at both sides on that one. The oppressed (dissidents) have come to resemble their oppressors all too well, exemplified by the kind of comments you, TS, make. No one is obligated to make a decision. People are very much allowed to reserve judgement. It’s fine with me that you feel so confident in your views. I’m not interested in changing your mind. In fact, I’m not writing for you. Again, I’m writing for NAR’s readers.

    Rudeness is unnecessary here. Why you find it necessary to insult my intelligence every time I disagree with you is a mystery to me, but it is wholly unnecessary and rather ridiculous, especially when you do it so unfailingly. It’s clear you do not question your own beliefs for one second. Fine. Please afford me the same luxury then — entitlement to my own beliefs without the casting of person dispersions.

    The role of the skeptic is to observe the existance of unanswered questions and inject doubt. It’s a vital role in the advancement of any science. If you fail to understand that, then you fail to understand science at all.

  175. nohivmeds Says:

    This lovely quote, supposedly endorsed by you TS, is important to remember, I should think, at times like this:

    A clash of doctrine is not a disaster but an opportunity
    Alfred North Whitehead

    Heed Whitehead’s advice. Instead of getting your panties balled up into a wad every time someone disagrees with you, why not look at such disagreements as an “opportunity” for further discussion. You seem unable to live that which you preach.

  176. Truthseeker Says:

    Rudeness is unnecessary here. Why you find it necessary to insult my intelligence every time I disagree with you is a mystery to me, but it is wholly unnecessary and rather ridiculous, especially when you do it so unfailingly. It’s clear you do not question your own beliefs for one second. Fine. Please afford me the same luxury then — entitlement to my own beliefs without the casting of person dispersions.

    Sorry if you think our sympathetic analysis was rude, when we were asking all to support you emotionally and socially until you were strong enough to make a decision based on the fact that THE FACTS OUTSTANDING ARE IRRECONCILABLE WITH HIV∫AIDS, regardless of how many unknown unknowns there are, unless they change the laws of logic and the physical universe.

    Notice how you choose to quote and reply to the emotional paragraph rather than the analytical paragraph which makes the point you have to take. That is what we object to in your style. This is a site for analyzing the reason and evidence behind the now broken paradigm, not for going off those rails down every emotional byway, which only delights the specialists in red herrings, by which we mean none other than Chris Noble and the rest of the pharmacrew.

    The role of the skeptic is to observe the existence of unanswered questions and inject doubt. It’s a vital role in the advancement of any science. If you fail to understand that, then you fail to understand science at all.

    Then precisely according to the wording of your own statement we are practicing skepticism to the hilt here while you hang back from the diving board shivering at the prospect of throwing away the remnants of your embarrassing previous belief that the drugs you swallowed were saving your life because they kept your “viral load” down.

    Get with the program NHM if you want to “understand science at all”. We will give you all the support you need as long as you are grateful for it, instead of behaving as if your rescuers were trying to drown you in certainty.

  177. nohivmeds Says:

    TS, you have me laughing out loud!

    Get with the program NHM if you want to “understand science at all”.

    I know it’s inconvient for your to remember this, TS, but I actually am a scientist and you’re actually a writer.

    “Understanding” apparently implies signing up hook-line-and-sinker for the
    “TS Approach.” Apparently, any other conclusion is evidence of some sort of misunderstanding. Do you realize what a fanatic you sound like? Like the “John Moore of Dissidence.” Really. Take the title — it is yours, hands down.

  178. nohivmeds Says:

    Before you take another swing, let me just say, TS, that I know you to be a very intelligent person with a great deal of knowledge on this topic, which is one of the reasons I come to NAR. You’re railing against a fan. Don’t be such a fool. My position is tenable. It’s as tenable as anyone’s position. Let it go. I come here for interaction and knowledge, which I gain from everyone who posts here. So I’m reserving judgement. So what? This shouldn’t threaten you at all. It shouldn’t threaten anyone. The fact that it does deserves personal examination, because it is, I think, rather foolish to be threatened by someone who is actually interested in what everyone here has to say.

  179. kevin Says:

    Dan wrote:
    1. It seems we’re in agreement that “HIV” is irrelevant, at the least. Correct?

    2. So, taking “HIV” out of the “AIDS” equation, what have we got?

    3. Is there really a “syndrome” that affects gay men in the US and tens of millions of people in Africa?

    4. Without “HIV” how would this syndrome be defined? Would Tcell counts be part of the equation? If so, should it be renamed to Tcell Deficiency Syndrome?

    5. How would “AIDS” (without “HIV”) be medically useful?

    6. Do we need “AIDS” to understand malaria and Kaposi’s Sarcoma?

    7. Let’s say that I’ve been diagnosed with lymphoma. With “HIV” out of the equation, would it be “AIDS lymphoma” or just lymphoma? Would the treatment for “AIDS lymphoma” be different from the treatment for garden-variety lymphoma?


    8. I’m curious, Truthseeker, since you often focus on the psychological effects of the meme, how does keeping “AIDS” disable the meme?

    ___________________________________________________________

    Dan, I’ll answer your questions because they are very relevant to getting to the truth of this illness.

    As I see it?

    1. Irrelevant. There is correlation but research expecting causation has not proven frutiful, except in producing some very toxic anti-microbials.

    2. An immune dsyfunction syndrome characterized by disparate factors, but four types of AIDS seem evident to me (Stephen Davis recognizes these four and I agree): African AIDS caused by malnutrition and unsanitary conditions (but not just Africa, extremely poor diets in the Western world are equally culpable), iatrogenic AIDS(pharmaceutical cause is much greater than most recognize), AIDS-by-decree (the CDC’s statistical trickery), early-80’s AIDS (which was co-factorial in my opinion, but primarily born of drug use a litany of other poor health choices… putting it mildly ).

    3. Yes but it isn’t new or infectious, and the solutions are not related to treatment based on HIV status, thus it might be better to jettison the term for clarity. Immune-suppression caption the essence and is itself quite clear for people who suffer with it.

    4. No, T-cell counts do not uniformly correlate with clinical presentations, whether good or bad, particularly in the long-term, i.e. T cells often rise when treatment begins but health frequently declines the longer you stay on the meds. Also, many people appear quite healthy with low T-cell counts, irrespective of HIV.

    5. It is a historical fact that will be used to explain what happens when large numbers of people choose not to be responsible enough to take an interests in their own health status, even when threatened with a health care system that is unscrupulousy profit-driven, where wealth protection for the few is far more important than health protection for the many. (Not sure if that’s what you mean).

    6. Absolutely not. However, people who are immuno-compromised will require more careful treatment when faced with any serious infection. Once again, this is independent of HIV status. A very careful and healthful diet, plenty of rest in a low stress environment, and timely, appropriate treatment for OIs are all essential. My health would still be tenuous without realizing and living by these important truths. My HMO doctors still haven’t figured out why my health drastically improved when I stopped following their recommendations or taking their pills, but I’m intimately familiar with what works for someone who is immune-supressed and their resistance to my successes speaks volumes about the perverse abstraction into which that the doctor-patient relationship is obscured.

    7. Cancer in an immune-compromised individual is a more serious complication, I would think, given that the most common treatment is chemotherapy which is known to damage bone marrow, and thus, the immune system. One only has to look at past HIV treatment to see how useful chemo therapy is in helping the immuno-compromised individual recover health. I do believe that several hundred thousand “AIDS” patients were essentially killed by the adminstration of high-dose AZT. Many of those people were healthy, having merely tested positive when treatment began, so their deaths are even more tragic and senseless.

    8. It doesn’t and should probably be tossed. We could always use the lesser-known CDC acronym for non-HIV immune dsyfunction called, ICL, which is quite similar clinically to AIDS, no matter what the apologists say. They point out numerical differences between the two regarding immune cell counts, but that does not prove causation from correlation, no matter how you dress it up.

    Until healthcare and lifestyle decisions are made in ways that benefit patients at the individual level, people will continue to suffer ill-health in greater and greater numbers, and no amount of labratory wizardry will change that fact. High-quality healthcare of the future need not be so fundamentally different than what I think is high-quality healthcare of the today, namely holistic care that is not chemically-centric. Unfortunately, HMO-based care is the anti-thesis to holistic care, and it’s hold over us all might not be broken without enduring worsening circumstances, first.

    Kevin

  180. nohivmeds Says:

    Kevin, since you brought it up, can you be more specific regarding the following:

    early-80’s AIDS (which was co-factorial in my opinion, but primarily born of drug use a litany of other poor health choices…putting it mildly).

    I wasn’t aware that drug addiction was considered a “choice.” At least, not in any of the addiction models I’m aware of. Can you say more about the “other poor health choices?” It seems you’re passing judgement here, so you should say what you mean.

  181. kevin Says:

    TS wrote:

    I was given hundreds of antibiotic prescriptions for sinus infections by nearly the same amount of doctors. Not one them objected. Not one of them suggested the other lifestyle changes that I now find so valuable. There are thousand more like me out there. Antibiotics, as well as other pharmaceuticals may have serious long-term effects for frequent users. We are the first generation to grow up with powerful anti-microbials.

    Hundreds over what period?

    25 Years.

    I used to average 4-6 acute sinus infections a year, with one or two being more difficult to treat and requiring multiple prescriptions to clear. Most of the time, I only had a few “good” days after each course of antibiotics before symptoms of infection returned. I always postponed going to the doctor until my symptoms had worsened. After all, they’d just write me a RX for some antibiotic that would wreck my stomach while clearing my sinuses. This was my life for 25 years. I otherwise tried to live a normal, active life but the quality was low, not to mention, it was frightening to always be ill in the age of AIDS.

    At age six, I was treated intraveneously with antibiotics for double pneumonia, and my health was never the same. Up until that point, I had been very healthy according to my parents.

    Now, I haven’t needed an antibiotic in two years and my health has never been better after discovering holistic approaches to treating sinusitus, including diet changes and irrigation. Sadly, I can’t find a doctor on my HMO plan that believes my story, and I’ll never trust a doctor who can’t appreciate my level of health education, particularly since understanding iatrogenic candidiasis is crucial to managing immune dysfunction. I’m in the process of interviewing doctors that are available on my plan and few of them are proving capable of actually providing quality care. So the search continues, meanwhile I intend to do every thing in my power to guard my own health from needing to traverse the minefield that is modern medicine.

    Kevin

  182. nohivmeds Says:

    Recapping:

    early-80’s AIDS (which was co-factorial in my opinion, but primarily born of drug use a litany of other poor health choices…putting it mildly).

    Is sex one of the “other poor health choices….putting it mildly” that you were discussing? You said there was a “litany” of these “poor” choices. Yet, all you discuss is drug use. A “litany” seems like a long list. What else is on it?

  183. kevin Says:

    nohivmeds (mail):
    Kevin, since you brought it up, can you be more specific regarding the following:

    early-80’s AIDS (which was co-factorial in my opinion, but primarily born of drug use a litany of other poor health choices…putting it mildly).

    …It seems you’re passing judgement here, so you should say what you mean.

    They were partying beyond what is healthful. They were very promiscuous, which I think is relevant mainly because they were given lots of antibiotics to treat numerous infections. Not all of which were STDs. I’m not out to pass judgment. Sex is good. It’s the antibiotic use in tandem with the well-recognized “fast, gay lifestyle” of the time that I think is key. I think advanced Candida infections were the major cause for early-80’s AIDS cases. Poppers’ use is also relevant since there is no question in my mind that they are immuno-suppressant, particularly for people who are otherwise unhealthful. I mean only that an NBA athlete who inhales concentrated chemicals for a high is probably less likely to get sick when compared with a hard-partying gay guy who inhales the same chemicals. There are countless other drugs that were popular then that have since been found to be more physically damaging than previously thought. Drugs like heroin, meth and cocaine have always been popular in gay culture.

    If you find this above to be prejudicial then you are overly sensitive and unconcerned with the truth.

    Kevin

  184. nohivmeds Says:

    I mean, if you’re going to characterize an entire cohort of gay men, most of whom are not here now, as having made a “litany” of “poor health choices,” don’t you think you at least owe it to them to elucidate? So you don’t want to repsond to me. Fine. What about them? Is no explanation owed? Do we just hand-wave that entire cohort of gay men away? Kind of disrespectful. Maybe also kind of naive.

  185. kevin Says:

    Is sex one of the “other poor health choices….putting it mildly” that you were discussing? You said there was a “litany” of these “poor” choices. Yet, all you discuss is drug use. A “litany” seems like a long list. What else is on it?

    Poor nutrition
    Lack of sleep
    Stress
    Self-destructive tendencies, in general.

    Being gay has never been easy in a society that frequently considers it shameful.

    Kevin

  186. nohivmeds Says:

    Ah — a cross-posting. Sorry for that and thanks for elucidating. I think you make a lot of assumptions based on extremely little to no actual data. I don’t think you were in the gay community at that time. Why such a rush to characterize it? I mean — I wasn’t in the gay community at that time. I’ve talked to people who were. They tell me that not everyone who died did drugs. They tell me that formerly very healthy people died. I don’t hear from gay men presently in their 50s that everyone who died lived that “well-established” lifestyle you discuss.

    Assuming that your hypothesis does not account for all the AIDS deaths during those years, and from what I’ve been told by men who were there, it doesn’t account for all the deaths, this means that there would have to be other factors than the ones you elucidated. I mean, look at gay men today. Is everyone into drugs and partying? Doesn’t it seem unlikely to you that everyone would have been into that lifestyle then? Not everyone who died at that time resembles this profile. It’s a definite over-generalization.

  187. kevin Says:

    entire cohort of gay men

    I think most might agree with me since examples abound where surviving contemporaries of those first few years often speak to the to insanity of the “fast-paced” “gay lifestyle” of that time period. I’m not putting words into anyone’s mouth. The concept is their own. Perhaps, those survivors look back on that time and remember how unwell they often felt. In the Scovill documentary of 2004, “The Other Side of AIDS” two of those comtemporaries make that very claim. They first wondered at their survival from the drugs and the partying moreso than the virus and the ensuing hysteria that nurtured its acceptance.

  188. trrll Says:

    I propose we distract ourselves no further with immaterial discussions, but let our distinguished connoisseurs of real science (including the science of the intentional directedness of the sub-conscious), Dr. Trrll and Dr. Noble, lay out the substantive arguments that prove HIV the sole cause of AIDS, including predictions that support the hypothesis, so we can examine, discuss and enlighten ourselves by the undiluted waters gushing from the true fountain head of that supreme certainty among certainties.

    I certainly don’t intend to review the literally thousands of studies supporting the HIV-AIDS theory in a few paragraphs. Considering how long it took people here to understand and accept the rather elementary statistics showing Duesberg’s error in claiming that a person would have to have had sex an “absurd” number of times to catch HIV, I believe that the amount of remedial education required to review even a small fraction of the literature and explain it adequately to convince such an overwhelmingly biased group is probably beyond my time constratints. However, we can certainly make a start. Chris Noble has already cited quite a few studies in this thread, so far without my seeing any any indication that anybody here has bothered to read them. If anybody wants to actually read some of those studies and discuss them rationally, we could have the beginnings of a real scientific discussion. I must admit, however, I don’t believe that this is likely to happen. Denialists never seem to want delve deeply into the literature; they always want to perseverate over a few studies that can be twisted to support their obsession.

    For example, TS insists

    In fact, as we have pointed out in this blog, Gallo originally pointed out in his Science papers the reason that HIV did not cause AIDS, which is that he was unable to find it in more than a third of the patients he sampled.

    Now this is the sort of argument that leaves a scientist dumbfounded. Why would anybody try to base an argument on a result from many years ago, using a methodology (antibody test) that is known to be relatively insensitive and often to yield false negatives? After all, we now have PCR, a highly sensitive and reproducible method. We even have “real time” PCR, which (with appropriate controls) is highly quantitative, and can tell you how much of a particular DNA or RNA sequence is present. No scientist would appeal to an ancient study using an inferior methodology when more recent studies are available. But this is just the kind of argument that one frequently hears from denialists, who are unable to let go of any argument, no matter how badly flawed, if they think that it supports their position.

  189. kevin Says:

    They tell me that not everyone who died did drugs. They tell me that formerly very healthy people died.

    The first few cases were absolutely from the partying crowd. However, it’s true that healthy people died, especially during the AZT years. I agree that examining individual health histories from the first 3 years would be very illuminating, but getting unbiased accounts today is virtually impossible since the HIV meme has been retro-actively applied to all case histories, not to mention the fear-mongering that continues to pollute the impressions of any contemporaries who survive.

    Kevin

  190. nohivmeds Says:

    Well, I can only speak to what my friend Phil, a journalist in NYC, told me about that time. He said that he knew people who died who did not do drugs, were not depressed, were not even especially promiscuous. I don’t think he’s suffering from a memory disorder, nor do I think the men in “The Other Side of AIDS” are suffering from a memory disorder. I’m sure that my friend Phil and the two men you speak of are both correct. I’m sure there were plenty of men who feel grateful they escaped those times. I happen to know one man who lived through those times, whose friends were not partyers, and still many died.

    My point is, again, the generalization hurts our knowledge here — it doesn’t help it. We have to know the full spectrum, not just one view. Not all gay men who died of AIDS in the 80s had anything to do with partying, or with ill health. It doesn’t matter if that group accounts for, let’s just say, 10% of the deaths — those deaths still have to be accounted for to explain the entirety of the situation.

    It seems that there is a general distaste for exceptions to the rules here, but facts must be faced. There are exceptions. They too will have to be explained.

    And also: “ensuing hysteria?” You make it sound like all gay men mobilized with bull horns and ran around every major US city sounding ritualistic alarm calls. I think “hysteria” is a bit of a stretch — and again, exposes a subtle judgement.

  191. nohivmeds Says:

    trrll:

    if pcr is so great, then why doesn’t the US or any other country in the world accept the results to diagnose “HIV infection?” To receive Ryan White funds here in the good old US of A, a pcr is not acceptable — only an antibody test.

    Your comments on Gallo’s study betray your inability to step even slightly out of your little box. If 2/3 of the sample did not test positive — then it is appropriate to question why, and the answer cannot be entirely accounted for by test error. Get real.

  192. Chris Noble Says:

    if pcr is so great, then why doesn’t the US or any other country in the world accept the results to diagnose “HIV infection?” To receive Ryan White funds here in the good old US of A, a pcr is not acceptable — only an antibody test.

    In fact a different nucleic acid test for HIV has recently been approved by the FDA for diagnostic purposes.

    http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01479.html

    One problem of using nucleic acid testing is carryover contamination. Failure to sterilise equipment from a previous test will result in the presence of amplified sequences that will give false positive results. This is a quality control issue rather than a fundamental limitation of the test.

    Your comments on Gallo’s study betray your inability to step even slightly out of your little box. If 2/3 of the sample did not test positive — then it is appropriate to question why, and the answer cannot be entirely accounted for by test error. Get real.

    I find it rather perplexing that “rethinkers” spend a great deal of time arguing that current tests are imperfect and have a high percentage of false positives and false negatives but insist that the very first crude tests must be 100% accurate.

    The argument is remarkably similar to that espoused by people rabidly opposed to vaccination. They obsess over Pasteur’s initial experiments in the vain attempt to avoid dealing with the following years of science.

    Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 detected in all seropositive symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8093633&dopt=Abstract“>Unexplained opportunistic infections and CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia without HIV infection. An investigation of cases in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia Task Force.

  193. Truthseeker Says:

    Get real.

    NHM, you have actually written a post in a decisively skeptical style, which rests on a scientific principle (that conclusions are based on evidence). What happened?

    But we regret that in making this new move you have chosen to disturb the grandest achievement of all of Trrlll, a unique and splendid example of skill in misunderstanding basic science and elementary logic in his fervent desire to support the paradigm globally peddled by the inadequate to the untutored.

    It is far better to leave such posts undisturbed. We intended to border it in green and leave it for all to admire. Now you have exposed its absurdity for all to see.

    Still, it is always worth repeating that Gallo began the whole affair with a false experimental conclusion, which set the tone for all that followed, and that by its very nature PCR is not a quantitative measure and never will be (ask Kary Mullis, its inventor).

    Bravo.

  194. Truthseeker Says:

    NHM: Your comments on Gallo’s study betray your inability to step even slightly out of your little box. If 2/3 of the sample did not test positive — then it is appropriate to question why, and the answer cannot be entirely accounted for by test error. Get real.

    CN: I find it rather perplexing that “rethinkers” spend a great deal of time arguing that current tests are imperfect and have a high percentage of false positives and false negatives but insist that the very first crude tests must be 100% accurate.

    This is possibly the grandest achievement of Chris the Noble, which also should be beyond comment, it is so exquisitely phrased and yet so silly. It reminds us of Algie’s remark in The Importance of Being Earnest:

    (ALGERNON:
    It is perfectly phrased! and quite as true as any observation in civilised life should be!”

    which occurs in the following stretch which should be quoted in full at any opportunity:

    ALGERNON
    All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does. That’s his.

    JACK
    Is that clever?

    ALGERNON
    It is perfectly phrased! and quite as true as any observation in civilised life should be.

    JACK
    I am sick to death of cleverness. Everybody is clever nowadays. You can’t go anywhere without meeting clever people. The thing has become an absolute public nuisance. I wish to goodness we had a few fools left.

    ALGERNON
    We have.

    JACK
    I should extremely like to meet them. What do they talk about?

    ALGERNON
    The fools? Oh! about the clever people, of course.

    JACK
    What fools!

    Of course, Chris’s remark comes in the last category, since he apparently thinks that 1/3 rd accuracy is a forgivable error for a technology in its infancy.

    However, the real question is whether that was the right basis on which to found a global paradigm. Did it make sense to say that HIV was a “probable” cause of AIDS on the basis of that finding?

    Chris?

  195. nohivmeds Says:

    Everyone should check out the new citation from CN — it really is fascinating. What I thought was most interesting about it is how difficult, if not almost impossible, it seems to be to create a test that would reliably test for the presence of the HIV antigen, rather than the antibody. Sad, really. For CN, that is. Did I mention the hemophiliacs? That, and the fact that the citation is almost 20 years old. Got anything else, CN? Something perhaps more current that doesn’t partially rely on already ill individuals who, because of their illnesses, require multiple transfusions that could potentially expose them to who knows what?

  196. Chris Noble Says:

    Everyone should check out the new citation from CN — it really is fascinating. What I thought was most interesting about it is how difficult, if not almost impossible, it seems to be to create a test that would reliably test for the presence of the HIV antigen, rather than the antibody. Sad, really. For CN, that is. Did I mention the hemophiliacs? That, and the fact that the citation is almost 20 years old. Got anything else, CN? Something perhaps more current that doesn’t partially rely on already ill individuals who, because of their illnesses, require multiple transfusions that could potentially expose them to who knows what?

    Indeed, the sensitivity of HIV antigen tests has improved since 1990.

    Ultrasensitive quantitative HIV-1 p24 antigen assay adapted to dried plasma spots to improve treatment monitoring in low-resource settings.

    Duesberg’s arguments about patients with hemophilia have been thoroughly debunked.

    Response: arguments contradict the “foreign protein-zidovudine” hypothesis.

  197. Dan Says:

    And Dan, the Third Way has nothing to do with HIV, or oxidative stress — you miss the entire point. That being simply that it is the skeptical position, so it takes no position. That isn’t hard to understand, I don’t think.

    You miss the point, NHM, and in your usual snide, condescending way. I keep wondering how you justify your treatment of others here. Or maybe there’s no need to justify treating others disrespectfully when one simply views themselves as superior.

    Anyway…the dissident position is the skeptical position. I can’t be sure if you’ve noticed, but most of what “we” do is simply question what we’re being told. And “dissidents” are as varied in their opinions and views as any group of people. The only thing the dissidents seem to agree on is a skepticism of HIV’s role in AIDS.

  198. Truthseeker Says:

    Duesberg’s arguments about patients with hemophilia have been thoroughly debunked.

    Chris Noble’s idea of a paper which demonstrates that HIV cuts down hemophiliacs:

    BMJ 1996;312:211-212 (27 January)
    Papers
    Response: Arguments contradict the “foreign protein-zidovudine” hypothesis
    Caroline A Sabin, lecturer in epidemiology and medical statistics,a Andrew N Phillips, reader in epidemiology and biostatistics,a Christine A Lee, director haemophilia centre b

    a HIV Research Unit, Department of Public Health, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London NW3 2PF, b Haemophilia Centre and Haemostasis Unit, Department of Haematology, Royal Free Hospital and School of Medicine, London NW3 2PF

    Correspondence to: Dr Sabin.

    In 1991 Duesberg challenged researchers to provide either data on “controlled epidemiologic studies comparing matched hemophiliacs, with and without HIV, or epidemiological evidence that the mortality of hemophiliacs is increased by HIV.”1 We and Darby et al have provided that evidence.2 3 Duesberg’s commentary4 requires further comment.

    HIV may be enough to cause AIDS

    It is incorrect to conclude that HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS simply because some of the infected patients in our study had not developed AIDS by 10 years after seroconversion. Only longer term follow up studies will finally establish whether all HIV positive patients would, given enough time, ultimately develop AIDS. In the United States around 3800 haemophilic patients have reportedly developed AIDS out of 9000 who have been infected5 (World Federation of Hemophilia, personal communication, 1995), a far higher proportion than that quoted by Duesberg in arguments against the HIV hypothesis.

    Duesberg’s foreign protein-zidovudine hypothesis predicts that haemophilic patients will not develop non-immunodeficiency diseases such as dementia. Given the low prevalence of some of the 26 different AIDS defining conditions it would not be expected that we should witness all conditions among our 17 patients. However, dementia is well documented in HIV positive haemophilic patients and occurs with a similar prevalence to that in other exposure categories (Xen Santas, Centers for Disease Control, personal communication, 1995). Among all 111 HIV positive haemophilic patients at this hospital, dementia occurred in six.

    Duesberg points out that lifetime usage of concentrate may be expected to be different between a 60 year old and a 14 year old (our pair 3). Unfortunately, lifetime usage of concentrate was not available in these patients and therefore usage patterns over 10 years were used. However, it is important to remember that clotting factor concentrate was introduced in our centre in 1978 on average, so that age differences in the pairs may suggest larger differences in lifetime usage than actually existed. Even when the analysis was restricted to pairs in whom the HIV positive patient was younger than or the same age as the HIV negative patient (eight pairs) the results remained similar: four of eight HIV positive patients developed AIDS defining diseases compared with none of the eight HIV negative patients. Furthermore, since 1980 none of 400 HIV negative haemophilic patients registered at this hospital has developed AIDS despite having received clotting factor concentrates on average since 1978, and CD4 counts in these patients have been similar to those of HIV negative heterosexual subjects.6

    Contrary to Duesberg’s assertion, sexual transmission of AIDS has been observed at our centre. At the Royal Free Hospital sexual transmission of HIV to partners with no other risk factors for HIV has occurred in three cases. Of these infected partners, one developed AIDS and died (the haemophilic partner of this patient also died with AIDS), one was symptomatic with a CD4 count of zero but remained AIDS free, and the third remained asymptomatic but with a CD4 count of 0.2×109/l. No wives of any other haemophilic patients at our centre have developed AIDS.

    Patients are given zidovudine because they are ill

    It is not true that most British haemophilic patients infected with HIV have been given zidovudine since 1987. Initially patients were given zidovudine after the development of AIDS. Subsequently, since around 1989, patients have been given zidovudine once their CD4 count has fallen below 0.2×109/l or after the development of symptomatic disease. Similar recommendations are made for pentamidine or co-trimoxazole as prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. Consequently, by the time patients begin zidovudine and pentamidine they have low CD4 cell counts and are usually symptomatic.

    Observational studies often show that patients given zidovudine have a worse prognosis than untreated patients.7 Patients receiving zidovudine are selectively treated because they are ill. The interpretation of findings from these studies should not therefore be that zidovudine increases the risk of AIDS. Of the nine patients developing AIDS in our study, seven received zidovudine only after an initial AIDS diagnosis when immunological deterioration had already occurred. There is no possibility, therefore, that either zidovudine or pentamidine had a causal role in the initial development of symptomatic disease in these patients.

    Finally, though there may be some beneficial effect of high purity clotting factor concentrates on the immune systems of patients with haemophilia,8 there is little evidence that this has translated into clinical benefit for these patients.7 Conversely, a recent paper has suggested that increased usage of intermediate purity clotting factor concentrates may be beneficial for HIV positive haemophilic patients.9

    Despite the provision of new data which support the HIV hypothesis for the development of AIDS, the arguments proposed by Duesberg in his commentary remain unchanged and contradict the “foreign proteinzidovudine” hypothesis. For the benefit of patients infected with HIV it must now be time to move on to enable researchers to devote time to the real issues at hand.

    1. Duesberg PH. AIDS epidemiology: inconsistencies with human immunodeficiency virus and with infectious disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1991;88:1575-9. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
    2. Sabin CA, Pasi JK, Phillips AN, Lilley P, Bofill M, Lee CA. Comparison of immunodeficiency and AIDS defining conditions in HIV negative and HIV positive men with haemophilia A. BMJ 1996;312:207-10. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
    3. Darby SC, Ewart DW, Giangrande PLF, Dolin PJ, Spooner RJD, Rizza CR. Mortality before and after HIV infection in the complete UK population of haemophiliacs. Nature 1995;377:79-82. [Medline]
    4. Duesberg P. Commentary: non-HIV hypotheses must be studied more carefully. BMJ 1996;312:000-00.
    5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US HIV and AIDS cases reported through December 1994. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 1994;6:1-39.
    6. Bofill M, Janossy G, Lee CA, MacDonald-Burns D, Phillips AN, Sabin C, et al. Laboratory control values for CD4 and CD8 T lymphocytes. Implications for HIV-1 diagnosis. Clin Exp Immunol 1992;88:243-52. [Medline]
    7. Goedert JJ, Cohen AR, Kessler CM, Eichinger S, Seremetis SV, Rabkin CS, et al. Risks of immunodeficiency, AIDS, and death related to purity of factor VIII concentrate. Lancet 1994;344:791-2. [Medline]
    8. Seremetis SV, Aledort LM, Bergman G, Bona R, Bray G, Brettler D, et al. Three-year randomised study of high-purity or intermediate-purity factor VIII concentrates in symptom-free HIV-seropositive haemophiliacs: effects on immune status. Lancet 1993;342:700-3. [Medline]
    9. Montoro JB, Oliveras J, Lorenzo JL, Tusell JH, Altisent C, Molina R, et al. An association between clotting factor concentrate use and mortality in human immunodeficiency virus-infected hemophilic patients. Blood 1995;86:2213-9. [Abstract/Free Full Text]

    BMJ Search 42,000 articles on bmj.com
    © 1996 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd

    Very impressive, Chris. We particularly like “one was symptomatic with a CD4 count of zero but remained AIDS free”.

  199. Chris Noble Says:

    Very impressive, Chris. We particularly like “one was symptomatic with a CD4 count of zero but remained AIDS free”.

    I appreciate the brilliant in depth analysis.

    A very low CD4 count does not imply that the person currently has an ooportunistic infection. It means that the person is at a much, much higher risk of contracting an opportunistic infection.

  200. Truthseeker Says:

    I appreciate the brilliant in depth analysis.

    We will waste brilliant in depth analysis on you, Chris, when you show us a brilliant in depth analysis, which we have yet to see. After eight years of your dedicated servility to a dogma that even people who cannot spell can see through once they are informed of the basics, however, it is probably time to give up any hope of you ever producing such a contribution.

    Wait. What about your corrections to Duesberg’s Biosciences paper of 2003? Have you forwarded them to the Indian Academy yet? if so, how did the editor reply, and can we now see a copy of this masterwork? We hope the editor was sufficiently grateful for your efforts, and will be publishing them for all to read and benefit from.

  201. nohivmeds Says:

    Dan, I’m not sure how much simpler I can make this. I choose to question the establishment (as I have demonstrated here) and the dissident positions. The dissident position is informed mostly by two theoretical positions — that of Duesberg and the Perth Group, so it cannot be the skeptical position. Hope that helps. Maybe you need to step outside your little box as well?

  202. nohivmeds Says:

    And CN– if advanced in detecting the antigen have been so fabulous, then why aren’t we engaged in large-scale testing for the antigen? Why is the “HIV Test” still an antibody test? You’re grasping at what appears to be non-existant straws (i.e., the antigen). p24 is NOT the antigen, CN. It’s a protein. Just one protein. Honestly.

  203. nohivmeds Says:

    But hey, CN, if you don’t believe me — then how about the Los Angeles County District Attorney. Given that they dropped charges against Christine Maggiore, because all they had was (they said) a positive p24 assay, doesn’t this mean to you that such an assay is NOT proof positive (as it were) of the existance of the actual antigen? Suggesting that p24 is the antigen is like suggesting that Paris Hilton’s lip gloss is indeed Paris Hilton. Here’s another “get real” for you this time.

  204. nohivmeds Says:

    And before you or trrll suggest that viral load measures the “antigen,” consider, if you would, that viral load only identifies what it thinks is approximately 3% of the genetic material known as “HIV.” 3%. Given that, it should more likely be called the “I think it’s the antigen, but I don’t know for sure, as I can only see 3%” viral load test.

    After 25 years, there is no adequate CULTURE for the “antigen.” Face facts. As culture is the gold standard for identifying microbial life in vitro, looks like your beloved paradigm has some serious problems.

  205. nohivmeds Says:

    Just to drive this home for the folks at home:
    We have tests that identify the Hepatitis antigen and the Hepatitis antibody. So why, after millions upon millions upon millions of dollars and 25 years of time, are we talking about p24 and RNA fragments?

  206. nohivmeds Says:

    An even better analogy:
    Remember those commercials back in the 80s (when, according to some, gay men were partying so hard they couldn’t see straight — but, whatever), where the little old lady orders a burger and says, “Where’s the beef?” Well, after 25 years of research, we are still left asking, “Where’s the antigen?”

  207. pat Says:

    “…one was symptomatic with a CD4 count of zero but remained AIDS free”.

    How can a CD4 count of zero not equal AIDS? Change the country you live in.

    According to the US definition of AIDS, a CD4 count below 200 IS AIDS, OIs not needed for the labelling.

    “HIV the virus that causes AIDS”
    “AIDS” (and an international plethora of definitions)
    “HIV disease”
    “AIDS-related complications, disease, traffic accidents, suicides, death, etc…”
    “HIV-related complications, disease, traffic accidents, suicides, death, etc…”

    No wonder the world is confused and is rightfully starting to reject it.

  208. Truthseeker Says:

    After 25 years, there is no adequate CULTURE for the “antigen.” Face facts. As culture is the gold standard for identifying microbial life in vitro, looks like your beloved paradigm has some serious problems.

    NHM, this is shocking news. Are you saying that after all these years we are still not sure whether we can find the actual virus the HIV gang have labeled rather selfservingly as “Human Immunodeficiency Virus” in the blood of “HIV positive” patients? That they cannot even culture the virus?

    We were under the impression that you cultured it in human T cells and that then it flourished, even though these are the very same human T cells that it supposedly decimates in vivo. In culture we have been told it makes them stick together occasionally and they then unusually die and that then is laughingly said to prove that HIV kills T cells in vitro. But otherwise they flourish. Do they not send this stuff to you in culture when you order it up by mail?

    Perhaps you mean that there is so little of the supposed actual virus in people once their antibodies have routed it from their system that it is impossibe to culture from their blood, is that it?

    As the skeptics point out, this makes it rather hard for HIV to do anything at all to the host, but then, there is no evidence that it does do anything to the host, so that fits.

    We have only a vague idea about all this nonsense now because a) it is so crystal clear that HIV does not cause immune system dysfunction in humans according to about thirty major indications and b) every single minor indication is twisted by the Nobles of this world into a logical pretzel of mediocre reasoning which purports to validate the wingless paradigm after all, but on close examination does not, and one tires of filling one’s brain with spurious counterarguments, rationalizations and Ptolomeic extrapolations desperately trying to justify a paradigm which a blind man can see does not fly, except in the meme riddled minds of its congregation.

    I certainly don’t intend to review the literally thousands of studies supporting the HIV-AIDS theory in a few paragraphs. – Trrlll.

    Name one.

    Name one good study that “supports” the HIV∫AIDS theory as such, rather than assumes it as a given. Name one that does so as a conclusion, rather than a claim. Name one study that can be adduced to demonstrate that HIV theory is valid, despite its multifarious notoriously fallacious assertions.

    Name one study that sets out to test the theory and succeeds in proving it. Name one study that sets out to test the theory, even.

    Name one study that does not use the assumption “HIV causes AIDS immune dysfunction” as a premise, rather than asking whether it is true, and that then answers that question with conclusive evidence that it is after all true.

    No paper in the 22 year history of HIV∫AIDS exists to investigate and demonstrate that HIV causes AIDS, except the first batch of Science papers by Gallo that on closer examination show that it does not.

    If such a paper existed there would be nothing to debate. All proposals for any such confirmatory studies have been killed by lack of funding support from NIH reviewers who are strangely unwilling to hand someone a saw to lop off the branch of the tree they are sitting on.

    Any scientist who proposed such a study would find himself frozen out of the field. It is because it is a matter of faith so utterly lacking in proof that the skeptics are having such a field day with this stuff. Wake up from your hypnosis Trrlll and smell the coffee, and stop making empty declarations of your membership in a club with no scientific justification.

    Considering how long it took people here to understand and accept the rather elementary statistics showing Duesberg’s error in claiming that a person would have to have had sex an “absurd” number of times to catch HIV, I believe that the amount of remedial education required to review even a small fraction of the literature and explain it adequately to convince such an overwhelmingly biased group is probably beyond my time constraints.

    A nice piece of contemptuous dismissal, Trrlll, but one that reflects badly on your standards of accuracy. Maybe you need to go back and read our post Duesberg’s math incorrect, say bloggers on the topic again, which demonstrated that the not very obvious technical adjustment to be made in Duesberg’s formulation had no effect on the implication, which was that the chances of contracting HIV through heterosexual sex are stunningly low, contrary to the impression given by the Cassandras fo the global AIDS “pandemic”. So low that there is really no conceivable way in which a heterosexual epidemic of HIV could occur, let alone a global pandemic, despite Chris Noble’s relentless attempts at massaging the figures to make them come out. And the Nancy Padian study confirms this, as expected, with nil transmission even between the fifty seven or so couples who used no prophylactic over six years.

    The group on this blog or any other blog demanding sense from HIV∫AIDS believers is not “overwhelmingly biased” in any direction except sound science, scientific evidence and proof and consistency in thinking as opposed to fantasy running against evidence and supported only with more fantasy.

    Demonstrate that there is any good reason to suppose that HIV causes immune dysfunction and they will salute it and you. Short of that, they are biased in favor of science which makes sense, and has some evidence to support it.

  209. kevin Says:

    For those of you who are interested in the treatment failures surrounding HIV, you might also be interested in learning of the treatment failures for chronic sinusitis. There are many parallels and most “AIDS” patient suffer from chronic sinusitis.

    Below is the link that set me on my journey of renewed health, where I discovered alernative treatments that worked when nothing else did, and where I became enlightened to the ironic fact that the allopathic care I was receiving was actually responsible for my ruined health. Eventually, I discovered much more than I had initially expected, i.e. all the misinformation surrounding HIV/AIDS. As you will see when you go to the site, it is now a “sticky” post so it appears at the top of the opening page on the allergy-sinus forum of health boards, even though it was originally posted in 2003. Reading through this post you’ll get a good idea of just how big of a medical problem chronic sinusitis is and just how innovative those who suffer from it have had to become, since the most common allopathetic care is not only ineffective but is actually responsible for making the condition worse (sound familiar?). Anyway, here’s the link:
    “>Sinus sufferers post

    I used the method described in this post for about a year and my symptoms improved during that time without the use of any antibiotics, so it inspired me to continue my research into immune dysfunction and its role in chronic sinusitis. Eventually, I found the following article that changed everything:

    Mayo clinic study implicating Fungus as causative agent

    A quote from the article:

    “This a potential breakthrough that offers great hope for the millions of people who suffer from this problem,” says Dr. Kern. “We can now begin to treat the cause of the problem instead of the symptoms.”

    This research was published in 1999!!! When do you suppose primary care physicians will “begin to treat the cause of the problem instead of the symptoms”? It really is too bad that antifungals-though expensive—are readily available as generics, so drug companies have no financial incentive to legitimize a change in treatment course.

    The irrigations did not improve my overall health so I set out to find a doctor that would treat me for fungal sinusitis. Two HMO-approved ENTs that I saw out-right refused to treat me for a fungal infection; they asserted that only HIV+ people contracted fungal sinusitis, even after I showed them the official Mayo Clinic press release that the above article references. That was in 2003 – 4 years after the release of the study, mind you. Another ENT offered to treat me with an antifungal, assuming an HIV test yielded a positive result. I once again tested negative, so he concluded that I just needed a stronger antibiotic, for a longer duration. Of course I told him to kiss my ass. I had to seek care out of state and out of pocket before I found a doctor enlightened enough to provide the treatment I needed.

    Once properly treated for the candida infection, I no longer have to do the peroxide flushes (though I do still irrigate with salt water) and my overall health improvements have been quite profound. Before treatment, I looked and felt like a dying human being; My face was gaunt, and I was severely underweight. I had other minor infections as well. After treatment, I gained 40 pounds and I look and feel like a different person. I do have to maintain a very healthy lifestyle but now I feel in control of my health for the first time in my life. I hope my sharing of this information can help those who are similarly afflicted. AIDS and advanced systemic fungal infections are closely linked in the my opinion. The correlations between the two are far more convincing than the data manipulation needed to correlate the HIV virus to AIDS.

    Kevin

  210. MacDonald Says:

    (-: (-: (-:

    For example, TS insists,

    In fact, as we have pointed out in this blog, Gallo originally pointed out in his Science papers the reason that HIV did not cause AIDS, which is that he was unable to find it in more than a third of the patients he sampled.

    Now this is the sort of argument that leaves a scientist dumbfounded.Why would anybody try to base an argument on a result from many years ago, using a methodology (antibody test) that is known to be relatively insensitive and often to yield false negatives? After all, we now have PCR, a highly sensitive and reproducible method. We even have “real time” PCR, which (with appropriate controls) is highly quantitative, and can tell you how much of a particular DNA or RNA sequence is present. No scientist would appeal to an ancient study using an inferior methodology when more recent studies are available. (Trrll)

    (-: (-: (-:

    Please Dr. Trll, sign this with your real name and full title. Please, please, for me. I promise I’ll make you famous.

  211. kevin Says:

    Here is another interesting link regarding the extent of illness caused by fungal overgrowth:

    Candida Patient Database

    (clicking on the numbers, i.e. patients, on the left side will show that anonymous patient’s relevant health history)

    This is a voluntary patient database of 847 patients where patients have no connection with each other except a common history of illness due to iatrogenic immuno-suppression. That, to my mind, is a strong argument for linking antibiotic use to the subsequent immuno-suppression that leads to opportunistic overgrowth of candida and other pathogens. Other commonly prescribed drugs that are immuno-suppressive include steroids, birth-control pills, and hormone-replacement therapy; however, antibiotics are the primary culprit.

    As you read through each patient’s health history, notice that this condition is also a syndrome—one with seemingly disparate symptoms, yet those symptoms occur routinely creating correlation. Sound familiar? Notice too that some patients are more ill than others and that those who are most ill are usually the ones that have been sick the longest. Latency anyone? Untreated this condition does not get better. In fact, it is incredibly hard to resolve once it is sufficiently advanced. Yet, the medical establishment refuses to acknowledge candida-related illness. They are all too happy to ordain a seemingly harmless virus as being capable of indirectly causing a similar collection of symptoms. Guess which interpretation is more profitable? More and more patients are self-diagnosing out of desperation and thanks to the ability to share information via the web. Sounds a bit like the way the truth about HIV is emerging…not through the expected channels of a healthy medical establishment but against the grain, so to speak. Admitting to the truth about iatrogenic illness would bring the entire house of cards down and require medical providers to finally take responsibility for the health of individual patients and to disavow their incestuous relationship with Big Pharma.

    So Duesberg is absolutely right about chemically-induced immuno-suppression being a crucial component of understanding AIDS, and even though I think hard recreational drug use can cause such suppression, I think the major cause is the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics or can otherwise be found in any number of combinations of the aforementioned pharmaceuticals that are currently flooding the market. Anyone who refuses to accept this as a real phenomenon is the real “denialist”; this most-unwanted consequence of a medical establishment that has lost its way is not going resolve itself. I say look in the mirror, Trlll and Noble, and there you’ll find your denialist.

    Kevin

  212. Truthseeker Says:

    Please Dr. Trll, sign this with your real name and full title. Please, please, for me. I promise I’ll make you famous.

    But Dr. MacDonald, Terrell “Trrlll” X the neuroscientist has already given you the clues to google which will give his name, post etc, even a picture. However, we believe the principle of noblesse oblige applies here.

    In other words, those who enjoy privilege, in this case, of possessing the ability to think about science anew instead of retailing the wholesale supply of false claims of the officials of a field, have a social responsibility to be kind to those less fortunate , who may be born without the faculty, or have been taken over by the notorious AIDS meme, or any of the others to which innocent hardworking young or even middleaged scientists are exposed.

    Thus in line with our claim of intellectual nobility it is not for us to do anything but border this post in the green of admiration for its prowess at getting things wrong, and leave it twisting in the wind as a permanent emblem of the sorry state of mind to which otherwise decent and exemplary scientists with enormous brains and almost infinite knowledge about science are reduced by the dreaded AIDS meme, whose power to take over the world can never be underestimated even though a powerful insurgency led by Dr Harvey Bialy is scoring major successes in deprogramming victims, albeit with difficulty, one by one, apart from the readership of Harpers, who were depropagandized wholesale, and the many Web sites and few blogs devoted to this topic, led by the ponderous and humorless NAR and the dangerously uninhibited one now conducted by Dr B himself, You Bet Your Life at Barnesworld.

    Lucky for Dr Terrell he did not make this already fabled post at that ruthless site, which knows no limits in eviscerating the statements of representatives and followers of the silliest and most misguided hypothesis that has ever reached global acceptance.

    Here we try to be nice, which is why Dr Chris Noble has been able to stock this thread with even more misstatements and misleading assertions than AIDSTruth.org, previously the record holder for truthiness in HIV∫AIDS content.

  213. Chris Noble Says:

    And CN– if advanced in detecting the antigen have been so fabulous, then why aren’t we engaged in large-scale testing for the antigen? Why is the “HIV Test” still an antibody test? You’re grasping at what appears to be non-existant straws (i.e., the antigen). p24 is NOT the antigen, CN. It’s a protein. Just one protein. Honestly.

    Fourth generation tests include both the detection of HIV antibodies and the HIV-p24 antigen.

    Fourth-Generation Assays for the Simultaneous Detection of HIV Antigen and Antibody

  214. Chris Noble Says:

    NHM, this is shocking news. Are you saying that after all these years we are still not sure whether we can find the actual virus the HIV gang have labeled rather selfservingly as “Human Immunodeficiency Virus” in the blood of “HIV positive” patients? That they cannot even culture the virus?

    What is the point of me citing papers if none of you actually read them?

    I have cited this study twice so far in this very thread.

    Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 detected in all seropositive symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

    HIV was cultured from 100% of AIDS patients and 0% of HIV- subjects.

    Culture is time consuming and costly. HIV antibody testing is cheap, fast and highly accurate.

  215. Truthseeker Says:

    even though I think hard recreational drug use can cause such suppression, I think the major cause is the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics or can otherwise be found in any number of combinations of the aforementioned pharmaceuticals that are currently flooding the market.

    Kevin, evidently this applies to you, according to your experience, but let’s not go overboard. Isn’t your experience unusual? Don’t antibiotics work OK for most people when they have a temporary sinus or chest infection? And are doctors really that culpable for cooperating with drug companies in prescribing these and other drugs to help patients? The armamentarium of drugs contains some useful ones which save us from many illnesses and deaths, don’t they?

    We ask merely for information, since we avoid all drugs as far as possible, including even aspirin. However, we expect to change as we lose a degree of immunity as the years roll on and we sink into despair at our failure to root out the global AIDS meme, though decent nutrition should do the job for the most part.

  216. Chris Noble Says:

    And CN– if advanced in detecting the antigen have been so fabulous, then why aren’t we engaged in large-scale testing for the antigen? Why is the “HIV Test” still an antibody test? You’re grasping at what appears to be non-existant straws (i.e., the antigen). p24 is NOT the antigen, CN. It’s a protein. Just one protein. Honestly.

    But hey, CN, if you don’t believe me — then how about the Los Angeles County District Attorney. Given that they dropped charges against Christine Maggiore, because all they had was (they said) a positive p24 assay, doesn’t this mean to you that such an assay is NOT proof positive (as it were) of the existance of the actual antigen? Suggesting that p24 is the antigen is like suggesting that Paris Hilton’s lip gloss is indeed Paris Hilton. Here’s another “get real” for you this time.

    Actually the CDC case definition of HIV infection includes virus culture and HIV antigen detection.

    1993 Revised Classification System for HIV Infection and Expanded Surveillance Case Definition for AIDS Among Adolescents and Adults

  217. Truthseeker Says:

    What is the point of me citing papers if none of you actually read them?

    I have cited this study twice so far in this very thread.

    Perhaps if you stopped citing PDF’s of smudged Xeroxes of an utterly misleading paper from 1990, and cited readable text from the Web which was onto the problem?

    We especially liked both halves of the sentence “We isolated HIV-1 or detected HIV-1 DNA sequences (in all 409)”.

    Tell us, what does “reduce viral load to undetectable levels” mean? We’ve seen that phrase often used.

  218. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    TS,

    You are getting insufferable. The very same paper was quoted by Duesberg in which he said:

    “However, …that HIV does not exist, fails to explain

    (i) why virtually all people who contain HIV DNA also contain antibodies against Montagnier”s HIV strain -the global standard of all “HIV tests”- and

    (ii) why most, but certainly not all people who lack HIV DNA contain no such antibodies.

    I will argue that HIV exists, and has been properly identified as a unique retrovirus on the grounds that

    (i) it has been isolated – even from its own virion structure – in the form of an infectious, molecularly cloned HIV DNA that is able to induce the synthesis of a reverse transcriptase containing virion, and

    (ii) that HIV-specific, viral DNA can be identified only in infected, but not in uninfected human cells .

    The existence of an unique retrovirus HIV provides a plausible explanation for the good (not perfect) correlation between the existence of HIV DNA and antibodies against it in thousands of people that have been subjected to both tests.

    …In conclusion, HIV has been isolated by the most rigorous method science has to offer”.

    And you TS are in front of your monitor announcing or challenging what precisely ?

  219. Truthseeker Says:

    And you TS are in front of your monitor announcing or challenging what precisely?

    That the issue is whether HIV causes anything, not whether you can reliably isolate it from someone who scores positive on an HIV test. Even so, we marvel at the 100% results obtained. Very encouraging. None of those darn false positives to be seen, nor those with “AIDS” symptoms without HIV that we hear about.

    It’s very frustrating that we don’t have an electron microscope picture of HIV, isn’t it, Chris? Perhaps you know of a source, do you? We could put it up for all to admire.

  220. Chris Noble Says:

    Perhaps if you stopped citing PDF’s of smudged Xeroxes of an utterly misleading paper from 1990, and cited readable text from the Web which was onto the problem?

    The pdf file of that paper is not a smudged Xerox. Perhaps you are having problems with the font. Your complaint is pathetic. What exactly is “utterly misleading”?

    Tell us, what does “reduce viral load to undetectable levels” mean? We’ve seen that phrase often used.

    Viral load tests measure the amount of HIV RNA in serum. This is indicative of the amount of HIV replication atking place. ARV treatment can reduce viral load to undetectable levels.

    The paper I previously cited tested for HIV DNA that had been integrated into T-cells. This is not immediately affected by ARV treatment because the HIV is already integrated into reservoirs of T-cells.

  221. Chris Noble Says:

    It’s very frustrating that we don’t have an electron microscope picture of HIV, isn’t it, Chris? Perhaps you know of a source, do you? We could put it up for all to admire.


    Fine structure of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and immunolocalization of structural proteins.

    This paper has some very nice electron micrographs of HIV from 1987.

    Of particular is the immunferritin labelling that demonstrates that HIV p24 is localised in the tubular central core and that HIV gp120 is located on the outside of the virion.

  222. kevin Says:

    I’m heading out the door but here’s my quick answer to your questions:

    Kevin, evidently this applies to you, according to your experience, but let’s not go overboard. Isn’t your experience unusual?
    The reason I decided to finally offer up the links in my recent posts is to show you and other readers of this blog that “No, my experience is not so unique.” Eight hundred and seventy-six strangers found an obscure website on Candida sickness and felt compelled to participate in the discussion. Read through some of the individual accounts. Some are more detailed than others. There are thousands more like them and me, all across the globe, particularly in wealthy Western countries where pharmceutical use is heaviest.

    Don’t antibiotics work OK for most people when they have a temporary sinus or chest infection?

    Yes and No. They are obviously useful, but many of today’s antibiotics are very potent and they have been overprescribed for decades. Most of the people who develop chronic immune problems from their use were using them frequently and/or continuously, i.e. a large percentage of people with severe acne were given antibiotics for more than a decade. Many of those patients now have immune problems. Once again read through case histories on that site. There are also plenty of examples of people who develop chronic health problems after a single round of antibiotics, particularly after using the potent synthetic ones like Cipro.

    And are doctors really that culpable for cooperating with drug companies in prescribing these and other drugs to help patients?

    Yes. Ever notice all of the advertisements in doctors office waiting rooms. They’re on the kleenex boxes, the ink pens, the post-it pads, the clipboards, the calendars….need I go on. It is well-documented that doctors receive kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies often in the form of paid vacations to exotic loacales. Have you also never been in a doctor’s office and seen the briefcase carrying WASPy pharmaceutical reps and how fast they get in to the see the doctor. I’ve discussed the situation with two of my past physicians. Both were very honest about the “benefits” of prescribing one drug over another.

    The armamentarium of drugs contains some useful ones which save us from many illnesses and deaths, don’t they?

    Absolutely, but that doesn’t exclude the possibility that these drugs do not have long-term health implications for those of us who have used them heavily. Do some research on birth control pills and the health problems that are well-documented. They are very convenient but they are by no means “good for you.”

    When the truth about AIDS is known, how free-wheeling pill-for-every-ill approach to healthcare will figure prominently into the explanation. The 1960’s and the 1970’s were the beginning of the experiment. It continues to this day but as one might expect, not all of these useful drugs are “good for you.”

    One useful comment that Trlll has made a few times refers to the “immune system as being a very complex biological system.” Modern living has drastically changed the envrionment in which the human immune sytem is expected to function. It’s being assaulted on every front and that needs to be a part of any discussion regarding HIV/AIDS.

    Kevin

  223. Truthseeker Says:

    Excellent, Chris, thanks. But that is the summary, and we are not in the library. Perhaps you could email a copy, could you, we could put the photos up.

    How odd that Etienne de Haarven, who taught electron microscopy of small items to others in Manhattan from his lab at Rockefeller in the sixties, didn’t know of these photographs when we chatted last year.

  224. Chris Noble Says:

    How odd that Etienne de Haarven, who taught electron microscopy of small items to others in Manhattan from his lab at Rockefeller in the sixties, didn’t know of these photographs when we chatted last year.

    De Harven is aware of these and a multitude of other electron micrographs of HIV.

    The really odd thing is that Duesberg spends no time attempting to convince de Harven that HIV exists and that de Harven spends no time trying to convince Duesberg that HIV does not exist. As a result HIV “rethinkers” typically switch from citing Duesberg to de Harven or the Perth Group or even Lanka and never form a self-consistent argument.

  225. nohivmeds Says:

    CN, you’re such a liar! You keep repeatedly citing papers that evidence our ability to test for the “HIV p24 antigen.” Is p24=HIV? No. It’s not. So a test of it is not a test for the “HIV Antigen.”

    As for cultures being so unbearably expensive — that’s a load of crap. Ever had a throat culture for strep? How about a rectal smear for chlamydia? Those don’t seem to cost too much at all — and VOILA! Something actually GROWS!!!!

    Each and every paper you cite you also misrepresent. I AM reading your citations, and none of them match what is you say they say. Duplicity. Duplicity. Duplicity. Kind of vile.

  226. nohivmeds Says:

    I would gladly pay whatever the exhorbitant amount is for a culture of my “HIV.” I really would. Direct me to the nearest lab. I live in upstate NY. Part of the problem we “awakened” poz guys have is that no one has ever grown the virus in CULTURE!!! They’ve tested us for “antibodies” that are of questionable specificity, and they’ve measured “viral load,” or, perhaps better stated as “something like 3% of the base pairs that make up HIV alive or dead.” It’s like smoke signals, for God’s sake. If I HAVE a microbe, and that microbe is killing me — then we should be able to GROW IT IN CULTURE. I really don’t think that’s asking too much.

  227. Chris Noble Says:

    CN, you’re such a liar! You keep repeatedly citing papers that evidence our ability to test for the “HIV p24 antigen.” Is p24=HIV? No. It’s not. So a test of it is not a test for the “HIV Antigen.”

    HIV p24 is an HIV antigen. It is the protein used in HIV antigen tests. Detection of HIV p24 is considered evidence of infection with HIV.


    Diagnostic, Monitoring, and Resistance Tests for HIV

    Although isolation of HIV from an individual definitively diagnoses HIV infection, a single positive culture should be confirmed with a second specimen. Although this assay is very specific, it is rarely used because it is expensive, labor-intensive, and less sensitive than antibody testing.

  228. Dan Says:

    This paper has some very nice electron micrographs of HIV from 1987.

    Of particular is the immunferritin labelling that demonstrates that HIV p24 is localised in the tubular central core and that HIV gp120 is located on the outside of the virion

    Must be from one of those non-mutating strains of HIV.

  229. nohivmeds Says:

    CN wrote:

    HIV p24 is an HIV antigen. It is the protein used in HIV antigen tests. Detection of HIV p24 is considered evidence of infection with HIV.

    And he wrote:
    HIV gp120 is located on the outside of the virion

    Chris — how about that virion — or in other words — the ENTIRE antigen, not bits and pieces?

    And what about my culture? You just keep peddling slop for answers, or no answers at all. I mean — I ask for THE antigen — implying detection of the virion, not single proteins. Does p24 cause AIDS, Chris? Does, in your theory, gp120 cause AIDS? Or do you need more than that? How many of these little proteins do you need to make a virion? If I detect these little proteins, are you saying that for sure, swear on your mother’s bible, I’ve detected a real LIVE virion?

  230. nohivmeds Says:

    Here’s some really impressive information on your two favorite proteins, CN:

    From Wikipedia:
    The exact mechanism of virus entry into a cell is unknown although the gp120 protein is thought to have at least responsibilities. It seeks out viable receptors on cells for virus entry, fixes the virus to the receptor on the cell and helps in passing the viral genome into the cell.

    And from http://www.hivandhepatitis.com
    An alternative approach to diagnosing HIV-1 infection is to detect the presence of viral antigens in the blood. The best antigen for this purpose is the capsid antigen, p24, a viral structural protein that makes up most of the virus core particle. Because high titers of p24 antigen are present in the serum of acutely infected individuals during the short period between infection and seroconversion, p24 antigen assays are useful in the diagnosis of primary HIV-1 infection.

    After seroconversion the antigen is bound by p24-specific antibodies and becomes undetectable in the majority of infected individuals. For this reason p24 antigen assays are not useful for diagnosing HIV-1 infection in otherwise healthy individuals who are thought to have established infection.

    Now that’s some impressive stuff. Really impressive.

  231. Glider Says:

    TS,

    Kevin’s experience is not unique; I don’t think he’s going overboard. And, as I’ve mentioned in previous posts in other threads, I agree with him because I’ve been through similar things. I estimate that by the time I tested “poz” I had been prescribed antibiotics about 75 times—at least—in the years prior. I believe my current good health, despite having this month entered my 13th year of being “poz”, is due to my efforts aimed at correcting the effects of antibiotic overuse.

    Perhaps others—NHM?—can learn from our experiences. What can it hurt?

    TS, maybe you and I could sit down and chat over coffee or Guinness sometime. We both live in NYC and have a few acquaintances in common. Let me know if you’re open to that.

    Kevin, I would also like to correspond with you personally. Please email me if you’re so inclined.

    Glider

  232. Truthseeker Says:

    Gentlemen, can we avoid mention of obscenities here, if possible? Thank you.

    Glider, you are invited to a lunch meeting of the Bones Club. Maybe we can get MacDonald if he lives in NYC.

    De Harven is aware of these and a multitude of other electron micrographs of HIV.

    And the problems with the paper you cited, CN, confessed by the authors later, as you no doubt know. Was it really HIV? Seems not.

    By the way, the paper on hemophilia allegedly rebutting Duesberg was reproduced here by us to show how flawed it was, just in case anyone missed the point. It was merely a reply to a letter, by the way, not to Duesberg’s 20 page condemnation of the hemophilia line.

    Chris, can you explain why the AIDS tests demand that sera be diluted 400 fold to differentiate the infected from the uninfected? Normal dilution for other pathogens is none to 20 fold, is it not? What’s going on here?

  233. kevin Says:

    Glider wrote:

    Perhaps others—NHM?—can learn from our experiences. What can it hurt?

    Thank you for speaking up, Glider. I’m glad to hear that someone else understands both the severity and the prevalence of this condition. I’m also glad to hear that someone else has been able to regain health after self-educating. Regardless, Duesberg’s chemical explanation of AIDS needs to be fleshed out by those of us who are intimately familiar with the immune damage that is possible from prescribed drug use, for that is, in my mind, the missing link in the dissident position. It’s obvious to me, but I’ve lived it. Everyone knows that using hard, recreational drugs is “bad for you”, but most are not aware of the extent of iatrogenic illness caused by prescription drug use. Yes, dissidents are rightfully concerned about ARVs but other anti-microbials are just as dangerous.

    The reason I focused on chronic sinus sufferers earlier is three-fold:

    1. It is exceedingly common (37 million and growing) and the ordained treatment protocol is not providing relief but is rather exacerbating the condition and perhaps even causing it.

    2. Sinus health correlates closely with immune health. They are one of our first lines of defense, and most immuno-compromised people suffer frequent sinus infections.

    3. Lastly, the more recent Mayo Clinic study found here:

    Yet another Mayo Clinic study implicating Fungus (2004)

    shows that chronic sinusitis is overwhelmingly caused by an immune response to the fungus that natural resides in the nasal passages, which to me suggests that there may be other areas of the body where more serious fungal infections reside thereby explaining the otherwise mysterious immune response in the sinuses, i.e. the chest cavity, the gut, the lungs, the esophageal tract are common candida infection sites for AIDS patients. These are obviously vital areas so the health of the host is understandably compromised and other OIs can then easily occur.

    From the above link, these are some of my favorite quotes:

    “Results of their research suggest that common airborne fungi lodge in the mucus lining of the sinuses in most people, but initiate an immune response only in individuals prone to chronic sinusitis.”

    …and what do those who are prone to chronic infection have in common…frequent use of potent antibiotics resulting in systemic yeast colonization. Why the Mayo Clinic researchers fail to see the big picture, I cannot say, but most chronic sinus sufferers also have other yeast infections that clearly manifest once health declines past a certain threshold. This should lead to a more thorough investigation of fungal prevelance elsewhere in the body. After all, many knowledgeable physicians have recognized this condition for decades. Once again, the NIH ignores the epidemiological facts that reflect poorly on Big Pharma.

    Through a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind pilot trial using the fungicide Amphotericin-B applied intranasally, the researchers found that the treatment group showed a significant decrease in the inflammatory thickening of the sinus membranes compared to the control group.

    I can personally attest to the effectiveness of this treatment. It was nothing short of amazing. However, now that I’ve taken care to eliminate my systemic problem with yeast, I no longer have to use an anti-fungal intranasally.

    “We showed in 1999 that fungal organisms were present in the mucus of 96 percent of patients who had surgery for chronic sinusitis, and that inflammatory cells were clumped around the fungi, which indicated to us that the condition was an immune disorder caused by fungus, ” said Sherris. “But many doctors didn’t believe us.”

    Doctors still don’t believe the results of this study. I’m currently “interviewing” doctors within my HMO and none are familiar with these findings, even though all readily admit that “chronic sinusitis” is the number one reason for prescribing antibiotics. The last moron I crossed-off the list had this response when I showed him the results of this study. He said: “Well, it’s well-known that some people have sinus problems and they just have to learn to live with it>” What a genius.

    “Chronic sinusitis…is thought to affect 16.8 percent of the adult population of the U.S. It causes long-term nasal congestion, production of thick mucus, loss of sense of smell and creates an environment for opportunistic bacterial infections that exacerbate those symptoms. Sherris said studies have shown that chronic sinusitis exceeds even congestive heart failure in its adverse effects on quality of life.”

    “Little is known about the causes of this disease. Without a specific target for intervention, physicians often simply treated the secondary bacterial infections in hopes of providing a modicum of relief.”

    I would contend that most of the 16.8 percent of sufferers also have systemic candida infections which, sadly will probably take another decade for modern medicine to acknowledge. Furthermore, they need to realize that it isn’t the opportunistic bacterial infections that excerbate the symptoms but rather the antibiotics that are given to treat those infections. Broad-spectrum antibiotics kill all the good bacteria in the gut, the fungus grows unchecked, health deteriorates progressively as the cycle continues with each prescription.

    Sorry to post such a lenghty post, but I hope at least a few of you find it interesting. As Glider points out, I feel very strongly that immuno-compromised individuals — positive or negative — can benefit greatly by becoming educated about this issue.

    Kevin

  234. MacDonald Says:

    Glider, you are invited to a lunch meeting of the Bones Club. Maybe we can get MacDonald if he lives in NYC

    It would be my honour. But unfortunately I’m oceans and mountains away from New York in the country suggested by my name.

  235. Martel Says:

    NHM,

    In your p24 comments, you’ve hit on the big problem with HIV virion isolation: except for the case of acutely infected patients, there just aren’t enough of them in the bloodstream. For the Denialists, this proves the non-existence of HIV…or whatever it is the individual denialist believes. To a “mainstream” scientist, it says that the virus has gone latent, hiding out with little to no replication in a very shy and long-lived population of T-cells hidden in some as-yet unknown location(s) in the body.

    But you’re right: a poz person should at least have the opportunity to SEE the virus that is supposedly in a position to destroy him/her, not just some surrogate marker.

    By taking enough blood from a patient–even gallons and gallons over a long period of time, possibly shortened by doing some sort of “dialysis” combined with immunodepletion–or by taking sufficient blood from an admittedly rare patient who presents during the acute phase, or by recruiting individuals who refuse medication and are not classified as long-term non-progressors (i.e. they have measurable virus in their sera)….it should be possible to isolate the virion directly from blood, not just from the artifical environment of cell culture. This would be a tremendous step forward for patients (and for science and medicine). If this could be done, the individual virus replicating in the patient could be analyzed and treated with specific means.

    Yet it hasn’t been done…yet. Why??

    Proteomic methods are advancing rapidly, and should soon (next five years, maybe less) reach a level of sensitivity that will allow detection of virions if they are at all present in the individual patient…using a clinically feasible sample volume. If, five years from now, the matter of virion isolation from a patient has not been resolved, I will prepare to join the diverse ranks of the denialists. Until then, please save a fencepost for me.

  236. nohivmeds Says:

    Hi Martel: There’s plenty of room on my fence for you, and thanks for the additional info on isolation issues. I think that R. Culshaw is going to cover this issue explicitly in her forthcoming book.

    To Kevin and Glider: I am definitely benefitting from your posts, and I really appreciate the in-depth information. There are so many unknowns regarding immuno-deficiency — as far as I am concerned, all information is helpful at this point. I have personally discussed the issue of fungal infections with my doctor and will continue to monitor it carefully. But yes, you are both absolutely right to note that the information is very helpful to me.

  237. Truthseeker Says:

    If, five years from now, the matter of virion isolation from a patient has not been resolved, I will prepare to join the diverse ranks of the denialists. Until then, please save a fencepost for me.

    The fence is made of barbed wire in this case, since this kind of inability to grasp the nettle and yank it from the ground is what gives the HIV boys and girls their advantage.

    Odd how easy it is to plant an idea in someone’s mind, how quickly it takes root, and how mightily it then resists being uprooted. Common finding of brain research, according to Gazzaniga.

    It is really not any extra dollop of skepticism or cynicism or proof that should be required here, just plain thinking. A tells you B, does B make sense, if not, science says reject it, even if society says humor A, play politics, gain two squares, free throw.

    Can’t you see the strongest of all reasons to dismiss the paradigm now, and not sit on the fence, is already apparent? This is the simple fact that its top officers don’t have any conviction about it after 22 years.

    If they did, they wouldn’t censor its review by scientists or media, for they would have no motive to do so. They have always done so, and do so now.

    QED.

  238. nohivmeds Says:

    How imperious of you, TS. Thanks for your take, but I’m comfortable where I am. I’ve decided to be more circumspect. Clearly, that’s not your style. It’s fine we have different opinions on this issue. It’s not indicative of any lack of reasoning ability on either of our parts, I’m sure. No need to condescend.

  239. Chris Noble Says:

    And what about my culture? You just keep peddling slop for answers, or no answers at all. I mean — I ask for THE antigen — implying detection of the virion, not single proteins.

    I live in another country. You can contact diagnostic laboratories in your state and ask them whether they perform HIV virus culture tests.

    There is no THE antigen. There are several structural HIV proteins all of which stimulate specific antibodies. HIV antigen tests contatin antibodies that are specific to HIV p24. These tests are highly specific so yes a positive reaction is almost 100% certain that the detection of HIV p24 indicates active HIV replication.

  240. Chris Noble Says:

    And the problems with the paper you cited, CN, confessed by the authors later, as you no doubt know. Was it really HIV? Seems not.

    Confessed by the authors? What are you talking about. If you can explain why HIV antibodies bind to specific parts of the virion then please explain.

    By the way, the paper on hemophilia allegedly rebutting Duesberg was reproduced here by us to show how flawed it was, just in case anyone missed the point. It was merely a reply to a letter, by the way, not to Duesberg’s 20 page condemnation of the hemophilia line.

    You obviously have not read it then.

    We and Darby et al have provided that evidence.2 3 Duesberg’s commentary4 requires further comment.

    The article is a response to Duesberg’s commentary.

    4
    Commentary: non-HIV hypotheses must be studied more carefully

    Duesberg’s commentary was on this primary article by Sabin et al

    2
    Comparison of immunodeficiency and AIDS defining conditions in HIV negative and HIV postive men with haemophilia A

    Sabin also refers to another study by Darby et al.

    3
    Mortality before and after HIV infection in the complete UK population of haemophiliacs. UK Haemophilia Centre Directors’ Organisation.

    These two studies have directly looked at HIV+ and HIV- patients with hemophilia and have directly tested Duesberg’s hypothesis. It failed.

    HIV+ patients suffered progressive CD4+ cell loss and eventual severe immunesuppression. HIV- patients didn’t.

    Duesberg’s response to Sabin’s study was just a series of ad hoc excuses for why HIV+ patients got AIDS and HIV- patients didn’t.

    In addition to these studies we also have:

    opt=Abstract&list_uids=8095697&query_hl=27&itool=pubmed_docsum”>Does drug use ca
    use AIDS? Ascher MS, Sheppard HW, Winkelstein W Jr, Vittinghoff E. Nature. 1993
    Mar 11;362(6416):103-4.

    dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8876838&query_hl=27&itool=pubmed_docsum”> The lack of as
    sociation of marijuana and other recreational drugs with progression to AIDS in
    the San Francisco Men’s Health Study. Di Franco MJ, Sheppard HW, Hunter DJ, Tost
    eson TD, Ascher MS. Ann Epidemiol. 1996 Jul;6(4):283-9.

    opt=Abstract&list_uids=8095571&query_hl=37&itool=pubmed_DocSum”> HIV-1 and the a
    etiology of AIDS. Schechter MT, Craib KJ, Gelmon KA, Montaner JS, Le TN, O’Shaug
    hnessy MV. Lancet. 1993 Mar 13;341(8846):658-9.

    Duesberg’s theory is just not supported by the evidence.

  241. Chris Noble Says:

    Chris, can you explain why the AIDS tests demand that sera be diluted 400 fold to differentiate the infected from the uninfected? Normal dilution for other pathogens is none to 20 fold, is it not? What’s going on here?

    Only one HIV test has used a dilution of 1:400 and that one is no longer on the market. Other HIV tests have dilution factors ranging from 1:2 to 1:100. Other antibody tests for other pathogens also use these dilutions.

    One of the reasons that sera is diluted with Bovine Serum or Goat Serum is to improve the specifity of the tests. Sera may contain large amounts of non-specific antibodies. These non-specific antibodies will bind to proteins such as BSA in the diluent which is then removed. HIV specific antibodies will not bind to BSA but have a strong affinity for the HIV antigens in the test kit. This dramatically reduces the number of false positives and improves the specificity of the test.

    The dilution used in a particular test is normally adjusted to provide the best balance between specifity and sensitivity. Ideally you want to have no false negatives and no false positives. In practice this ideal is never achieved although modern HIV tests probably have the highest specificity and sensitivity of any test in history.

    Of course if you do not follow the instructions and fail to dilute the test serum containing BSA then specificity of the test will be reduced resulting in a large number of false positives.

  242. nohivmeds Says:

    Chris — what about Martel’s post on these new proteomic methods? Are you aware of these? Are you aware, as Martel says, that they would be able to isolate the ENTIRE VIRION directly from blood? Don’t you think that needs to be done?

    In case you haven’t noticed, I’m not interested in a surrogate marker, and I think that’s my right. No one performs HIV cultures here except in laboratory experiments. I’ve been “poz” for 10 years and no one has offered to culture my blood. Enough with p24 and gp120. If these things were such miracles of science, I think we’d all know that. We’re talking about the entire virion now, and you’re making me repeat myself not because you don’t understand what I’m asking for, but because you don’t have anything resembling a good answer. Frankly, that’s just cruel. Play that game with people who haven’t been “treated” for this, but not with me.

  243. nohivmeds Says:

    And to the kind Dr. H.B. — what about cytochrome monoxidase? Come back and explain. I want to know what you’re talking about — in as close to layman’s terms as possible, if you would be so kind.

  244. nohivmeds Says:

    And to TS and others:
    It appears as though fence sitting is gaining some respect here, and that’s as it should be. Do you really think it would behoove me to yolk my health and well-being to a single paradigm? I did that already and have been sorely disappointed. Why do it again at this point? I think it makes the most sense for me to consider all possibilities, with a skeptical eye, of course.

    I mean, after all, as folks who read this know, I had an immune crash last month and a host of little opportunistic infections — these are things that I was directly confronted with, not words on a blog. I don’t think it is in my best interests to align myself with any particular hypothesis at this point. I’m better off trying to learn from everyone — the more information, and the more diverse that information is, the better equipped I will be to make important decisions regarding my health.

    The Third Way (the Fence) is logical from my perspective. I don’t mean any disrespect to anyone by taking this position — in fact, the exact opposite is true. You could say that I’m desperate for information and diverse perspectives, and I think anyone in my position would be, by necessity. It may behoove others to gain closure on this and to choose a position — I don’t take argument with that — but I do question anything presented to me that is less than defnitive — from either side of the debate. It just makes sense to me to follow this course. I’m not doing it to be difficult or to be different — just to be as well-informed as possible. That is not so hard to understand, is it?

  245. Truthseeker Says:

    I don’t think it is in my best interests to align myself with any particular hypothesis at this point.

    No one here is forcing another paradigm down your throat. The review of HIV∫AIDS finds no reason to believe that HIV is an actor in this great medical drama, that is all. Your clinging to the idea is illogical. What actually causes immune dysfunction or failure is another question, which in any individual case encompasses a range of possibilities which only they and their health providers can review with any authority, as you well know.

    That said, however, as you also know there are various likely candidates for causing widespread immune problems of the serious kind that gave rise to GRID/AIDS, and drugs are so obvious a reason in the US and Europe that to deny them as the primary factor would be ridiculous. What does it take to put two and two together? Not much once the HIV meme is extracted from the frontal cortex. Syphilis and other infectious disease might be involved, in the unprecedented frenzy of sex that arrived in gay clubs in the seventies, but where is the evidence they could give rise to an unprecedented crowd phenomenon of the massive and fatal breakdown of the immune system? Drugs before and drugs after the symptoms appear are the obvious, simple and rational answer.

    All this speculation arises because research on other causes and even co factors has been blocked by the politically driven insistence on HIV as the only cause. The first order of business is to remove the HIV∫AIDS meme from the analysis, and that is necessary before the evidence can be properly assessed. The data is riddled with this assumption, however, and additional studies will probably be necessary to find out what really happened, and new data, which is the sensible point you made yourself your letter to Harpers, though not original to you, since Duesberg tried for some time to get a study going on drug effects om mice which was enthusiastically blocked at the NIH despite the support of the (ex) editor of Science.

    Anyone clinging to the idea that HIV is involved has to present a very good reason for the amazing coincidence that Nixon’s War on Cancer gave rise to a lot of retrovirologists with expensive expertise and labs hunting for a retrovirus that caused any harm to a human being, once the hunt for one that caused cancer proved to be a dead end, and Bingo! suddenly one appears out of the blue to cause a global pandemic of unprecedented immune collapse!

    As we have said before, if you give any credit to that we have a bridge to Brooklyn that we would like to sell you.

  246. kevin Says:

    NHM wrote:
    It may behoove others to gain closure on this and to choose a position — I don’t take argument with that — but I do question anything presented to me that is less than defnitive — from either side of the debate.

    For those who are suffering with “immune collapse”, taking a position off the fence is not just empowering, it is often the difference between life and death. Had I not made the connection between the treatment I was receiving and a worsening of my symptoms, I would be dead or, in the least, beyond recovery. Sure, each acute infection would usually resolve after taking lots of anti-microbials, but my overall health was being further damaged in the process, and this cycle of sickness just repeated over and over. I see ARV-use in a similar way; they help many people recover from acute, opportunistic infections (the so-called Lazarus effect is real), but I shudder when I think about the effects they are having in the rest of the body. Treating the opportunistic infections is necessary, but unburdening the immune system is the key to recovery.

    You have to break the cycle of fear and sickness, and that’s difficult to do if you do not free yourself from the dogma. You can still be open to hearing both sides of the argument, as I am, but if you want to get well, you’ll need to take action and allow yourself to be well, to have hope for better health. Hope is less profitable than fear, so any real sense of hope is omitted from the HIV=AIDS meme. Most importantly, you have to limit and eventually eliminate anything that is poisoning your body, whether the source is ARVs, hard drugs, poor diet, or other unnecessary environmental exposures to chemicals. Only then can you really get your body back to health, using whatever combination of healthful actions is required. It’s not easy, but I found that there was much merit in following the guidelines of natural hygiene, particularly in the beginning. This approach will allow your body to heal even during the period when you may need to take strong anti-fungals to eliminate the systemic candida that is undoubtedly affecting your immune health. It takes time, but better health for the immune-suppressed individual cannot be achieved by pills, alone.

    Kevin

  247. MacDonald Says:

    Hey Chris,

    time for a new read and comprehend session instead of all that cut and paste.

    The question was not why is sera diluted, but why is it diluted 400 times? I’m aware that John Moore has answered the question the same way you have about two dozen times here – which is by not answering but giving a lecture on how much hay it takes to make a strawman. But I’m sure with your googling skills you can find the actual answer to the question somewhere. Come on impress us, come up with an independent answer.

    By the way, why is it the test is off the market? Did they run out of BS to dilute it with?

  248. Dave Says:

    Man, you guys are still going at it:)

    NHM writes:

    If I HAVE a microbe, and that microbe is killing me — then we should be able to GROW IT IN CULTURE. I really don’t think that’s asking too much .

    This is exactly right!

    Compare to cancer —

    If a Doctor suspects that Mr. Jones has cancer (x-ray, clincal symptoms, etc), he must confirm it by biopsy — getting the tissue and having a pathologist, through electronmicroscope and/or complicated immunohistochemical staining, confirm whether or not the cells are cancerous.

    This is rigorous stuff. There ain’t no “false” positives. There ain’t “indirect” evidence. There ain’t “surrogate” markers. You either have cancer or not.

    With HIV anti-body testing and PCR viral “loads”, you get a lot of fear-mongering mumbo-jumbo.

  249. john Says:

    MacDonald,

    The problem is not so much knowledge why we dilute as much, as to find the publications which show, after sequencing, that proteins giving an absorbance below the cut’ off, are different from those giving an absorbance above, and it strictly.

  250. Martel Says:

    I admire your emphasis on “plain thinking” TS, I really do, and I admire the many plain thoughts you have communicated to your readers. I also truly wish the resolution of the HIV issue could result from merely thinking plainly. At the risk of assuming the universally accursed position of a jaded relativist, I question the validity of this binary MAKES SENSE/DOESN’T MAKE SENSE view. What, exactly, does it mean to “make sense”? “Sense” depends ultimately on the reference point of the person doing the thinking. I happen to know people to whom it makes perfect sense that AIDS is a punishment inflicted by God on unbelievers. If I voice my vehement disagreement with them, I am, to them, clearly in the wrong, someone who has abandoned all sense by rejecting the ways of truth, the ways of God, the cosmic arbiter of all sense, meaning, logic.

    TS, you claim that NHM, I, and others like us should abandon the fence because the AIDS paradigm adherents lack “any conviction about it after 22 years.” This is a curious route to a claim of QED, and by this logic, those fire-brimstone-and-immunosuppression Protestants I mentioned above must be absolutely right, since I have witnessed their firm conviction, even self-abandoning zealotry: their church has watched as its own have gone abroad and died gruesome deaths for the sake of their gospel. They are convinced. Therefore, HIV is not the cause of AIDS; sin and God’s judgment are. QED. If the strength of one’s claim to the truth depends upon one’s conviction, we should all become fundamentalist Christians, since they are willing to die for their faith; or, perhaps, Wahhabist Muslims, who willingly blow themselves up for a future Caliphate; or, alternatively, Buddhists, who can immolate themselves in protest at injustice.

    But do the paradigm adherents really lack conviction? If so, they wouldn’t bother to defend their views. But they do, and viciously. That they defend their tidy HIV=AIDS equation in such a sleazy manner–suppressing dissent–bespeaks not a lack of conviction, but rather an intellectual laziness and unwillingness to transcend their base human instincts. How easy (and satisfying!) it is to call a foe an idiot! How rewarding to watch as an adversary is relegated to social obscurity, scientific marginality, for daring to question the Deans of Disease! How incredibly and despicably human!

    For my part, however poorly the Moores and Gallos comport themselves, their behavior cannot in and of itself consign every bit of their belief system to the garbage heap.

    In my view, one who claims the scientific mindset must always remain on the proverbial fence, else s/he becomes a believer, an acolyte. Maybe I’m just quibbling over words, and if so, I apologize for ranting, but the fence is becoming dear to me.

  251. MacDonald Says:

    John,

    It is my opinion as well that the level of dilution is not in itself an argument, but since it is so extremely high in this case it is cause for suspicion.

    John Moore and Roberto Giraldo both agree that undiluted serum will produce false positives in the complete absence of HIV.

    I think, your point is that the ELISA test we’re talking about is non-specific for HIV, and that the odds of testing positive increase in proportion with the general levels of antibodies in the test serum.

    The test is said to have been validated clinically against on one side people diagnosed with AIDS (diagnosed how exactly I don’t know), and on the other people who were known to be without risk of AIDS.

    The cut off level of dilution was reached when all the former and none of the latter tested positive.

    Of cause people with fullblown AIDS are likely to have much higher general levels of antibodies in their system than people who are known to not be at risk for AIDS.

    What’s missing in all of this is of course the gold standard, the virus itself. But I don’t know enough about the procedures for antibody test validation to know if there is anything unusual in this, apart from the high levels of dilution.

    According to John Moore,

    The bovine or goat antibodies bind to the same non-specific sites as the human antibodies would, so they compete out the human antibodies. However, the detection antibodies are specific for human IgG, and do not efficiently react with the bovine or goat counterparts

    Of note is that truly HIV-positive serum samples can often be diluted by as much as 1:100,000, sometimes even more, and still give a positive reaction. This is because the serum antibodies to HIV react SPECIFICALLY with the HIV antigens that are coated onto the ELISA plate surface, or present on the western blot membrane.

  252. nohivmeds Says:

    TS, I’m saddened that you can’t see clear of this. I really am. Your post to me was very condescending — I don’t imagine that was intentional, but perhaps it was.

    It’s unnecessary. That’s the bottom line. Your obsession with my position is unnecessary, counterproductive, and unkind. I don’t judge you — yet you continue to judge me. If you need to do that — make me some sacrificial lamb so you can preach from a pulpit (to borrow a reference from Martel), then fine — sacrifice away. I think you know, because you know me personally just a little bit, that nothing you write will alter my course whatsoever — I guess I have CONVICTION about this.

    I’ve made productive contributions to this thread, as Dave has pointed out, and as Martel has pointed out. If you can’t get past the Fence and simply appreciate those contributions, well, I’m terribly sorry, but that is not my problem.

    Beyond that — Martel spoke beautifully regarding the reservation of judgement. I concur with everything he said.

  253. nohivmeds Says:

    I would just add, that when this “awakening” happened to me, I made contact with John Moore, Gregg Gonsalves — several prominent spokepeople for the establishment. And you want to know what? They wrote condescendingly to me too, when I challenged the HIV faith.

    I’ve argued this for a long time. Now I don’t argue it, I simply state it again with that necessary CONVICTION: The oppressed have learned all too well how to emulate their oppressors. Neither the Establishment nor the Dissidents will stand for any reasonable questioning of their arguments. That is a fact.

    And that is why I constructed the Fence, and pointed out the fact that there is indeed, whether the Establishment or the Dissidents want to admit, a Third Way. That way is both scientifically and philosophically legitimate (as Martel has already detailed), and it is personally congruent with the place I find myself in.

    And I feel quite certain in writing that it is not just Martel and I who feel this way. I would guess that a very significant percentage of this blog’s silent readership is still reserving judgement.

    Finally — the act of reserving judgement alone is revolutionary. I don’t need to reject anything to topple the establishment. Doubt is a more than adequate weopan.

  254. Dan Says:

    I’ve found the past few posts from NHM and Martel to be thoughtful and well-spoken…but…

    From my perspective, I’m seeing what’s claimed to be “fence-sitting” as only another flavor of “rethinker”. Because what those who call themselves rethinkers mostly do is simply question the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. The need to create a “third way” is an attempt to create distance from some rethinkers who, after examining the evidence, rightly understand that lacking the evidence to maintain the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, there’s no convincing reason to hold out hope that HIV causes AIDS.

    There really are only two camps: the orthodoxy, and those who question.

  255. Chris Noble Says:

    Chris — what about Martel’s post on these new proteomic methods? Are you aware of these? Are you aware, as Martel says, that they would be able to isolate the ENTIRE VIRION directly from blood? Don’t you think that needs to be done?

    The only person that could possibly understand what Martel was talking about is Martel and I even doubt this.

    The proteome of HIV is weel characterised.

    HIV proteins have been isolated and purified. Their sequences are known. Studies have established the approximate numbers of each of these proteins in the virion and their location and arrangement.

    HIV proteins have been crystallised and X-ray crystallography has been used to determine their structure.

    Site directed mutagenesis studies have also revealed the importance of specific amino acid residues for the function of many of these proteins.

  256. Chris Noble Says:

    The question was not why is sera diluted, but why is it diluted 400 times?

    As I said before other HIV tests use dilution factors between 1:2 and 1:100.

    The dilution factor chosen for a particular test will depend on the type of test, the amount of antigens and the concentration of blocking agents in the diluent.

    When people design an ELISA test they typically vary a number of factors to try to get the biggest separation between the readings for negative samples and positive samples. They use a panel of reference sera.

    One factor that they vary is the dilution factor. The panel is tested using a series of different dilutions. Ideally all positive samples will show a high optical absorption and all negative samples will show a low optical absorption with no overlap. The dilution factor that produces the best separation is chosen. A cut-off optical absorption is then chosen so that close to 100% of positive samples have a reading higher than this value and close to 100% of negative samples have a reading lower than this value.

    In reality 100% specificity and 100% sensitivity are never achieved although the modern HIV tests certainly come as close as any test.

    Other factors such as cost and ease of use are also considered.

  257. nohivmeds Says:

    Dan — first, thank you, and second, just to clarify, you wrote:

    there’s no convincing reason to hold out hope that HIV causes AIDS

    I don’t think that’s what I’m doing. Certainly the word “hope” is misplaced. And you have discussed, quite eloquently — that “AIDS” as a syndrome is a hopeless mess from a definitional perspective, so discussing “causation” when it comes to such a poorly defined syndrome, makes little sense — a point I think you’ve made. So I wouldn’t be interested in arguments that HIV “causes” “AIDS” or drug use “causes” “AIDS,” etc. I think we’re really discussing immunodeficiencies, and this thread has made it clear, thanks to Kevin and Glider, that there are multiple factors that ought to be considered beyond those normally discussed here, like HIV and drug use.

    No one is hanging on desperately to HIV, my friend. But Peter Duesberg says it exists but is harmless, and the Perth Group disagrees, and there are still other opinions on the issue as well (I know you’re no fan of Root-Bernstein, but he is not alone in his thinking). So even if we were to speak of HIV, there would be no single “rethinker” stance on the issue. These are exactly the kinds of reasons one might muster to explore a “third way.” Reasons for a fence. For some contemplation without necessarily drawing a firm conclusion. If you do feel comfortable with a firm conclusion on this whole mess, I support you in that, but I do not feel comfortable and cannot draw a firm conclusion. I’m committed to being circumspect and suspect of all comers and their theories.

    We’ve talked shades of gray before. There is no dichotomy here — there are actually a plethora of views. Certainly you and I agree that one view has been center stage for too long with way too little scrutiny. But that doesn’t imply that the answer to our questions is yes or no, black or white, this or that. All I’m asking for is the simple acknowledgement that this is more complicated than that — and I think this thread provides ample evidence of that complexity.

  258. Robert Houston Says:

    In his worthy efforts to enlighten the heathen, Chris Noble has persevered through 150 pages of this thread, patiently explaining the proper doctrine according to the AIDS scientific establishment. I think we should thank him and his colleague Terrell (trill) for the generous time and effort they have given us as visiting missionaries from orthodox science.

    Regardless of any differences in views, I’m sure they would agree that the factual record should be respected. For that purpose, and with no hope or intent of changing anyone’s opinion, I think it’s time to start to set the record straight. The reality is that for all their good intentions these loyal representatives of AIDS, Inc. have dispensed a considerable amount of misleading information.

    As an example, CN recently assured us that current HIV antibody tests no longer use the 1:400 dilution of the standard Abbott ELISA test, which Roberto Giraldo, MD, showed gave 100% false positives on undiluted samples (Everyone Reacts Positive on the ELISA Tests for HIV). Mr. Noble says that “other HIV tests use dilution factors between 1:2 and 1:100.” But according to Dr. John Moore in his recent article at AIDStruth, “The 1:400 standard dilution in the test referred to by Giraldo is reasonable and typical …”

    Some newer tests are actually using higher dilutions. The current instructions for the Vironostika HIV-1 test shows maximum dilution factors in the thousands for detecting HIV-1 antibodies (Table 7, et seq). A recent study of three current rapid test kits for HIV reported that “the optimal specimen dilution…was 1:1,000…,1:1,600…and 1:5,000…” (S. Soroka et al. Modification of rapid HIV antibody protocols…Clin Diag Lab Immunol 12:918-21, 2005).

    Dr. Moore’s statement on the matter sought to debunk Dr. Giraldo’s article but it’s clear that Moore never got past the first page. For all his bluster, Dr. Moore could come up with only one specific criticism: that Giraldo didn’t follow “the recipe.” Moore and Noble both missed the point. Giraldo pointed out that most serologic tests for antibodies use undiluted samples (e.g., for hepatitis A and B viruses, rubella virus, etc.) or else use dilutions of 1:10 (EB virus) up to 1:20 (cytomegalovirus). The 1:400 dilution that has long been employed in the most widely used antibody test for HIV is unusually high, and suggests that the antibodies to HIV proteins differ only quantitatively, being present in everyone.

    It’s interesting to note that the original studies determining HIV proteins, such the 1987 Gelderblom study which CN mentioned and which showed an electron micrograph, were based on the assumption that HIV alone was present in the banded material from sucrose gradient testing. Ten years later, Gelderblom and his colleagues had to modify this view, when they found the retroviral band was contaminated by normal virus-like microvesicles from the cells (P. Gluschankof et al., Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of gradient-enriched HIV type-1 preparations. Virology 230: 125-33, 1997). They wrote, “Analysis of the cellular molecules present in the fractions…demonstrated that virus and cellular vesicles share several cellular antigens…” Furthermore, several HIV antigens, including p24, are also found in other retroviruses, including HTLV-1, HTLV-II and endogenous retroviruses. (This is not to say that HIV is an endogenous retrovirus, only that it shares some of the same key proteins.)

    _____

    Another example of misleading claims by CN was his recentl flurry of put-downs regarding Dr. Duesberg theory of AIDS in hemophilia. Mr. Noble had cited a response by Sabin et al. to a commentary by Duesberg on their study. Though CN took this letter of commentary as Duesberg’s paper on the subject, in fact Sabin et al. never cited or discussed Duesberg’s paper on hemophilia. Suffice it to say that many studies backed his theory and Sabin’s response did not affect the main points of Duesberg’s critical commentary,

  259. Truthseeker Says:

    There really are only two camps: the orthodoxy, and those who question.

    What do we have here, a scientific cult? Even Dan is influenced!

    We cannot agree. There are three camps. The orthodoxy, the fence sitters (NHM and Kevin’s Third Way), and the Other Way, decisive rejection of the claim that HIV has supernatural abilities which cannot be explained by science except in the resulting swathe it cuts through US gay bathhouses and clubs and African kraals, in favour of the simple and obvious interpretation, which is that AIDS is drugs in the US and disease in Africa, relabeled. End of BS.

    How surprised and relieved Gallo must have been when he was first pushed over the line by Margaret Heckler and found that his thin and tattered paradigm kite flew after all, and instead of being shot out of the sky by his fellow scientists, soon collected an army of faithful with the help of a couple of other self appointed generals, and now proves as difficult to eradicate in the souls of even those who are aware of its defects as bedbugs from a mattress.

    The usefulness of extended Comments is that it does eventually reveal rather clearly who people are, mentally speaking. This thread as a litmus test for gullibility has now revealed how easy it is to get followers for a cult even among those who claim to be “scientists”. Even those who can see the force of the argument against HIV retain the sense that there may be something to it. Why are there so few here who can handle a simple research problem, which is whether the claim of HIV causing AIDS has anything to recommend it, and if not, then reject the idea as unfounded?

    “But do the paradigm adherents really lack conviction? If so, they wouldn’t bother to defend their views. But they do, and viciously.”

    Which shows they lack conviction. You don’t defend your position viciously unless you have reason to be vicious, which betrays lack of confidence. It is calmness and tolerance for dissent which betokens confidence.

    They don’t defend their views much, not the top people, who know their flaws. It is only the second tier that defend the science with attempts at scientific justification, such as John Moore, and they throw in a lot of bullying too with their claims. The top paradigm brass defend the position by censoring challenges, as you say.

    The relevant issue is why they cannot or will not defend their position with arguments in public. Just as the religious cannot, ultimately, defend their faith with reason, since it is not only beyond reason but also against reason, the priests of HIV∫AIDS have always avoided and hardly ever troubled to defend their paradigm in a free for all where the discussion is allowed to continue, as on this blog. Challenges in the literature have gone unaswered despite promises to reply from Gallo and Montagnier (who was so influenced by reading Duesberg’s challenge he has been hot on co-factors ever since), and a debate in Science cut short after one reply round. Live debates haven’t been seen except very early on when there was an enquiry chaired by Howard Temin in New York City, an AMFAR panel in Washington where the HIV boys referenced an invented graph, and a White House meeting of both sides Bialy organized which Fauci and Gallo swiftly scotched.

    Where does this distaste spring from? It can only hsve one source, lack of confidence that the thing can stand up to close examination from informed skeptics. Otherwise, you must tell us why confident people would think they needed to go to the trouble of censoring a critique of a strong hypothesis? Does a strong theory need a censor of review? Is that not a scienctific giveaway? Do you have any other example of extended massive official admitted censorship of the opponents of a strong claim? Emphasis on the word extended. Wake up and smell the coffee, NHM!

    Don’t challenge us to retreat from a condescending attitude, NHM, when with so much at stake, you cannot take the responsibility of thinking things through to a conclusion which we would frankly expect a child to see: A claim with nothing but inconsistency and paradox and conflict with known reality cannot be accepted, even for the sake of argument, even as a possibility by a scientist or anybody else, especially not when it risks death for its believers.

    Forgive us for saying so but you do in your hesitant fence sitting and self justification perfectly instruct us as to how easy it is to start and maintain a cult. You and Kevin are useful and articulate case study, and we are grateful fo it. We are busy trying to think we could exploit the cult phenomenon, in fact. Unfortnately it is hard to start a cult for disbelief.

    Again, we do not and would not blame you, if you did not insist on it repeatedly, for you are ill, and that disturbs the edge of the mind, we know that. One night at 1 am years ago we were strangled into unconsciousness coming up the subway steps by a strong black arm wrapped around our neck, and when we awoke with our nose in the concrete we found it took a week to get back our normal mental edge. But even though we make that excuse for weak willed indecisiveness for you, which you of course find condescending, we cannot join you in your emotional response to what is and should be a matter of reason.

    You don’t seem to see that the mysteries of AIDS are in no way an argument for a role played by HIV. If anything, they are a result of that unacceptable claim. If that claim hadn’t been introduced and politically maintained with the help of censorship we would not have had research in other directions roadblocked, and we would certainly know a great deal which we do not know yet.

    So there is also that scientific damage exacted by your publicly subscribing in some small residual degree, whatever it is, to this great confidence trick, which compounds the irresponsibility of not grasping the nettle and just saying No. In your ambivalence you are really weakening support for the very research you have called for.

    Most disappointing of all is that you are a psychologist and yet apparently blind to this psychological influence in yourelf. Surely as a professional you have a responsibility to analyze psychological factors in HIV∫AIDS belief, not boast of the fence sitting which they have induced in you. You do deny that psychological factors are swaying your analysis, right?

    Psychologist, heal thyself!

  260. Truthseeker Says:

    The 1:400 dilution that has long been employed in the most widely used antibody test for HIV is unusually high, and suggests that the antibodies to HIV proteins differ only quantitatively, being present in everyone.

    Well put, Bob. Everyone get that? The 400 x dilution can only be required because lesser dilution will result in too many positives. Nil dilution will result in 100% positives.

    We all are positive, folks, to some varying extent.

    The test is nothing more than a lottery, with the winners awarded death by AZT and Protease Inhibitors, as soon as they fall even slightly ill with any one of a raft of symptoms, though only after an initial period when the drugs cleanse the system of any infection and probably much of the resident good bacteria, as quickly as a Rotorooter driven through the intestines.

    Are we overstating, Chris, my boy? Or have you a stock of misleading counterclaims to make to fog up the windows and bring the discussion to a halt as far as new understanding goes?

    And by the way, what is the reason for your anonymity? You have nothing to fear from Fauci. For all we know, he will pay for your Christmas turkey.

    The only reason we can think of is shame. Tell us it ain’t so.

  261. Chris Noble Says:

    Some newer tests are actually using higher dilutions. The current instructions for the Vironostika HIV-1 test shows maximum dilution factors in the thousands for detecting HIV-1 antibodies (Table 7, et seq).

    What is it with “rethinkers” and their inability to read instructions?

    From page 10 of the document that robert Houston cited:

    2. Prepare a 1:21 dilution of each serum or plasma test specimen, Calibrator, and Controls. Include three wells of Negative Calibrator, and one well each of HIV-1 Positive Control and HIV-O Positive Control on each run.

    Table 7 refers to a dilution panel that demonstrates the sensitivity of the test.

    Table 11 is also of interest. The makers of the test checked for conditions or substances that could possibly casue false positives. All of these were negative. Addition of a very small amount of HIV+ sera turned them positive.

    A recent study of three current rapid test kits for HIV reported that “the optimal specimen dilution…was 1:1,000…,1:1,600…and 1:5,000…” (S. Soroka et al. Modification of rapid HIV antibody protocols…Clin Diag Lab Immunol 12:918-21, 2005).

    Again Robert Houston has major reading and/or comprehension problems. The paper was about distinguishing recent infections from old infections so that an extimate of HIV incidence (as distinct from HIV prevalence) could be determined. The basic idea is that people with recent infections have fewer antibodies to HIV than those with established infections. They deliberately modified the tests by using a much higher than recommended dilution. The tests lost sensitivity and people with recent HIV infection tested negative.

    + normal test + diluted test => old infection
    + normal test – diluted test => recent infection

    Moore and Noble both missed the point. Giraldo pointed out that most serologic tests for antibodies use undiluted samples (e.g., for hepatitis A and B viruses, rubella virus, etc.) or else use dilutions of 1:10 (EB virus) up to 1:20 (cytomegalovirus). The 1:400 dilution that has long been employed in the most widely used antibody test for HIV is unusually high, and suggests that the antibodies to HIV proteins differ only quantitatively, being present in everyone.

    Here are a list of ELISAs for a variety of infectious diseases that all use 1:101 sample dilution:


    IBL > Products > Infectious Diseases > Infectious Diseases

    What do you think the results of not diluting the samples would have on these tests? Would this be evidence that everyone is positive for Chlamydia trachomatis, Yersinia enterocolitica, Treponema pallidum, Trichinella spiralis, Dengue Virus etc? Or that these microbes don’t exist?

    It’s interesting to note that the original studies determining HIV proteins, such the 1987 Gelderblom study which CN mentioned and which showed an electron micrograph, were based on the assumption that HIV alone was present in the banded material from sucrose gradient testing.

    ?

    Suffice it to say that many studies backed his theory and Sabin’s response did not affect the main points of Duesberg’s critical commentary.

    Sabin’s study and that of Darby do not support Duesberg’s theory they demolish it.

    Duesberg’s ad hoc explanations like blaming AZT for the AIDS in the HIV+ patients are ridiculous. As Sabin points out the patients were given AZT after they had developed AIDS. Unless the effects of AZT can travel backwards in time then that effectively rules out this excuse.

  262. Chris Noble Says:

    And by the way, what is the reason for your anonymity?

    ??

    Chris Noble

  263. Chris Noble Says:

    Has it truly never occured to “rethinkers” such as Giraldo to take ELISAs for other microbes that are designed to use a serum dilution of say 1:101 and see what happens when you use undiluted serum?

    Surely this would have been the first thing to do – some control experiments!

  264. kevin Says:

    TS wrote:

    …the fence sitters (NHM and Kevin’s Third Way),…

    Just for the record and no offense to NHM, but I’m no fence-sitter.

    I do not think that HIV has been sufficiently proven to cause AIDS, nor anything else. The HIV theory should have been abandoned long ago. Though I do believe in keeping an open-mind about most things, I endorsed “listening to both sides” here mainly out of respect for the wisdom of “know thy enemy.” Examining the track record of the HIV orthodoxy reveals ugly truths about the consequences of corporatizing important social institutions like healthcare and science. The industry supporting HIV is dangerous to human health and in that respect it is an enemy to us all–including all the disenfranchised peoples of the world. Unfortunately, they must endure our almost-but-not-quite-right “cures” to satisfy our almost-but-not-quite-right theories, as well as our ego–no matter how gruesome the results.

    My commentary regarding ARV usage is based on my experience of trying to recover good health after suffering serious health problems. I never took ARVs but I took lots of anti-fungals which can also have serious side-effects when used for long periods, but I would have never gotten well without them. Iatrogenic illness is particularly suited for modern medicine, it seems. The increase in numbers of Naturopathic Practitioners in recent years is in direct response to the increase in health problems caused by allopathic care. Whether or not health can be fully restored to the most severely afflicted remains to be seen. In my opinion, your goal should be to live drug-free but sometimes you’ve got to kill pathogens directly. Unlike HIV, there are some real nasty organisms that do real damage when the opportunity arises inside a weakened human body:

    “In its fungal form, yeast develops rhizoids (long root-like structures that are invasive and penetrate the mucosa).”

    http://www.mercola.com/2003/jun/18/antibiotics_bacteria.htm

  265. Truthseeker Says:

    Duesberg’s ad hoc explanations like blaming AZT for the AIDS in the HIV+ patients are ridiculous. As Sabin points out the patients were given AZT after they had developed AIDS. Unless the effects of AZT can travel backwards in time then that effectively rules out this excuse.

    Don’t be perfectly silly. A statement like AZT caused AIDS in patients before they received it would hardly be overlooked by the dimmest peer reviewer, let along a hostile one, which all his reviewers were. You reveal your bias as going overboard into silliness with this one. Obviously Duesberg is saying the AIDS in people which occurred before the AZT was due to other drug intake, but after the AZT was given, was also due to AZT. AZT created more AIDS, whatever there was to start with. If none, it will create AIDS. If some, it will create more AIDS. Even Bob Gallo if HIV positive would avoid taking AZT, he told us at the time, even though as he also told us that HIV killed like a truck. (See SPIN Interview 1988)

    Chris, an explosion of reaction to Robert Houston’s post – seems that he must have gotten to you on the testing, and you rush to contradict with misleading answers.

    Your basic point seems only to be that most tests will score positive if not diluted, is that correct? Is that what you are trying to say? The truth is that Giraldo’s paper tells you the answer, doesn’t it – that lower dilution is used for most testing, and it is only HIV testing that for 15 years at least (till he did the work, even if tests have been changed later) used/uses such exceptionally high dilution, and that nil dilution results in turning 100% negative results into 100% positive.

    The reason for this is clearly that there are enough constituents produced by every body to turn the test positive at nil dilution, even when there was no HIV around, because there are enough non HIV constituents to cross react with the test even though they were not HIV constituents. Or do you have some other explanation?

    Has it truly never occured to “rethinkers” such as Giraldo to take ELISAs for other microbes that are designed to use a serum dilution of say 1:101 and see what happens when you use undiluted serum?

    Surely this would have been the first thing to do – some control experiments!

    How do you know he didn’t? Try looking to see. And why does it even matter? The bottom line remains this:

    RH – The 1:400 dilution that has long been employed in the most widely used antibody test for HIV is unusually high, and suggests that the antibodies to HIV proteins differ only quantitatively, being present in everyone.

    Do you deny this statement and its implication, or not? No more red herrings please.

    And by the way, what is the reason for your anonymity?
    ??
    Chris Noble

    Even if the name is correct, anonymity in every other way, since you do not say what country you are in, what role you play, etc?. Do you wish to confirm that you are this Australian Chris Noble or not? If so, why did you state on one Tara thread that “I am not a statistician”, when that Chris Noble page says you are one: Dr Christopher Noble BSc (Syd), BE (Syd), PhD (NSW) Assistant Professor of Statistics.

    We conclude that you are the Chris Noble at Queensland University, then. Care to confirm this?

    If you are not that Noble, kindly identify yourself in a way which accounts for your peculiar activity in trying to throw a spanner in the works of the HIV∫AIDS heretics for eight years without being influenced by new mainstream information or superior logic in the slightest.

    Fess up, Chris.

  266. MacDonald Says:

    Kevin,

    I’ll take the opportunity to falsify Trrll’s claim that rethinkers never state a testable hypothesis by suggesting that TS confused you with Martel.

  267. nohivmeds Says:

    TS honestly. You are the perfect example of everything I’ve written. You will broach no disagreement with your contentions. Again I state emphatically that this makes you the “John Moore of the Dissidents.”

    That you fail to see the scientific justification for the Fence is not surprising to me however, as you’ve never actually done science.

    Finally — I AM NOT SICK. I had thrush. It’s gone now. There is nothing to heal here, TS, except for your fanaticism. You should have taken Dan’s comments as clarion call for you to wake up and smell the coffee. The Third Way is now established. And like I said earlier, it does not matter how many times you put me on the alter of your need to destroy — I’ll simply stand up again and say exactly the same thing. You will not win that battle, TS, for the sake of civility, you might as well stop. The Fence has been built, and I am not alone sitting on it. The fact that you confused Kevin with Martel (who do have very different viewpoitns) clearly indicates the fluster YOU are in about all of this.

    Heal thyself “Truthseeker.”

  268. nohivmeds Says:

    And even though your an ex-pat — have a happy Thanksgiving, TS. Same to everyone.

    Also — a special thanks to Robert Houston for his illumination of the dilution issue. RH’s posts are always so well researched and so helpful. He does not appear to need everyone to agree with them — in fact, he hardly ever strays into the personal. TS, you should take a lesson from RH. Stick to what you know and leave your distaste for other people’s opinions off the blog.

    There is no cult. Your paranoia is apparent. You are not at risk, nor are any of your ideas. So have some civility and leave it alone.

  269. nohivmeds Says:

    By the way, that’s about the last olive branch I have to extend. In other words, don’t push your luck with me, TS, in an intellectual debate about the validity of skepticism. I wouldn’t advise that.

  270. Dan Says:

    The need to create a “third way” is an attempt to create distance from some rethinkers who, after examining the evidence, rightly understand that lacking the evidence to maintain the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, there’s no convincing reason to hold out hope that HIV causes AIDS.

    Truthseeker,

    maybe this just boils down to a semantics debate. What I’m reading from the third way guys is that, on the surface at least, they’re questioning some aspects of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. So… technically they’re “rethinkers”.

    This need to create a “third way” to distance themselves from the rethinkers who understand that HIV does not equal AIDS simply looks reactionary. What I’m seeing is the difference between freedom and bondage. Strange, how when freedom is possible, some prefer bondage. To each his own, I suppose.

  271. nohivmeds Says:

    Dan — think through what you wrote and what you’ve read. Am I “free from bondage” if I unquestionably accept everything TS writes? No, I’m not. Am I “free from bondage” if I accept the Establishment’s line? No, I’m not.

    You were right to guess that this is about freedom, but wrong regarding where one might find such freedom. By eschewing strong connections to all available theories, I create the necessary freedom to evaluate each of those theories from a neutral vantage point.

    Once again, there is a tendency among rethinkers to pathologize any thinking that is not in agreement with basic anti-HIV tenants. That’s not freedom. That’s a little bit of facism, and it is no different that the Establishment view.

  272. Truthseeker Says:

    It really is an entertainment how you get your knickers in a twist every time you are asked to respect logic, NHM, but Happy Thanksgiving yourself.

    Give thanks that you live in a free country and the Fascist Truthseeker lacks the power to enforce rationality and exclude emotionalism in your multiple posts. You are not so much a scientist, NHM, as an artist, it is clear, who is admirably responsive to every imagined threat, such that you cannot forget its influence even when the bogeyman is blown up in front of your eyes.

    Oh no, you will insist yet again, you are a scientist and your faithful blogger a mere writer. A Fascist, paranoid, olive branch offered, confused (thanks MacDonald, it probably was Martel not Kevin, just as it wasn’t us that Dan is quoting above, if he meant that as an attribution) politicized writer, truth seeking down rabbit holes.

    Well, LOL. As should be clear, you are being asked to respect logic, scientist or not, and logic knows no favorites. Neither scientists nor writers have a reserve on logic, which when practiced on evidence is the only arbiter of truth and guide to reality.

    NHM, you are as Dan sadly notices in bondage to an expired meme, a corpse of a paradigm, which was dead out of the gate, a dead parrot of a belief which is only upright because it is nailed to its perch, and the salesman behind the counter insists that it is only sleeping, and even though you have gripped it by the legs and whacked it on the counter and it shows no sign of life, you can’t help believe that just maybe it will spring to life and squawk.

    Either you can see the logic of what we wrote, or you cannot. On the face of it, you cannot, but perhaps you don’t read it very thoroughly. It would be more interesting if you did, and replied to the reasoning, rather than railed against Fascistic politics being perpetrated on you. This is not a political argument. Politically you are something of a mild, rather surprised skeptic, but a half hearted one, handicapped by your artist’s response to what is a purely scientific question, or should be. But this is a scientific discussion, where emotional investment is just another word for bias.

    Get with the program, deal with the reasoning, follow it to its conclusion. Goodbye meme, hello other, entirely conventional causes, which respect science and logic. Let go, NHM. You’ll be safe. Trust reason, It is our only saviour.

    Meanwhile, happy holiday and don’t forget the cranberry sauce.

  273. nohivmeds Says:

    TS — we’ll have to have an extended discussion of philsophy it appears – as skepticism is intimately tied to logic — which is something I think one of your faves, Bertrand Russell, has pointed out. Watch where you step. You like to play at philosophy, but it isn’t really a game.

    And for the final time — please stop characterising me. It seems you cannot resist the temptation. Emotional, an artist, etc., etc. I work as a scientist, TS. Get over it.

  274. nohivmeds Says:

    For now, for everyone else’s benefit:

    The Fence has been built.

    I am not sitting alone on it.

    The Third Way is here.

    It will not go away like a wish.

  275. Truthseeker Says:

    There are countless scientists who cannot think straight, as you have now recognized. A scientist to be worthy of the name has to think straight. Can you do it? Can you put away the parrot? HIV is dead. RIP.

    And if you like reading Russell, perhaps you should refer to our post earlier where he addressed the topic of HIV, AIDS and the tendency of human beings to abandon logic in the face of God and other delusions.

    That is where skepticism comes in – not believing in nonsense even though other people do.

    But now we have a dead horse as well as a dead parrot. We won’t flog it any longer, unless you bob up again like a jack in the box.

  276. Dan Says:

    Am I “free from bondage” if I unquestionably accept everything TS writes?

    Back to your MO, NHM. You’ve mischaracterized once again.

    Where in the world did you read that you must unquestioningly accept everything TS writes to be free from bondage?

    Very telling, actually, that you focus on Truthseeker. Why would anyone accept everything TS writes (or any other writer)? It’s looking exceedingly personal, and not terribly scientific.

  277. Truthseeker Says:

    There once was a God of logic,
    Who was normally quite pedagogic,
    But when Mark on the fence,
    Called reason pretense,
    He imploded into a podge quite hodgic.

  278. nohivmeds Says:

    TS — I believe I complimented your use of Russell previously. I was mistaken in doing so, given what seems an incomplete understanding. But that is irrelevent.

    We are not talking about HIV here. We are aware you think that argument is dead. Bully for you, darling. Unfortunatley, t’s irrelevant at this point in the discussion.

    We are talking about a stance, a position taken on the whole affair, that is different than yours and different than the Establishment’s. You obviously note this, and have equally noted your distaste for this stance, but have not provided any good arguments against it. Again, not arguments about HIV — we are talking now about the role of skepticism in philosophy and in science.

    I am bobbing up again. Ever so sorry. But necessary to repeat, so you can, as you have mentioned you seem to need, see my conviction:

    The Fence has been built.

    I am not sitting alone on it.

    The Third Way is here.

    It will not go away like a wish.

  279. Truthseeker Says:

    Why would anyone accept everything TS writes (or any other writer)?

    Because it is all true?

    That is why we accept everything you write, Dan. Which flaws have we overlooked?

  280. nohivmeds Says:

    The Fence has been built.

    I am not sitting alone on it.

    The Third Way is here.

    It will not go away like a wish.

  281. nohivmeds Says:

    And Dan, darling — I am not focusing on TS. I am using him as a surrogate marker. Get it?

  282. Truthseeker Says:

    The Fence has been built.

    I am not sitting alone on it.

    The Third Way is here.

    It will not go away like a wish.

    Is this a cult now? Sounds like it.

    Repetition is a hypnotic influence which dissolves reason. Please do not attempt to hypnotize the readers and the blogger of NAR. Being scientifically minded, we are largely immune.

  283. nohivmeds Says:

    It’s a mantra, my dear. A mantra. And thank you for repeating it.

  284. Dan Says:

    Truthseeker,

    I think we need to define what the word “accept” means in the current context.

    In one vein, I can accept that you mean everything you say, as does NHM and any other poster here.

    In another vein, do I accept that everything you, myself or others say is 100% error-free? No.

    If we unquestioningly accept everything you or myself or any other poster writes, then we aren’t thinking.

    Unquestioning acceptance of what’s written wasn’t my point. My point was that NHM singled out you in his statement. I was noting how much more personal than scientific it was.

  285. nohivmeds Says:

    Dan, honestly. I used TS as a placeholder for the phrase, “and all Rethinkers.” You’ll note he was contrasted with the “Establishment.” TS is a “surrogate marker,” for the concept of “all Rethinkers.”

    And you’re confusing “accept” which you can always do, with “agree.”

  286. nohivmeds Says:

    In any case, I have to withdraw from this discussion now. I’m grateful to have had a place to make my views read and hopefully understood, so, towards that end — Thank you, TS, for providing that place. And thanks to everyone else who I learned something from in this discussion.

  287. Chris Noble Says:

    Chris, an explosion of reaction to Robert Houston’s post – seems that he must have gotten to you on the testing, and you rush to contradict with misleading answers.

    Everything can apparently be taken to be a sign that “rethinkers” are correct and that the “orthodoxy” are scared. If nobody responds to “rethinker” nonsense then that is a sign that the “orthodoxy” are scared. If someone rrsponds by pointing out some of the silly errors and misconceptions then that too is a sign that the “orthodoxy” are scared.

    Your basic point seems only to be that most tests will score positive if not diluted, is that correct? Is that what you are trying to say? The truth is that Giraldo’s paper tells you the answer, doesn’t it – that lower dilution is used for most testing, and it is only HIV testing that for 15 years at least (till he did the work, even if tests have been changed later) used/uses such exceptionally high dilution, and that nil dilution results in turning 100% negative results into 100% positive.

    I posted a link that described a number of ELISAs that all use 1:101 dilution. If you fail to dilute the serum then the specificty of these tests will be compromised I suspect that 100% of negative results will test positive.

    The only thing that this can possibly tell you is that tests will only perform properly if you follow the instructions.

    I’ll explain it to you slowly. Non-specific antibodies are a problem for all tests. These non-specific antibodies will also bind to antigens in the test kit but with a lower affinity. If the concentration of non-specific antibodies is sufficiently high then this might result in a positive test.

    The problem then is how can you tell the difference between a high concentration of non-specific antibodies and a low concentration of HIV-specific antibodies? The answer is to use blocking agents such as BSA. These bind to the non-specific antibodies and stop them from producing a false positive. If you do not add this diluent with the blocking agents a large number of false positives will result. There is no mystery about this. It absolutely 100% expected.

    The document that Robert linked to Vironostika HIV-1 contains a variety of data that was necessary to demonstrate to the FDA that this test is both highly sensitive and highly specific for HIV antibodies.

    In table 11 the results of tests for possible cross-reacting substances are given. One of the tests was with sera with hypergammaglobulinaemia. None of these tested positive on the test. This demonstrates that high concentrations of non-specific antibodies to not cause a significant number of false positives. These tests are highly specific for HIV antibodies. If you spike the sera with small amounts of HIV+ sera then they test positive. These tests are highly sensitive.

    Despite the misleading claims made by Robert Houston the Vironostika tests use 1:21 dilution. Other HIV tests use dilution factors of 1:2.

    How do you know he didn’t? Try looking to see. And why does it even matter?

    I have looked to see if Giraldo has done any controls. He hasn’t.

    The point, that you apparently fail to grasp, is that when you come up with a brand new brilliant argument for why HIV doesn’t exist or cause AIDS etc it would be a good idea to check whether the same argument would apply to other pathogens and diseases. If you are logically consistent do you also deny the existence of these pathogens and/or their role in disease?

  288. nohivmeds Says:

    CN’s response to Martel:

    The only person that could possibly understand what Martel was talking about is Martel and I even doubt this.

    The proteome of HIV is weel characterised.

    HIV proteins have been isolated and purified. Their sequences are known. Studies have established the approximate numbers of each of these proteins in the virion and their location and arrangement.

    HIV proteins have been crystallised and X-ray crystallography has been used to determine their structure.

    Site directed mutagenesis studies have also revealed the importance of specific amino acid residues for the function of many of these proteins.

    Well that’s an impressive list, CN. Especially things like “the approximate numbers…and their location.” And those amino acid studies sound just fabulous,

    BUT,

    The question was why you, CN, still cannot directly isolate the virion from my blood (nohivmeds), where I am told it resides in astounding numbers if I’m off of medications. Your list is impressive — but, it did not include that.

    And that was the question. Not amino acids, surface proteins, mutagenesis, and “approximate numbers.”

  289. nohivmeds Says:

    To better inform your response, know that I am not interested, in this case, in “surrogate markers” of any kind. Especially “surface proteins.” Asking me to accept that identification of a microbial surface protein is the same thing as isolation of the microbe itself, is simply a load of crap. There is no equivalency.

    Here’s an analogy. Instead of HIV, we are looking for real proof that Paris Hilton exists. You run excitedly over to me, exclaiming: “This is Paris Hilton’s purse!” and then you expect I’ll actually believe that you saw Paris Hilton. You bring me her surface protein, and I should believe you saw her? I think you’re asking too much of me. I’d have to be on crack to find that proposal attactive as “proof” of Paris Hilton’s existance.

  290. Chris Noble Says:

    Mark, a better analogy would be that the police find a drop of blood at a murder scene that doesn’t belong to the victim. The police extract the DNA from the blood and via fingerprinting they match it with your DNA. You can try your “surrogate marker” defence in court and see how far you get.

  291. Dan Says:

    Chris,
    is that your response?

    The question was why you, CN, still cannot directly isolate the virion from my blood (nohivmeds)

    Why don’t you try again? Quite a direct question. Can you give a direct answer?

  292. Chris Noble Says:

    Why don’t you try again? Quite a direct question. Can you give a direct answer?

    The ‘question’ contains an assertion that nobody can directly isolate the virus from Mark’s blood. This assertion is made without any evidence.

    I have already cited this paper that demonstrates that HIV can be directly isolated from the blood of people with AIDS, and ARC. By contrast it is not possible to isolate HIV from HIV- people.

    Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 detected in all seropositive symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

    I have also already provided the reason why viral culture is not commonly used. It is time-consuming, expensive and requires highly trained staff. Antibody testing has been shown to be highly sensitive and specific.

  293. nohivmeds Says:

    Chris — You’re such a jerk!!! This material comes directly from the paper you cited — the Methodology section:

    “After thawing, supernatants were tested for HIV-1 antigen by using a commercially available enzyme immunoassay that detects primarily the core p24 antigen of HIV-1….and PCR assay was used for detection of HIV-1 gag sequences…”

    Just like I said — surrogate markers, Chris. Thanks for that.

    So Dan — the answer is “no.” The virion itself cannot be isolated or detected directly from my blood, which I believe Martel made clear previously.

  294. Truthseeker Says:

    The point, that you apparently fail to grasp, is that when you come up with a brand new brilliant argument for why HIV doesn’t exist or cause AIDS etc it would be a good idea to check whether the same argument would apply to other pathogens and diseases. If you are logically consistent do you also deny the existence of these pathogens and/or their role in disease?

    Well laid out post, Chris. By moving our finger slowly over your explanation of dilution and mouthing the words as we went along, we managed to follow it exactly, and admired its fluency. Thank you for that. But this final paragraph betrays your manic desire to act as an apologist for HIV∫AIDS at every juncture, and to imagine that we were arguing for the non existence of HIV or it not causing AIDS, by investigating the dilution issue.

    Speaking for ourselves we hadn’t got that far, especially since as far as the existence of HIV goes, we believe that its existence has been demonstrated by the removal of HIV from and reintroduction of HIV into cells and its subsequent replication, not to mention its consistent genetic analysis lab to lab. We just thought it was interesting that even with unusually high dilutions eg 101-380 according to you, the tests said “we all have AIDS”. But you say this is no longer the case. Well, we will phone Giraldo and see what he has to say, since as far as we know he is still the man they use at Cornell to run the tests.

    Bottom line, the testing issue throws up one interesting point, as far as we are concerned – the high level of non specific antibodies which trigger the Elisa test, and you seem to confirm this was the case except for newer tests, is that right? If so, when did this new level of accuracy come in, and can we now be sure that everyone who tests positive has HIV antibodies? We ask merely for information, since this increase in accuracy would seem to be an all important point and strange that it hasn’t been trumpeted to the skies in the press as yet another achievement of the defenders of the faith. But perhaps we skimmed past it.

    If they are or were suddenly made more accurate from earlier days when the inserts contained horrifyingly frank blanket disclaimers to the effect that they didn’t actually do the job they were supposed to – prove the presence of HIV antibodies – this would be an advance in the cause of avoiding hysterical concern on the part of some subjects who might otherwise have tested false positive, but given the cross reactions which cause HIV tests to score positive more often in pregnancy, for example, and the recent new explanations for that, false positives are still a problem, evidently.

    But apart from being progress of a sort in this one way this has nothing to do with whether HIV causes AIDS, for which there is still no real evidence of any kind except the now thoroughly discredited claim that the “drugs work” – discredited that is for anyone who looks into the matter, and reads the Lancet. Why do you mention this line of argument? It would seem unprofitable for any apologist to raise the issue of whether HIV is really the cause of AIDS, given the 100-0 balance of argument against.

    Also, what happened to our enquiry to the non-anonymous Chris Noble asking him to state where he lives and what he does for a living all day apart from send rockets into the not-HIV camp and hope they hit something?

  295. nohivmeds Says:

    From a patient’s perspective, whether or not the antibody tests have been improved doesn’t really get at the issue that most concerns me — the direct isolation of the virion.

    So far, the Establishment says that they can do the following, none of which indicate direct isolation of the virus:
    1. Test for antibodies — and we know the presence of antibodies does not equal viremia
    2. Test for 3% of the “HIV genome” (PCR) by examining gag sequences
    3. Test for core (p24) and surface (gp120) proteins, which are not equivalent to isolating the entire virion
    4. Hit and miss studies trying to grow HIV in culture

    I think it’s perfectly understandable why any thinking patient would want more than that as proof that their body was being ravaged by a microbe. And slowly ravaged too.

    You mention other pathogens, Chris. I’ve had tests for other pathogens in which these pathogens were grown successfully in culture, or which involved isolation of the antigen. Why can’t we do this yet with HIV? Rather than put up papers that actually contradict your point, why not just hypothesize productive if you can on why isolation is such a struggle here? That would be helpful and interesting.

  296. nohivmeds Says:

    In other words, can we not at least agree that isolation of HIV has been difficult (if not impossible), and move on from there to a discussion of why that might be the case? I’m willing to entertain good reasons for this problem — I’m just not willing to entertain detection of surrogate markers as an adequate answer.

  297. nohivmeds Says:

    No disrespect to your question about the antibody test, TS, but I think other questions precede:

    1. Has HIV really been adequately isolated?
    Perth and deHarven say “No.” Duesberg says “Yes.” Clearly, there is disagreement on the issue which should be resolved. On this quesiton, Duesberg and the Establishment are in agreement.

    2. If HIV has been adequately isolated, are we certain it’s a retrovirus?
    Perth says “No,” Duesberg says, “Yes.” Again, more discussion is needed. And again, Duesberg is in agreement with the Establishment.

    3. If HIV is a retrovirus, is it endogenous or sexually transmitted?
    Duesberg seems to indicate it’s endogenous; Perth raises concerns about anal-receptive intercourse and sperm as an antigen in activating a chain of events that result in immunodeficiency that is unrelated to HIV.
    The epidemiological evidence for sexual transmission exists, but is not terribly impressive. Odds ratios for heterosexual transmission make it look very, very difficult to transmit, while Odds ratios for anal-receptive intercourse are quite different — thus, the extant epidemiological evidence is not unequivocal.

    4. If it is not sexually transmitted, what “activates” the endogenous virus?
    I think Duesberg has something to say about this, but has not necessarily been very specific, especially at the cellular level. And since HIV is supposed to decimate cellular immunity, explanation of “HIV pathogenesis,” endogenous or otherwise, should attend to causal events at the cellular level.

    5. And finally, if HIV has been properly isolated and is indeed a retrovirus, regadless of whether it’s endogenous or transmitted, does it cause disease? If it does cause disease, what is that disease, and does that disease process lead to a slow decimation of cellular immunity?

    There is a lot of disagreement embedded in those quesitons. On the Fence, I’m not interested in pretending that Perth’s critique doesn’t exist. I think all of these quesitons need to be adequately addressed. And like I said to CN, I’m willing to entertain hypotheses — which is true of all concerned parties, including those that support Duesberg’s claims, and those that support Perth’s claims, and those that support any viable claim.

  298. Truthseeker Says:

    No disrespect to your question about the antibody test, TS, but I think other questions precede

    Granted. Although your own questions add to the general uncertainty about what we are really dealing with in the superstructure of a fantasy built on a fundamental assumption – that HIV is the cause of AIDS – equivalent to pigs flying over the moon.

    It is as we say your insistence on giving this fooey residual credence that strikes us as dangerous to the cause of resting science on studies, and what they actually say. So we are glad up to a point that you retain your questioning on the scientific extrapolations of the unwarranted premise.

    But it still reminds us of Richard Dawkin’s chapter heading in his new book The God Delusion, “Why It Is Almost Certain There is No God”. Where does that “Almost” come from? Give the God Delusionists an inch of rope and they will take a mile. This should be “Why It Is Certain There is No God”, period. If anyone doubts this, read the God section of Oxford philosopher Simon Blackburn’s “Think”, an excellent little book which despatches the concept on the grounds of fundamental inconsistency (loving vs all powerful, which apologists from Aquinas onwards have twisted themselves into pretzels trying to reconcile) in a few pages.

    Similarly, the chapter heading on HIV should be “Why HIV does Not Cause AIDS”, period. Otherwise, you leave the door open a crack for the AIDS establishment’s denialist (of reason) mice to scurry through.

    It should not be “Why HIV Almost Certainly Does Not Cause AIDS”. Not when there are fifty reasons why it is a crock, and none for it. See barnesworld for Darin Brown’s latest list of 20, which probably needs interpreting for the masses, as we intend to do when we have completed certain political machinations in the same direction.

    Carry on sticking it to Chris, who we confidently expect to cry Uncle if you carry on long enough, but whose final writhings in a lost cause we admire for their Ptolomeic reasoning and an accessibility which is sadly missing in barnes now. Not to mention the spice of the insults with which he strews his protestations, which are purportedly impersonal in the grand tradition of NAR’s rule to pretend to insult the argument and not the man.

  299. Truthseeker Says:

    PS Sorry, got carried away and forgot the point that prompted our reply in the first place. This is that a reason for ignoring the Perth Group’s gnawing at the foundation of the whole HIV∫AIDS structure, which is actually quite impressive ie not unpersuasive in its pointing up the lack of certainty on that level which you seem to agree with too, is that to come out and say “HIV may not exist” is liable at this stage of the game to mark you as a crackpot in the eyes of the world, however good your reasons.

    This is why the Perth Group should be set aside on this point for the moment. Unfortunately they are not wise enough to do it themselves, and thus will probably lose credibility in the Australian court considering the right of appeal of one of the growing number of people imprisoned for sleeping with strangers without informing them of their positive test status, which is very unfortunate, considering that that particular piece of nonsense is easily exploded by referring to mainstream studies, as we all know.

    This is not to say you are not quite right to ask the question, “Is The Virus Really There?”

  300. Dan Says:

    So Dan — the answer is “no.” The virion itself cannot be isolated or detected directly from my blood, which I believe Martel made clear previously.

    Thanks, NHM. I thought as much. I appreciate that you took the time to look at Chris’s link and show that he’s full of hot air.

  301. Dave Says:

    As TS notes above, Darin Brown, a PhD in mathematics, has posed 20 written questions to the AIDS establishment that he asserts, if unanswered, pose serious problems to the prevailing paradigm.

    My favorite is the Schwartz paper — reference 21, where the AIDS brain trust detected a viral load of 100,000, yet the patient was HIV- on ELISA and Western blot:)

    It’d be nice if a qualified PhD in mathematics were to formulate a response to Dr. Brown’s challenge.

  302. nohivmeds Says:

    My favorite is the Schwartz paper — reference 21, where the AIDS brain trust detected a viral load of 100,000, yet the patient was HIV- on ELISA and Western blot:)

    One could explain this by saying that using surrogate markers of different types as diagnositc is likely to result in this type of problem — when one surrogate marker fails to replicate the results of another surrogate marker. The Swartz paper seems, at least to me, to lead us back to the isolation question.

  303. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    And one might add FWIW, the same Darin Brown, also made this brilliantly profound scientifc statement on the Oprah/Magic Johnson discussion forum:

    “Some of you folks ain’t getting it
    Posted by: shaft459 (Darin Brown)
    Posted on: 10/26/2006 at 3:35pm (86 of 214)

    HIV+ don’t mean a damn thing. It don’t mean you are sick, it don’t mean you are gonna get sick.

    The question is, Are you sick or not?”

  304. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    And it might be pointed out that the leprosy Mycobacterium leprae bacillus has never been grown in the laboratory. They can’t find it, therefore, leprosy is caused by bad water and poppers. And 95% of the people exposed to the bacterium don’t get leprosy. It must not exist, ermh, well at least mathematically.

  305. nohivmeds Says:

    I don’t think you need to resort to all that YSG to explain Schwartz. Each of those tests has estimated false positive and false negative rates. Therefore, there is a mathematical probability, that probably isn’t as small as we might think, that such tests would produce results in disagreement with one antohter.

    I haven’t reviewed all of Darin’s 20, but that one is not impressive in debunking HIV=AIDS from here on the Fence.

    As far as leprosy goes, YSG, can’t find “it” (the bacterium in culture) but you sure can see “it,” (the ravages of the disease), so it’s not a good analogy here.

  306. Dave Says:

    Yossarian,

    1. You’re a liar. I doubt Darin Brown made that statement. Provide some evidence that he did.

    2. Your argument by analogy (via leprosy) is silly, juvenile and irrelevant on numerous levels.

    3. As usual, you cannot answer Dr. Brown’s well-cited questions and seek merely to distract with wierd ad hominem.

  307. nohivmeds Says:

    Oh Dave,
    Chill out! So YSG didn’t answer Darin’s question. I did, and I did it mathematically too. YSG — you chill out too. Even Darin is allowed to get frustrated and say less than admirable things. Don’t you want to be cut the same slack when you’re frustrated? I’ve needed that slack in the past (that’s an understatement!). Don’t add to the level of crap throwing, Dave, it doesn’t become you.

  308. nohivmeds Says:

    And YSG,
    Don’t go hunting down the link to Darin’s post on Oprah, as Dave has challenged you to do (Dave, that was juvenile, don’t you think)? Can’t the two of you see that this kind of dialog just disintegrates into name-calling and utter uselessness?

    Now I know I’m not usually known as a voice of sanity, but times have changed. The Schwarts study does nothing really to debunk the estblishment (with all due respect to Darin). Let’s move on without any more sh@t slinging.

  309. Dave Says:

    NHM,

    Oh, I’m chill:)

    To be clear, I cited Brown’s very good questions. There was no ad hominem whatsoever.

    Then, Yossarian, comes in with some wierd smear against Brown, making up sh&t about some Oprah quote.

    I merely called him on it.

    The Schwartz paper, I noted, was my favorite paper, but only 1 of several papers cited by Brown, not the end-all and be-all of the HIV=AIDS argument. It just showed a small portion of surrogate marker fallacy.

    So, to rewind:

    1. Doc Brown has asked 20 great questions.

    2. It would be good if someone from AIDS Inc. read and addressed these questions.

    Perhaps, they will be refuted, perhaps not — but it would be a good dialogue

    Yossarian, like many AIDS Inc lapdogs, often seeks to distract and derail, not to address important aspects of this medical/scientific tragedy that has hurt real people.

  310. nohivmeds Says:

    Well, Dave, “the surrogate marker fallacy,” really doesn’t go to the point of Darin’s list, does it? I, for one, cannot believe that Darin put it on the list, when I’m sure he could calculate in seconds the probability of Schwartz’s result.

    The fact that three surrogate markers of something, each with significant error rates, failed to agree — proves nothing. It’s a completely logical result. It might not be a common event, but on its face alone, it is an entirely expectable result. That question has now been refuted, and you didn’t need help from AIDS, Inc., just probability theory.

    YSG is an excellent person how is one of those people, like yourself, who cares about the people who have been affected by this pathology in science. He is not a lapdog. So he and you have gone a few rounds and thrown a few puches. You and I have as well. Am I a lapdog for the Establishment? Hardly.

    What’s terribly frustrating about all of this is that people take personal offense, and none of us should. None of us would be here if we didn’t care. We have all gotten frustrated and attacked others. None of that behavior was necessary. I apologize for all my misdeeds. I believe we can discuss this stuff without attacking each other and taking things personally. At least, that’s how we’re doing things on the Fence.

    And the Fence is not about indecision — I’ve made many decisions. I look at a piece of evidence offered to me from one side or another, I evaluate it, and then I decide if I can accept it, reject it, or leave it for later. I can reject the contention that Schwartz does anything to debunk AIDS, Inc. I have a ton of respect for Darin, but this wasn’t a good choice for his list.

  311. MacDonald Says:

    NHM,

    Welcome back to a real discussion of the real issues with your list of the 5 points. If we could be relieved of the last remnants of silly references to those more than silly slogans (mantras) you’ve created, it would be even better.

    And perhaps it would also give you pause to think that for once your criticism of TS has been substantiated – by himself. Our Nestor of scientific objectivity is self-admittedly disregarding certain scientifically well founded views for strategic and political reasons.

    YSG,

    Whether or not TS is right that the Great Spirit is really affected by snotty litttle Oxford philosophers’ cheap demonstrations of fundamental logical inconsistencies in the language we use to carve up His/Her attributes (Here’s my childhood’s playground refutation of God’s existence: If God is omnipotent, he should be able to make an object he himself can’t lift, but if he can’t lift it, he ain’t omnipotent NANANANA…!!), it’d be nice if you, YSG, could practice some of that divine love and forgiveness towards Hank Barnes, Dr. Brown and Dr. Bialy and just get over it instead of pestering us with your mostly ill-conceived attacks on them at any given opportunity.

    At the risk of being politically incorrect, if a microbe hasn’t been isolated, a key scientific piece of the evidence for that microbe being the specific disease agent in a specific disease is missing. That scientific ground rule includes Mycobacterium leprae bacillus , even if people get sick with something we call ‘leprosy’. What’s your problem with that?

    Apart from that, I’d like a reference for your interesting claim.

  312. nohivmeds Says:

    MacDonald,
    Sorry about the mantras, but as you brilliantly pointed out in your post — there is a lot of politics going on here, not just science, and sometimes one has to campaign a little, if you will. I’ll try to reduce references to my slogans.

    It actually doesn’t give me pause that TS admitted to political motives in ignoring Perth. Why would it? I was battering him with a well-organized list of questions that began with the isolation issue. If he was going to ignore that issue, he’d have to say why. And he did. To his credit.

    I think MacDonald draws all our attention to the politics involved here. Politicians can take the high road or the low road. We all want to discuss the scientific quandaries, and we all have different investments. We can have productive discussions without decimating each other’s views. How lucky for AIDS, Inc. that there is so much vicious in-fighting among the Rethinkers?

  313. MacDonald Says:

    For those who don’t visit, Dr. Brown’s home on You Bet Your Life , I should perhaps say that the paper whose interpretation by Dr. Brown NHM refuted via the intricate mathematical operations that can be viewed a few posts above, was merely one out of four representative papers cited, all going to the same point.

  314. nohivmeds Says:

    Mac,
    What does that imply then? I’m being lazy by not going over the YBYL and looking at the four that you mention. Do they all deal with the lack of reliability among surrogate markers? Or, do they all point out inconsistencies between surrogate markers? Do my “intricate mathematical operations” (thanks, but I don’t think they were that complex), therefore refute Darin’s interpretation of all four papers? Meaning, does each paper rely on probability theory?

    I will review Darin’s list. But could you, in the meantime, spell out the implicaitons of your post? They’re not clear, and we probably don’t all need to bounce back and forth between here and YBYL.

    Thanks.

  315. Dave Says:

    NHM,

    You are straying all over the map.

    Here’s my original post — noting Brown’s 20 great questions:

    As TS notes above, Darin Brown, a PhD in mathematics, has posed 20 written questions to the AIDS establishment that he asserts, if unanswered, pose serious problems to the prevailing paradigm.

    I then added a completely unecessary spice — my subjectively favorite little paper by Schwarz – smiley doo-dad thing included

    My favorite is the Schwartz paper — reference 21, where the AIDS brain trust detected a viral load of 100,000, yet the patient was HIV- on ELISA and Western blot:)

    I then asked whether a counterpart to Brown would care to address the entire 20 questions

    It’d be nice if a qualified PhD in mathematics were to formulate a response to Dr. Brown’s challenge .

    That’s it. Nothing more. No politics, no ad hominem, no nothing.

    So, your focus on Schwartz — rather than the entire Brown argument is misplaced. If you want to address Brown’s entire argument or even parts, that’s great — it’s a free country. Focusing on my little favorite paper, and claiming that it undermines Brown’s thorough argument, though, is simply wrong. Obviously, the main paper regarding the bogus nature of “viral loads” is Piatek.

    Yossarians’s snotty little lie about Brown is typical of the AIDS establishment. That’s how they tend to react, that’s how Yossarian tends to react.

    Not a biggie.

  316. Truthseeker Says:

    Come on folks, standards are slipping here. Has Chris Noble got you rattled, or what?

    You’re a liar. (Dave to YGB)

    This precipitate insult and challenge is absurd, since it is quite wrong. Just refer to our post on Oprah, where at the bottom is a record of the Comments made, and you can search that very easily and find this post at #86:

    Some of you folks ain’t getting it

    Posted by: shaft459

    Posted on: 10/26/2006 at 3:35pm (86 of 330)

    HIV+ don’t mean a damn thing. It don’t mean you are sick, it don’t mean you are gonna get sick.

    The question is, Are you sick or not?

    Magic is not sick. That’s because he doesn’t take any of the toxic, dangerous, poison pimped by the pharmaceutical companies. He was NEVER sick.

    On the other hand, Arthur Ashe died, because he got scared, listened to his doctors, and took too much of that AZT.

    If you stay away from the so-called “drugs” you will be fine.

    Why would you lower the standards of this Comment column to this evidence that you made no effort at all to check your facts before calling YGB a “liar”, which is a strong statement? Perhaps because you like us cannot be bothered to check every last damn thing we are sure about, is that it? Or is it simply that others don’t trouble to read a post carefully, so why should you? Latest example is this from McDonald:

    And perhaps it would also give you pause to think that for once your criticism of TS has been substantiated – by himself. Our Nestor of scientific objectivity is self-admittedly disregarding certain scientifically well founded views for strategic and political reasons. – MacD.

    We never said that. We suggest McD you please return to the Comment and read it properly, before making misleading interpretations of what is said on this board, and marring the pristine purity of the exceptionally high standards maintained by other distinguished posters in what is meant to be a serious exchange, not an opportunity for you to babble. We just said we were too busy on political machinations to post on a certain topic immediately.

    Whether or not TS is right that the Great Spirit is really affected by snotty litttle Oxford philosophers’ cheap demonstrations of fundamental logical inconsistencies in the language we use to carve up His/Her attributes (Here’s my childhood’s playground refutation of God’s existence: If God is omnipotent, he should be able to make an object he himself can’t lift, but if he can’t lift it, he ain’t omnipotent NANANANA…!!) McD.

    And McD really if you are not capable of dealing with a big topic on a rational basis instead of post-adolescent babytalk of the worst kind, fit only for the self indulgent parade of empty headedness that makes up the ordinary kind of comment board, then leave it behind in your childhood playground, especially if that is somewhere that makes you view an Oxford philosopher as snotty without even reading his book, which he will indeed be if you make such silly statements in his hearing.

    Maybe you would like to write for Harpers, which has an equally silly essay on Dawkins’s book this month diverting the topic to the cultural and political failures of scientists instead of answering Dawkins’ essential point, which is that God should be assassinated and atheists should come out of the closet and get rid of the religious impulse towards superstition instead of science before we all get taken over by Mohammed.

    Ok he didnt say that exactly but pretty much, we believe. We have to read all the book before we can be trusted on the topic, like you.

  317. nohivmeds Says:

    I’ve reviewed all four papers cited by Darin. First off — Dave, try providing context. Darin’s question has to do with the poor specificity and sensitivity of the surrogate marker tests. I’ve stated exactly the same thing earlier in this post, so he and I are in agreement on the basic question.

    What I’ve added essentially aids Darin. The diagnostics used in HIV/AIDS detect only surrogate markers (Point #1), and do so with poor sensitivity and specificity (Darin’s point). This would then imply, by logic alone, no need for math, that messy results like those presented by Schwart et al., are likely to pop up.

    That such results pop up has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not HIV causes AIDS, of course. But I certainly wouldn’t disagree with Darin that this means that the tests we use to test for “HIV” are poor and prone to error.

    Of course, I could also point out the fact that two different home pregnancy tests can yield conflicting results. So again, I guess I’m not sure what attacking poorly made tests that test only for surrogate markers really gets us? I mean, it’s a gimme, isn’t it?

  318. nohivmeds Says:

    (As an aside — it is a mathematical “gimme” in general. Diagnostic tests aren’t perfect. All have different levels of specificity and sensitivity. Arguing from the point of probability alone, results like those obtained by Schwartz are possible for any diagnostic test — good tests and bad tests. Here, bad tests — of surrogate markers, no less).

  319. nohivmeds Says:

    To buttress MacD’s astute observations about politics, Darin’s quesiton on the sensitivity and specificity of these tests is really a political question, not a scientific one. From a scientific perspective, all tests have error rates. Darin’s point, I imagine, is that the Establishment insists these tests are perfect, and in fact, they have poor sensitivity and specificity — but that is a political point.

    The scientific point, that Darin does not raise, and is really more critically important as to whether or not HIV causes AIDS, is if these “surrogate marker tests” actually detect the presence of a virus. That’s the scientific issue, not the sensitivity and specificity of these tests.

    MacDonald is so very right. We should be examining each question we take up and ask ourselves if it is really a scientific quesiton of interest, or a politically-motivated question.

  320. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    At the risk of being politically incorrect, if a microbe hasn’t been isolated, a key scientific piece of the evidence for that microbe being the specific disease agent in a specific disease is missing. That scientific ground rule includes Mycobacterium leprae bacillus, even if people get sick with something we call ‘leprosy’. What’s your problem with that?

    The dissenters argue HIV fails Koch’s rules. Mycobacterium leprae does as well, yet no one disputes the causal factor in leprosy. Secondly, Mycobacterium leprae is intracelluar as is HIV. Its very difficult to contract leprosy. The math says 95 % of those in endemic leprosy areas do not get leprosy when exposed to the bacteria. That involves millions of people. In the USA, less than 100 new cases per year in a population of 300 million. Yet, padian attackers argue only 175 couples are needed to rule out HIV transmission in heterosexual couples and apparently no homosexual pairings essential at all. NHM tells us my analogy doesn’t apply. That is avoidist at best.

    TS,

    Darin Brown tells us he is Shaft459 in comment 265 on the Oprah/Magic forum

    my real identity
    In Response to: RIGHT ON SHAFT, TELL IT LIKE IT IS
    Posted by: shaft459
    Posted on: 10/28/2006 at 6:54am (265 of 338)

    In the interests of public disclosure, I am only “shaft” to the extent that I was unable to exert sufficient control over my handle upon posting to Oprah.com. I am, in fact,

    Darin Brown co-creator of AIDS wiki

    do a google search on “AIDS wiki”

    Do you need any more evidence, Dave ?

  321. nohivmeds Says:

    Okay, YSG. Why not read the posts preceding yours. You’ll note that TS has already vindicated you. Sloppy.

    Besides the commonalities you cite between leprosy and “AIDS” there is one very important difference that does render the analogy inadequate: It is clear from visual observation when someone has leprosy — it is visually clear that there is a disease process occurring. The same is not true of “AIDS.” This is why I objected to the analogy.

    Dan and I have made our peace, and it’s way cool. Dave and YSG, you two should do the same. The constant vicious volley only drags us all down.

  322. MacDonald Says:

    TS,

    The strategic/political reasons I was referring to are these:

    to come out and say “HIV may not exist” is liable at this stage of the game to mark you as a crackpot in the eyes of the world, however good your reasons.

    This is why the Perth Group should be set aside on this point for the moment. Unfortunately they are not wise enough to do it themselves, and thus will probably lose credibility in the Australian court (TS)

    How would you characterize the reasons you give for setting aside the Perth Group on this point? As scientific?

    I have read your resume of the snotty little Oxford philosopher’s argument against the existence of God + a few others given in reviews of the book. They are all, I assure you, of the bread and butter variety; and they are mostly, I assure you, trading in the same kinds of logical/semantic party tricks as my playground argument – including the “NANANANA” part – and I will, I assure you, wipe the floor with him in his hearing, if he should take me up on my ‘silly statements’, for the simple reason that the brand of analytic philosophy he obviously practices does not equip him to deal with this issue.

    It has always been a book seller to take aim at that easiest of all targets, the existence of God. That’s why just about every other popular book in the introductory philosphy and speculative physics for the layman genres makes sure to devote a central chapter to it, or better yet, put ‘god’ in the title.

    Any such ‘philosopher’ who merely serves old hat has not earned my respect. Instead I refer anybody interested in truly profound critique of religion to go to people like Kant, Feuerbach, Marx and the greatest of them all, Nietzsche, by whom you’ll also learn that ‘science’ is no less a superstition than other religions.

    Other than that, I agree with your sentiment that God should be assasinated (in fact He has been several times one notable occasion being 2000 years ago. But that’s another story)

    NHM,

    I was not having a go at you about reading YBYL, simply saying, what Dave also mentioned, that we’re not doing Dr. Brown justice by pretending that his whole argument hinges on one paper detailing one case story.

    I’d like to add to what’s been said here about tests and surrogate markers, that one of Dr. Brown’s points was that PCR is being sold as “the test that looks for the virus itself” How can you not think it damning that it is in fact a surrogate marker test.

    In a pregnancy test you can have a false positive, but a pregnancy test you ain’t looking for “the baby itself” either – not even its pinkie.

    YGB,

    The question is whether Mycobacterium leprae has been satisfactorily isolated and described or not. If it hasn’t there will be scientists disputing the evidence, But for obvious POLITICAL reasons, it’s not as big a deal as HIV/AIDS

  323. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    The question is whether Mycobacterium leprae has been satisfactorily isolated and described or not. If it hasn’t there will be scientists disputing the evidence, But for obvious POLITICAL reasons, it’s not as big a deal as HIV/AIDS .

    Well, except if one actually HAS leprosy for non-political reasons of course and doesn’t have HIV/AIDS.

    So I know this isn’t important because the math says only 100 or less in a population of 300 million USA residents actually get leprosy.

    However, NHM has dismissed the analogy once again with thin retort.

    He says:

    “It is clear from visual observation when someone has leprosy — it is visually clear that there is a disease process occurring.” YGB isn’t sure that is quite accurate.

    Well, as least it didn’t seem to be when YGB spent a full day in a leprosaria in a far east country and some patients did not obviously have a disease. That was after listening to a 4 hour lecture in japanese by the sensei in charge. The slides did the trick for YGB.

    Secondly, the bacterium, Mycobacterium leprae, does not cause the disease and the early treatment with antibiotics failed to cure the disease, because it was found that leprosy is the result of an infectious process caused by a DNA plasmid (transposon, or “ultravirus”, a small circle of DNA) carried in the bacillus.

    So there just mighten be some parallels with hiv/aids especially if one is using one’s adding machine with the number thingies. But remember, it only takes 175 couples to rule out HIV seropositivity contagion but 100 cases of leprosy in 300 million USA residents will easily slide right off your slide ruler.

    I think I forgot to tell you:

    “Leprosy, also known as Hansen’s disease, is an infectious disease c aused by a DNA plasmid (transposon, or “ultravirus”, a small circle of DNA) carried in Hansen’s bacillus (the Mycobacterium leprae bacterium) which is thus the vector.”

    NJM, Shame on you re: sloppy. TS did not include links nor mention Shaft459’s overt declaration of his real identity, clearly the evidence our friend Dave will so cherish.

  324. nohivmeds Says:

    So YGB, if I’m understanding correctly, the ultravirus could not operate if it were not incorporated by the bacterium — a symbiotic relationship? Or parasitic? Does the ultravirus harm the bacteria? How is this model, where such an ultravirus operates via its incorporation into a bacteria, similar to HIV theory? Further enlightenment please. Forgive my lack of knowledge regarding the microbiology.

    To MacD, you wrote about PCR:

    Dr. Brown’s points was that PCR is being sold as “the test that looks for the virus itself” How can you not think it damning that it is in fact a surrogate marker test.

    In fact I’ve discussed this with Dr. Brown — that I was indeed told that viral load measured the actual amount of virions in my blood. What exactly, however, is that damning of, besides the fact that my doctor lied? Does it topple the entire Establishment? Hardly. I was misled. Many people are misled daily about viral load. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not HIV causes “AIDS,” and everything to do with your favorite topic today — politics. My point, which I’ll reiterate, is that bitching and moaning about the lack of real specificity and sensitivity in these tests does not go to the real issue at all, which is causation, which is something that no diagnostic test (as you pointed out with pregnancy) has anything to say about.

  325. nohivmeds Says:

    This might interest the crowd. Darin, Rebecca and I began work on an article demystifying viral load, but I terminated that work for several reasons — timing being the most important — I wanted time away from all of this. I learned a lot through working with the two of them though — I learned that Dr. Mullis is brilliant, that PCR is very complex, both from a mathematical perspective and from a microbiological perspective. It was very difficult for me to first, understand each of the small sub-processes involved in PCR (like the “climbing up” while creating the second strand), but even harder for me to come up with metaphors for these processes that could be understood by a lay gay audience, which we were targeting. This is the nasty politics of AIDS, Inc, that they lie about these things. But in some ways, I get it — because it really is, if you don’t have the appropriate background, really hard to understand why viral load is a bastard surrogate marker, like the rest. And by the way, it is “Dr.” NHM, but not in microbiology or mathematics. Perhaps we should revisit the possibility of that article, but I’m still unsure that the process could be adequately explained in lay terms.

  326. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    “… I’m still unsure that the process could be adequately explained in lay terms.”

    That’s the problem, NHM. And it is self-imposed, mind ye. Genuflection advised.

    That’s Bialy’s jump off point, we’re all just a bunch of dumb, moron smucks no matter our education/experience.

    We’re simply incapable of opening door number three much less dialoguing with Dave, the lawyer or any poz.

    Only the cloistered few are expert even enough to understand.

    We’re just too feckin dumb to ken it all, as in

    “this thread is closed to comments”. And besides we simply don’t have the background.

    Or perhaps, a challenge for the real scientists:

    Explain to the readership, why the CDC should remove HIV from the list of blood-borne pathogens and why it is unnecessary to consider HIV a threat in any clinical setting or even any blood donation center ?

    That’s fair, izerntit ?

  327. Darin Brown2 Says:

    I WAS ACCUSED OF WRITING:

    Some of you folks ain’t getting it
    Posted by: shaft459 (Darin Brown)
    Posted on: 10/26/2006 at 3:35pm (86 of 214)

    HIV+ don’t mean a damn thing. It don’t mean you are sick, it don’t mean you are gonna get sick.

    The question is, Are you sick or not?”

    ETC, ETC.

    THAT WAS NOT ME.

    IT IS TRUE I POSTED AS “SHAFT” BECAUSE I COULD NOT GET A LOGIN FOR A MOMENT AT OPRAH’S WEBSITE, HOWEVER…

    NOT ALL POSTS BY “SHAFT” ARE MINE. I SOMEHOW SEEMED TO HAVE “HIJACAKED” SOMEONE ELSE’S LOGIN FOR A WHILE. (WHOEVER “SHAFT” WAS)

    CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IT OR NOT. I REALLY DON’T CARE. THE WHOLE ISSUE IS A DISTRACTION AND A JOKE.

    WHAT IS WITH YOU PEOPLE??

    darin

  328. Darin Brown2 Says:

    “We’re just too feckin dumb to ken it all, as in

    ‘this thread is closed to comments'”

    Now you know how dissidents have felt in the major journals for 20+ years.

    darin

  329. Darin Brown2 Says:

    “Dr. Brown’s points was that PCR is being sold as ‘the test that looks for the virus itself’ How can you not think it damning that it is in fact a surrogate marker test”

    And that is precisely the problem. If you had read my 20 questions, you would realise that I make the point that it is nonsensical that a test which measures “amount of virus” should not be considered able to detect presence of virus itself.

    Any QUANTITATIVE assay is (should be) IPSO FACTO, a diagnostic assay.

    If you’re saying “I count X number of such-and-such” you are IPSO FACTO saying that X is present.

    darin

  330. Dave Says:

    TS wrote:

    Why would you lower the standards of this Comment column to this evidence that you made no effort at all to check your facts before calling YGB a “liar”, which is a strong statement?

    YSG wrote:

    Do you need any more evidence, Dave?

    You guys are both wrong, as Darin notes above. I did check my facts before-hand.

    YSB took a later comment by “Shaft” that Darin purporedly wrote (Darin confirmed he did) and tried to extrapolate back in time to an earlier, more provocative comment by “Shaft,” written by someone else. (Darin confirmed he did not.)

    I know Darin’s temperment and writing style and could tell that the first comment was not his — contrary to YSB’s assertion.

    Bottom line: YSB should not have accused Darin of making a silly statement somewhere in cyberspace, without contacting Darin first to confirm it.

    Typical low-ranking goon move.

  331. Truthseeker Says:

    How would you characterize the reasons you give for setting aside the Perth Group on this point? As scientific? – MacD

    As far as our comment on the Perth Group’s advancing the argument in court that HIV doesn’t exist is concerned, we meant only that it is a serious red herring that will prejudice the judge against them. Anyone who wants someone unfamiliar with the issue of cause in AIDS to listen to them will not find very much success if they mention up front they think HIV does not exist at all.

    However, yes, we would agree it is true on a general political level, too. The Perth Group will find it harder to get on Larry King than Duesberg for that reason, we predict, if Larry King’s producer ever develops any interest, which seems rather unlikely any time soon. Not sure if that compromises one’s scientific argument, though. Any time anyone here wants to discuss the possible non existence of HIV, feel free.

    Is this whole thing based on retroviral bits and pieces which do not ever form a retrovirus? Seems unlikely given the reasons to suppose otherwise, but we are not experts in the issue. Perhaps NHM would like to give his informed opinion, but the Perth Group seem to have a pretty good record in general of uncovering truths in HIV∫AIDS, so he is probably on the fence with that one too.

    Our position is that Duesberg is expert and honest and thus if he is decided about the answer then we would have to choose his position over the Perth Group, but we would have to study it more thoroughly before our own opinion can be worth anything.

    The political issue which permeates everything is that censorship of the review in HIV∫AIDS has been so strict and successful that anyone who makes their mind up that HIV is not the answer after all is going to sound like a crackpot in most situations if they speak up anyway, but doubly so if they claim the virus does not exist. To overturn a paradigm you need an audience, and this loses it rapidly.

    Any such ‘philosopher’ who merely serves old hat has not earned my respect. Instead I refer anybody interested in truly profound critique of religion to go to people like Kant, Feuerbach, Marx and the greatest of them all, Nietzsche, by whom you’ll also learn that ‘science’ is no less a superstition than other religions.

    I have read your resume of the (xxx snotty little xxx) Oxford philosopher’s argument against the existence of God + a few others given in reviews of the book. They are all, I assure you, of the bread and butter variety; and they are mostly, I assure you, trading in the same kinds of logical/semantic party tricks as my playground argument – including the “NANANANA” part – and I will, I assure you, wipe the floor with him in his hearing, if he should take me up on my ‘silly statements’, for the simple reason that the brand of analytic philosophy he obviously practices does not equip him to deal with this issue.

    Thank you for your assurance, McD. We are very impressed. No one is going to get past you with ‘party tricks’, that’s for sure. We agree wholeheartedly that Dawkins’ argument against the existence of God (that His complexity can only come with long evolution, and here He is at the beginning of time, oh dear) is dimwitted, if the Harper’s piece is correct, but we doubt if that is really the big argument Dawkins peddles. Wipe the floor with Dawkins’ eh? Hot stuff. We await your guidance in this matter, based on your profound reading of Kant, Feuerbach, Marx and Nietsche, the latter whose irony we doubt you will appreciate to the full, given your tendency to strut and posture, rather than make a relevant point.

    It has always been a book seller to take aim at that easiest of all targets, the existence of God. That’s why just about every other popular book in the introductory philosphy and speculative physics for the layman genres makes sure to devote a central chapter to it, or better yet, put ‘god’ in the title.

    Really? So books debunking God are best sellers? Maybe Sam Harris and now Dawkins and Dennett have drawn wide notice this time around, but are they best sellers? Perhaps the Wired piece on them has given them a boost. Meanwhile, this is very encouraging. A post exploding God will attract readers, it seems, in this God fearing country, when we thought it would lose most of them. Good. We will dream one up.

    Other than that, I agree with your sentiment that God should be assasinated (in fact He has been several times one notable occasion being 2000 years ago. But that’s another story)

    Just to cut to the chase, MacD, are you a believer in some sort of supernatural God, and if so what kind? Benevolent towards the human race, and all-powerful? Or are you an infidel? You seem to be saying that Dawkins is a jerk with only weak arguments against the existence of God, since he has the wrong philosophical armory, but you have the right one, but we are not sure – will you wipe the floor with him with better arguments for the existence of the Supreme Being, or against? We suppose against, since Marx said that religon was the opiate of the masses, as we recall.

    If so, what are your best profound/bread and butter arguments for or against? Are they scientific? If for, how do you explain the mother nearby losing one of her four little tykes under the wheel of a passing cab? Or is that a good bread and butter argument against?

    Maybe if they are against, we can borrow some for use against the HIV delusion, which is supported among its congregation by the religious impulse, it is clear, given the bone headed immunity of its common supporters to rational analysis.

  332. nohivmeds Says:

    Can’t we have our cake and eat it too for now? Meaning, can’t we entertain both Duesberg and Perth, even though they conflict? I understand that they have trouble entertaining one another, but, again, this is one of the reasons to have a Fence.

    I said this to Celia Farber at one point: There would be no dissident movement if it were not for Peter Duesberg. Because of that, even if I find I disagree with aspects of Dr. Duesberg’s worth, I owe an enormous debt to him. Without him taking a stand as he has, there would have been no place for Perth to emerge from. This is not to say that Perth is simply derivative of Duesberg — I don’t think that’s true at all. It’s just to say that there would have been no trained ear to hear Perth, had Dr. Duesberg not maintained his stance and gathered together so much good evidence criticizing the Establishement’s position.

    As far as Larry King goes — I think Perth has a better chance of getting on, hypothetically. Especially now with the Court case. But in truth, we aren’t going to see either of them on there anytime soon.

    There are two central reasons I don’t want to discard Perth. First is the isolation issue. Dr. Duesberg is satisfied that HIV has been properly isolated, but Perth and deHarven are not. Now, I am not knowledgeable enough to be able to say which of these brilliant people are correct. All I can say is that every measure of HIV available is a measure of surrogate markers, and that does disturb me. I’m also intrigued by Perth’s ideas concerning oxidative stress –which I think everyone should know about, not just people diagnosed with HIV. Perth has come up with a “causal mechanism” at the cellular level to explain immune depletion. Duesberg has not.

    So I want both of them with me on the Fence. I don’t want to decide, and really am not qualified to decide between their conflicting contentions. Both help and inform me greatly.

    And at the risk of being very politically-incorrect — if you’ll recall my list of 5 questions, Duesberg is in agreement with the Establishment on the first two questions: Does HIV exist and Is it a retrovirus? Because of this, I’m not read to jettison the entire Establishment either.

    TS once asked if one could live with such cognitive dissonance, and for those familiar with the idea, the answer is of course, yes, people do it all the time. People have different thresholds for living with uncertainty. Apparently, mine is quite high.

    Finally — all the back and forth on what Darin did (or clearly, as he’s written, did not say) on Oprah/Magic Johnson was a huge distraction that was caused by what appears to be a never-ending battle between YSG on the one hand and Dave and Dr. Harvey on the other. It has to end. Both sides have done things to the other they should apologize for. I’ve had personal (either emai or phone contact) with all three people, and I find all of them to be smart, compassionate men. Bury the hatchet, guys. Enough is enough.

  333. Otis Says:

    Whilst I can well appreciate Dr. Brown’s pique at the always supercilious McKiernen, I must point out that contrary to the inference, YBYL does NOT behave like Nature and Science, and although thoughtless, malicious and otherwise distracting comments are banned from the 20 Questions post, all others are NOT as anyone with an IQ more than 93 can know from reading what is written.

  334. Otis Says:

    Let me make it abundantly clear as they say. Here is what is written near the beginning of link above:

    “Some of these questions have been asked in the literature since 1987, others are more recent. None has yet received a proper answer, although two web documents, from the NIH and Nature (each of which has been completely refuted, see here and here), purport to address some of them. Because of this, I added to each question what I hope is sufficient explanation to dissuade the pods of AIDS Inc. from their favorite internet ploy when similar challenges have been presented on other weblogs — namely to quickly cobble a bunch of “refs” and “quotes” from these pieces of scientific dreck, add an adolescent comment, and pretend that the matter has been dealt with rigorously enough to satisfy a not-too-bright undergraduate, not to mention a qualified scientist. I have also asked Otis to close the comments.”

  335. Otis Says:

    And it continues:

    “However, as has been done in the past when a representative of the establishment presents one of their typical rebuttals, YBYL offers the opportunity for anyone to prepare a full response to any or all of the points above, and send it to me for reply, after which it will be published in full.”

  336. Truthseeker Says:

    There are two central reasons I don’t want to discard Perth. First is the isolation issue. Dr. Duesberg is satisfied that HIV has been properly isolated, but Perth and deHarven are not. Now, I am not knowledgeable enough to be able to say which of these brilliant people are correct. All I can say is that every measure of HIV available is a measure of surrogate markers, and that does disturb me. I’m also intrigued by Perth’s ideas concerning oxidative stress –which I think everyone should know about, not just people diagnosed with HIV. Perth has come up with a “causal mechanism” at the cellular level to explain immune depletion. Duesberg has not.

    Excellent summary. We did not mean to say that anything else other than the HIV existence issue written by Perth should be ignored. Far from it. As you indicate, the oxidative stress mechanism is the one that makes sense and they came up with it before Gallo flew his wingless paradigm in 1984, so they deserve the Nobel for solving HIV∫AIDS, it would appear.

    As for ignoring the existence issue, we don’t think it should be ignored except in initial contacts with and reports to persons of authority and influence who can act as rescuers of the situation where science in this field has been crippled by censorship. Debate on the topic has not resolved the issue to the satisfaction of either party. Duesberg is waiting for his $5000 or whatever the Continuum Magazine prize was, and the Perth group has not been persuaded they are wrong, and the average Joe is still waiting for Harvey Bialy to explain it all in terms that the general public can understand, and presumably he is too expert to deign to lower himself to that mundane level, since he hasn’t yet done so, compassionate or not. Perhaps we ought to address the issue in a post, but as we say, this is not the time. The time is when the world learns to listen to the AIDS critics and not Dr Anthony “I am a scientist, really” Fauci, who has censored debate for two decades, so successfully that discussion is being carried on on two levels, public and professional, with two very different messages. One might call this the Oprah-Fauci divide.

    So until Bialy acts to explain all – and New AIDS Review explains Bialy – we have to sit on the fence about HIV’s existence. But do we have to be existentialist fence sitters on the cause issue as well? After all, existentialist means, according to the Random House Dictionary, “a philosophical attitude associated esp. with Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Sartre, and opposed to rationalism and empiricism, that stresses the individual’s unique position as a self-determining agent responsible for the authenticity of his or her choices.” Is this scientific? Clearly not. Let’s keep the existentialist fence sitting urge for the existence debate, we say, and be decisive about the HIV cause issue, which has been so thoroughly laid out.

    Of course, we admit that given the current situation politically any such decisiveness means that no mainstream publisher will want to publish you, so we are not suggesting that any author outside blogs should be decisive about HIV not being the cause of AIDS. At the moment that is the kiss of death. So just for the record, even though there is no more reason to suppose that HIV causes AIDS than to expect a donkey to jump over the Empire State building, we are keeping our minds open, just like NHM. After all, a rocket boosted donkey could fly over the Empire State building. Who’s to say that HIV might not cause AIDS with the right co factor, such as drugs or disease? Just because the difference between HIV positive and HIV negative individuals suffering from drugs or disease is imperceptible, who is to say that HIV doesn’t do something , even if we cannot say what or how.

    Move along the fence, NHM, make room.

  337. nohivmeds Says:

    Gladly, TS.

  338. MacDonald Says:

    TS,

    I have absolutely no objections to strategy and a spoonful of sugar to make the Perth medicine go down.

    Of course one has to consider politics when dealing with the general public – but that includes not telling the general public publicly that one is mmm… mildly ignoring certain things to spare the public digestive system any unnecessary constipatory shocks.

    Like a few other people far more competent than McD, I believe Duesberg and Perth are easily reconcilable in more ways than one.

    I was challenging Burns not Dawkins in my last post, but I think I can extend that challenge to our evolutionary biologist friend, who in an interview available online talks about calculating the probabilities of the existence of God – which sells books even if it’s not enough to make a bestseller of every sheet of ass wipe.

    I do not claim that the existence of God is proven by any means, merely that disproving it analytically is an infantile passtime.

    I am no professor, but I have written MA dissertations on both the futility of the ontological argument (for the existence of God) and Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals I think I’m acquainted with the latter’s wit as
    exemplified in,

    If thou goest to woman remember thy whip .

    The distinguished professors, Burns and Dawkins, have to do a lot better than what I’ve seen to not end up in the same rubbish heap as Trrll and Noble when the May Queen has finished Her spring clean… And that answers your next to last question as well.

    Asfor the last, the traditional answer to any perceived evil in the world is ‘free will’. Read Job.

  339. Bialyzebub Says:

    TS, since you insist and so nicely too, I trust this will satisfy your deranged cravings, ’cause it’s all you’re gonna get.

    The real problem with retrovirology is the virology half of the designation. These relics of evolution, that are not even crystalline, and observed as extracellular particles only very rarely in nature and with extreme provocation in the laboratory, do not deserve the taxon Virus. Furthermore, the whole world would be better off by far if Peyton had never stumbled on his sick duck.

    Discuss amongst yourselves and gezay gezunct to todos.

  340. Dave Says:

    TS,

    Why not start a separate thread on this religious/theological stuff? It’s pretty darn interesting.

  341. Truthseeker Says:

    Thank you Beelzebub, for your dismissal of the whole retroviral species. Certainly that simplifies all. But did we understand your opaque posting correctly? If so, we are surprised you are a Perthite.

    Dave we apologize for not posting on the religious isue which we planned to do until life intervened. Will do shortly now that you have boosted our flagging confidence, recently disrupted by inability to interpret MacDonald.

    MacD, it is an honor to entertain your brilliant comments here, but we need help. If disproving God’s existence analytically is infantile, do you mean it is so obvious it is trivial, or that it enjoys a special status where analysis is powerless to make any worthwhile comment?

    But more important, if you know a way to easily reconcile Duesberg and Perth, let’s hear it. The world is waiting.

    We will try and post on religion shortly, since of course it is highly relevant to HIV∫AIDS. And of course, this is the right season to take a stand. But first, World AIDS at 25 Day which threatens to turn into World AIDS Testing day. Can it be stopped?

  342. nohivmeds Says:

    Did deHarven not already make an attempt to reconcile Perth and Duesberg? I recall a document he circulated – something like, “HIV+, HIV-“, I’m afraid I only remember not understanding it. But it did seem like an attempt to unite the two.

  343. MacDonald Says:

    Since Dawkins and Blackburn (not Burns) can serve up less than original arguments, I guess so can I. Is it in “The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” God disappears in a puff of smoke when somebody proves his existence?

    In other words, if (lets stick with the Judaeo-Christian) God would have wanted us to be able to prove his existence logically, his son wouldn’t have said “it is your Faith that saved you”.

    Neither would all of the central mysteries – called ‘mysteries’ for a reason – be logic defying, such as the ‘One who is three’, or god become man, which I’m informed the muslims say is impossible; or indeed the designations ‘Alpha and Omega’, the ‘first and final cause onto itself’, and the ‘circle whose centre is everywhere and circumference nowhere’, which are equally meant to be mysteries.

    It doesn’t score a point on God much less constitute original thought to say His attributes are paradoxical, and don’t obey Aristotelian ‘either or’ logic (see the playground example).

    At most it says something about the nature of language and those through whom language speaks, a richer pasture to philosophy, I venture, than whether an evolutionary biologist thinks children are (genetically?) pre-programmed to believe what adults tell them about their creator.

    I think that also goes specifically to one of Blackburn’s arguments that those who disprove his

    (cut off in mid stream for some reason. If the remainder is desired to be attached, kindly email. – Ed.)

  344. MacDonald Says:

    The last fragmentary marker for a coherent sentence should say, “I think that (the saving power of Faith) also goes specifically to Blackburn’s argument that those who reason God does not exist stand as good a chance of pleasing Him as those who rely on the actual prescription given for achieving eternal life”.

    I would love to strut and posture over how Duesberg and Perth could be reconciled, but it seems a higher authority, as it were, has intervened in such a miracular fashion that your question was answered even before you wrote it. How’s that for proof of the extraordinary existence of the Lord of Flies?

    Peyton Rous’s lame duck, according to same infallible authority, yielded one never to be repeated harvest of isolated microbes in Cold Harbour Spring 1910.

  345. Truthseeker Says:

    It doesn’t score a point on God much less constitute original thought to say His attributes are paradoxical, and don’t obey Aristotelian ‘either or’ logic (see the playground example).

    Specious nonsense. If His attributes are paradoxical, he doesn’t exist as described. The same logic applied to the Virus would mean that it could cause AIDS after all.

    Taking refuge in the argument that nonsense is saved by labelling it a “mystery” is merely abandoning logic, which will allow you to believe what you like.

    The extent to which humans are able to come up with BS to save themselves from reason and empiricism never ceases to amaze those who still have their heads screwed on straight.

    Why if the sole important distinction between man vs animal is the capacity for rational thought is it so quickly abandoned when the topic of God comes up?

    It must be fear of death, judging from the fact that men of science just like others so often get religion as they grow old.

  346. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    Mac,

    The double talk was great. Apparently, you have succeeded in activating the fast twitch musculature in TS’s brain. And a resulting reply by Dave for a discussion to activate TS’s brainiacally slow twitch muscles to further another post on why one can only presume to assert pre-emptive dogma re: hiv/aids vs scientists and theology is more than disconcerting.

    Like consider, the late pontifical/imprimatorial pronouncements of one otis who explainifies in G W Bush terminologragy why anyone ought make a comment at Barnesville. Couldn’t he, otis have just said—comments are open, challenge us—instead of we’re gonna ship it all to the censor first ?

    Now, regarding Dawkins.

    Would he agree with this statement ?

    “Any attempt to prove that which is self-evident is illusory.”

  347. Chris Noble Says:

    You mention other pathogens, Chris. I’ve had tests for other pathogens in which these pathogens were grown successfully in culture, or which involved isolation of the antigen. Why can’t we do this yet with HIV?

    Can you name any other viruses that are diagnosed by a method that you find satisfactory?

    As far as I understand, please correct me if I am wrong, all virus culture methods for the diagnosis of viral infections use immunostaining or equivalent to detect specific viral antigens. All of these rely on the specificity of antibodies to selected viral antigens and are thus ‘surrogate markers’ in your terms.

    There is nothing exceptional about the diagnosis of HIV. All the arguments used to raise doubt about the diagnosis of HIV infection could, and to be self-consistent should, be raised about other viruses.

    I can understand, up to a point, your skepticism and I wish I could help.

  348. Otis Says:

    McK,

    Did your mother drop you on your head when you were a wee little laddie?

    There are no censors at YBYL. Dr. Brown wrote real plainly…if anyone has a serious answer to any of the questions, let them write it to him, and after he replies both parts will be published in full.

    This is hardly censorship goofy ghostbuster. But it does eliminate morons like you and Pharmaditz and the rest mucking up otherwise interesting writing that people with brains of their own can make of what they wish.

  349. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    Otis,

    That’s what I said. You got it. We ain’t sure Shaft459 did though.

    Why do ya’ll have to ship it off to the censor so’s ya’all can have an official imprimatur or errh at least a nihil obstat ?

    Nobody gives a poop about the questions, the lads 25 years late
    don’t ja think ?

    This comment is pending approval by the higher-archy.

    Your pal,

    Yossarian

  350. Chris Noble Says:

    3. If HIV is a retrovirus, is it endogenous or sexually transmitted? Duesberg seems to indicate it’s endogenous;

    Duesberg does not argue that HIV is endogenous. There seems to be a widespread confusion amongst “rethinkers” such as Dave Steele/Hank Barnes.

    The human genome does indeed contain endogenous retroviruses. These have been in the human genome for millions of years and are present in every cell in every human. Endogenous retroviruses are present in the DNBA of germ-line cells.

    HIV DNA is not found in every cell even in HIV+ people. It is not found in germ-line cells. HIV is not an endogenous retrovirus.

    Duesberg argues that HIV is an exogenous retrovirus that is spread primarily by perinatal transmission. Indeed HIV is spread by perinatal transmission although in countries such as the US where programs to prevent MTCT are in place the rate of transmission is close to zero.

    Fro a variety of reasons perinatal transmission is insufficient to account for the prevalence of HIV in the US. The most obvious is the non-random HIV prevalence. Why is the HIV prevalence in homosexual men so high?

  351. MacDonald Says:

    Specious nonsense. If His attributes are paradoxical, he doesn’t exist as described. The same logic applied to the Virus would mean that it could cause AIDS after all.

    Taking refuge in the argument that nonsense is saved by labelling it a “mystery” is merely abandoning logic, which will allow you to believe what you like .

    Ts, not only has your very last sentence (in bold) explained lucidly why God’s existence is not meant to be proved, it also tells the difference between people and (other) animals, theologically speaking.

    As for the rest, you have demonstrated my point, that your and Blackburn’s philosophy is not equipped to deal with all those ‘other’ things between heaven and earth.

    The nonsense is not ‘labelled mystery’in a rationalizing maneouvre or an attempt at taking refuge. It initially grew forth and revealed itself in the mystery form. The nonsense was perpetrated by certain Church Fathers, who would like to make this a rational and logically provable mystery. That nonsense is, as you can see perpetuated by pseudo philosophers even today in their cheap shots at something about which they cannot possibly have anything worthwhile to say.

    IT was I believe Cold Spring Harbor, not Harbor Spring, and ‘miracular’ seems to be my brillant unconscious denialist mind at work in combining ‘miraculous’ and ‘oracular’

    I swear it’s nothing to do with the malt.

  352. Truthseeker Says:

    “Any attempt to prove that which is self-evident is illusory.

    More drivel in the cause of mystery?

    Couldn’t he, Otis have just said—comments are open, challenge us—instead of we’re gonna ship it all to the censor first ?

    The good doc probably took a stand against vacuous gibberish, specious counter references cheaply quoted, and other interferences with PhD level exchanges, as distracting and obscuring of the worthwhile points.

    There is a lot to be said for that with “thousands of PhDs” reading YBYL (according to its author).

    This humble blogger is tempted to censor comments too, given the myriad misleading references quoted liberally on this thread by certain parties given free rein to take potshots at the details of what is obvious at the meta level.

    However, at the moment we feel that since our purpose is to expose the vacuity of the HIV∫AIDS best defenses to a lay audience who need the material chewed over, the expert, seasoned challenges of Chris Noble and (the possibly late lamented) Trrlll serve a useful purpose.

    After all, dissenters need practice in fighting off the agents of corruption. Even Muhammed “Dance like a butterfly, sting like a bee” Ali (whose biography by New Yorker editor David Remnick is extremely intelligent and well written) honed his defensive artistry in practice bouts, and Chris in our view is unmatched for throwing spanners in the works of “denialists” by producing superficially plausible spurious counter arguments against the toughest challenges of the HIV∫AIDS critics, and implying that these minor quibbles somehow destroy the overarching critique.

    It is all good practice for the briefing of editors and publishers who typically have to deal with innumerable objections on the part of their colleagues, which perhaps is the main stumbling block to publication in this area. And in the very unlikely event we or anyone else reading this are ever asked to the stage of Oprah or the table of Charlie Rose we will be primed to answer the spurious objections of the Chris Nobles of the world who will be produced to counter us.

    So if we have let things run on too much here, it was in the nature of a scientific experiment. Certainly the empty nature of Chris’s references has been exposed time and again. He never sent the quoted pictures of HIV (Gelderblom 1986), but we checked the papers concerned offline and found that what purported to be images of HIV were retracted ten years later (Gluschankof et al, 1997) as cellular microvesicles, as the NCI confirmed (Bess et al, 1997). What a crock it was to claim that these were photos of HIV.

    Then double checking what Chris alleged in other directions we established that even Gallo acknowledges p24 is not exclusive to HIV, and that the extraordinary dilution needed for HIV tests confirms that so many other proteins react with HIV antibodies that it only draws attention to the remarkable fact so often overlooked that there really is NO HIV WORTH A DAMN IN HIV POSITIVE PEOPLE and culturing the actual virus is such a troublesome thing that Montagnier and Gallo have never been able to isolate it and that the original specs Duesberg nailed from studies in the early days are correct, and there is only active virus in 1 in 10,000 CD4 cells and dormant virus in 1 in 400 or fewer and the likelihood of transmitting it is as negligible as Padian found it to be ie at or near zero for hetero sex.

    In fact, it is a mystery why they don’t use this fact in the Australian court in their argument for appeal of the HIV+ man for sleeping with women without telling them he was positive, since the prisoner surely could simply say, Who me? Prove I have any HIV in me worth a damn, and they would be unable to do so.

    Then we have the hemophiliacs that Chris says were proven to get AIDS from HIV (Darby et al in Nature) when Duesberg was famously able to scotch that one completely by pointing out that blood supply was cleared of HIV by 1985 and it was after 1987 when they all started to wilt and die and that was the year AZT came in and accelerated deaths 10x, a fact they omitted which Duesberg had to go to the Lancet ie another journal to get into print. Not to mention that the clotting factor was adulterated with foreign proteins in Factor VIII which were immunosuppressive, there were transfusions (also immunosuppressive) and administration of corticosteroids causing immunsuppression. Purified Factor VIII resulted in resurgence of T cells. Robert Houston cites the Duesberg paper which points all this out above, the Commentary I referred to as a letter, and there were three more full dress rebuttals, if memory serves.

    Then we have the monkey analogy red herring on which Chris has fallen silent since our summary of its flaws, the mention of Ascher as if that paper was never exposed as invalid in its claim that drug users fell to HIV and not drugs, and the false claim by Trrlll that chimps were adapted to HIV in the wild when in fact they have only found some with SIV, and the only AIDS symptom they have been able to produce with SIV in one of several hundred chimps tested was diarrhea along with anemia which is not an AIDS symptom and was caused by antibiotics.

    No doubt when Robert Houston returns from whatever more important and interesting research he is doing he will tie up any loose ends with a slew of references.

    But given that the celebrated blogmaster of YBYL is far more expert at demolishing the highest level of this kind of BS raised like a smokescreen in defense of the paradigm, we think he has a right to bar comments of the usual time wasting kind, since he doesn’t need any practice in dealing with purposeful disruption of what should be a collegial discussion aiming at truth, rather than hand to hand combat with dedicated enemies of enlightenment apparently paid to be a commando squad to disrupt progress.

    Anyone with any knowledge of the literature has better things to do in fact than deal with propagandistic distortion in the cause of a paradigm which fails in every respect other than to release ten times the amount of funding it would deserve even if it was valid.

  353. nohivmeds Says:

    CN wrote:

    For a variety of reasons perinatal transmission is insufficient to account for the prevalence of HIV in the US. The most obvious is the non-random HIV prevalence. Why is the HIV prevalence in homosexual men so high?

    And he also wrote:

    I can understand, up to a point, your skepticism and I wish I could help.

    Believe it or not, CN, you are helping. First, I’m hoping you can empathize with the position I’m in — diagnosed with a virus that no one can isolate, and for which only surrogate marker tests are available. When I was first diagnosed in 98, I was told I’d live for 3 years if I didn’t take meds. After I took the meds for a year, then terminated them because I lost 20 pounds and could no longer eat, I was told taking treatment breaks would do me in in less than a year. It’s almost 2007, so I’m sure you can empathize with my skepticism there. I was recently told by another doctor that if I continued with large treatment interruptions I was sure to die, and soon. Obviously, I don’t see that doctor any more.

    You must also be able to empathize with my skepticism regarding Duesberg’s ideas that all gay men afflicted with AIDS are so afflicted because of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Hardly satisfactory either. You’re absolutely right when you point out the there is deep inconsisency in dissident accounts on how homosexuals get the disease. I mean, it’s hard to swallow (excuse the pun) perinatal transmission as the primary mechanism if you’re heterosexual, but sex, drugs, and rock and roll if you’re gay.

    CN, I think you can understant my skepticism — a little empathy might go a long way.

  354. nohivmeds Says:

    And to the dear Dr. Beezy-Bub,
    You’re right to point out that the whole field of virology is chock full of some serious definitional/taxon issues — exactly what are viruses? Where did they come from? Are they alive or dead? What about all those other similar, but even smaller things like transposons and ultraviruses? Sure seems a lot like the study of sub-atomic particles to me. Perhaps Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle applies to viruses as well. Maybe it could account for our inability to “isolate” them. For some reason though, I don’t see the field of Infectious Disease embracing the Uncertainty Principle.

  355. nohivmeds Says:

    To briefly extend the possible metaphorical link between viruses and sub-atomic particles — perhaps this does indicate that the best “expert” to weigh in on the question of HIV “existence” would be that lovely Biophysicist down under in Perth, rather than all of the Retrovirologists here in the States and elsewhere.

    Just a thought.

  356. Martin Kessler Says:

    Well isn’t it interesting that Dr. Stephan Lanka’s questioning the whole field of virology is being touched on. I think he’s said a number of very interesting things in his interview in Zengers. I wonder what he’s doing now?

  357. nohivmeds Says:

    Martin,
    I’m told by the good doc Beezy-Bub, that his views are not like Lanka’s — that none of us really understood his comment. So, I’ve invited him here to differentiate for us ingrates. Hopefully, he’ll do so.

    In the meantime, it would be interesting to see what Lanka is up to now. Anyone know?

  358. MacDonald Says:

    Martin Kessler,

    I don’t think the blogmeister considers Lanka a politically correct topic, and I know for sure the name has an adverse effect on Dr. Noble’s last semblance of rational faculties. But as far as I can gather, he’s returned to his anti-innoculation campaigning and publishes only in German.

    Bialyzebub’s amazing comment goes a long way towards explaining some of Lanka’s seemingly wild-eyed statements as well. Here’s What Dr. Krafeld, who I’m crtain is not an associate of Dr. B-bub, has to say among other things about retroviruses:

    Argumentation with genetic sequences may conjure the idea of retroviruses, but it has never shown a scientifically proven, real, infectious one. To this day, who has proved that any retrovirus is more than an idea: a hypothesis?

  359. MacDonald Says:

    PS, not to imply that Dr. Bialyzebub and Dr. Lanka are in agreement on anything.

  360. john Says:

    From Lanka, at 24 november

  361. Bialyzebub Says:

    How painful, even for me, this is you have nooo idea, but I see it is necessary as no one seems to have appreciated the important part of my last remark.

    Namely, “The world would be better off if Peyton had not stumbled on his sick duck.”

    Instead of questioning it, because its meaning is somewhat obscure, in typical blog chit chat, let me write anything just to see my name in print fashion and to chew my favorite and only bone yet again, let me pour from the empty into the void on what I think the mad doctor meant.

    Peyton is Peyton Rous who “discovered” the Rous sarcoma virus 100 years ago when he came upon a duck with a tumor from which a “filterable agent” that could make the same cancer in other avians was obtained. Almost 70 years later, Peter Duesberg and Peter Vogt were able to find out in precise molecular language why this was so. In the between, the NIH spent all its energy investigating cancer based on this amazing finding of Peyton’s. When it did not pan out as expected (surprise surprise), they shifted to AIDS. Afterall a rather ordinary enzyme that was encoded in sequences from the ‘Rous viruses’ of the world (few as they were..the actual Rous sarcoma virus has only been isolated one time!) got a rapid Nobel Prize in 1970 or so, and one that enshrined one half of the beneficiaries, David Baltimore, who became the principal scientific spokesperson for AIDS, Inc., with a public reputation that is the exact opposite of the one in which his former peers like Jim Watson, Wally Gilbert, Alex Rich and Mark Ptashne hold him. So all in all, isn’t is clear how much better the world would be if Peyton had said, “Fey what a disgusting mass”, and shot the foul fowl?

    Now I really do gots to fly.

  362. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks John, good blog. This blog has no objection to any topic as such, since its main object is to counter the prejudice against novelty in science. As Sheldon Krimsky says today in the Times, those on the margins can be right, and the longer we look at HIV the virus, the more it seems to dance away and vanish like a fairy at the bottom of the garden.

    Prof. Kurth, the head of that institute, had as recently as 17th of March 1999 lied in a letter, stating that the consensus-HIV had actually been photographed. Then in the year 2001, the Robert Koch Institute and the German Parliament have admitted that HIV cannot be isolated or photographed. On 5 January 2004, the federal minister [of health] admitted what is known but generally not said – that HIV is only a consensus.

    To be honest, the fairy tale quality of HIV∫AIDS is so blatant on close inspection that the fact the virus cannot be isolated and cannot be photographed just seems par for the course, yet still unbelievable. John Moore and Anthony Fauci are pushing for billions for a world wide epidemic of a virus whose existence is demonstrated only by indirect means, and has no direct proof. How many other new viruses does this apply to? Did they ever find the kuru virus, even after awarding a Nobel for it? Enquiring minds need to know .

    NHM: You’re absolutely right when you point out the there is deep inconsisency in dissident accounts on how homosexuals get the disease. I mean, it’s hard to swallow (excuse the pun) perinatal transmission as the primary mechanism if you’re heterosexual, but sex, drugs, and rock and roll if you’re gay.

    Please don’t blemish the staid respectability of this blog with unmentionables especially by pointing to puns which if one is made sensitive to them will be found to litter every page.

    And as for the thought, you cannot be serious. A gay bathhouse habitue with thousands of unmentionably intimate contacts a year is not a disease vector of major proportions? Please. Do we even have to go into it?

  363. nohivmeds Says:

    TS — Please be assured — you don’t have to enter the bath house, no. Of course, I’d bet that if I surveyed, say, the San Francisco gay community, only perhaps 70% would ever have been to a bath house, and probably 90% of those went less than one meager handful of times. Bath houses are populated by a self-selected group of gay men that is rather small percentage-wise. You act the part of the fool, which I don’t think you are, when you write about something you know absolutely nothing about — it’s terribly apparent anytime you write anything at all about gay men. Painfully apparent. The percentage of gay men in S.F. who are HIV ab + is WAY greater than the percentage who frequent bath houses. This is true everywhere. I sometimes pause and try to get a handle on your picture of the “gay lifestyle,” but that is way to scary! For heavens sake, TS, don’t go there. It really isn’t that scary. You can’t really imagine how not-so-interesting it actually is. Let’s end the insane mystique status you give to some insane notion of the “homosexual lifestyle.” It’s myth.

  364. nohivmeds Says:

    Consider this: On any given night of the year, in any city in the US that has a “gay” bath house, it’s likely that perhaps up to 40% of the men at those “gay” bath houses are actually “straight and/or married” in their “real” lives. I’d guess that a lot of those men are more frequent visitors to the “gay” bath house, than many of the gay men are, as they probably don’t get their “gay” sex anyplace else.

  365. nohivmeds Says:

    When you factor all of that in — and I know it will take some time — things might not line up so well for the sex, drugs, and rock and roll hypothesis of gay AIDS. An Inconvenient Truth, if ever there was one.

  366. Chris Noble Says:

    Believe it or not, CN, you are helping. First, I’m hoping you can empathize with the position I’m in — diagnosed with a virus that no one can isolate, and for which only surrogate marker tests are available. When I was first diagnosed in 98, I was told I’d live for 3 years if I didn’t take meds. After I took the meds for a year, then terminated them because I lost 20 pounds and could no longer eat, I was told taking treatment breaks would do me in in less than a year. It’s almost 2007, so I’m sure you can empathize with my skepticism there. I was recently told by another doctor that if I continued with large treatment interruptions I was sure to die, and soon. Obviously, I don’t see that doctor any more.

    Yes, I can empathise with your position. I can’t say what I would do in your position. Your experiences explain your distrust of doctor and the “orthodoxy”.

    Even if you accept, as I do, that on average the benefits of ARV treatment outweigh the side effects there are individuals where the opposite is true. I certainly respect your decisions about your own health I just hope that you remain open minded at all times. I also hope that you will not need to consider taking ARVs.

    While I can definitely understand your skepticism regarding the benefits and side-effects of ARVs I think you are very much mistaken about the existence of HIV, the diagnosis of HIV infection and its role in AIDS.

  367. Chris Noble Says:

    Certainly the empty nature of Chris’s references has been exposed time and again. He never sent the quoted pictures of HIV (Gelderblom 1986), but we checked the papers concerned offline and found that what purported to be images of HIV were retracted ten years later (Gluschankof et al, 1997) as cellular microvesicles, as the NCI confirmed (Bess et al, 1997). What a crock it was to claim that these were photos of HIV.

    What are you talking about? Gelderblom has not retracted these images. Who told you that?

    Cellular microvesicles do not have cores containing HIV-p24.

    Then we have the monkey analogy red herring on which Chris has fallen silent since our summary of its flaws, the mention of Ascher as if that paper was never exposed as invalid in its claim that drug users fell to HIV and not drugs, and the false claim by Trrlll that chimps were adapted to HIV in the wild when in fact they have only found some with SIV, and the only AIDS symptom they have been able to produce with SIV in one of several hundred chimps tested was diarrhea along with anemia which is not an AIDS symptom and was caused by antibiotics.

    I have read Duesberg’s critique of the Ascher et al paper. It is pathetic.

    HIV as a surrogate marker for drug use: a re-analysis of the San Francisco Men’s Health Study.

    Duesberg writes: … we found 45 HIV-negative men with AIDS defining conditions (according to the CDC), as listed in Table 1.

    and

    It is important to emphasize that had any of these 45 men been positive for antibod- ies against HIV, they would likely have been recorded as AIDS cases.

    Now If we go through Table 1 Duesberg gives Salmonella as the AIDS defining illness for 18 of the 45. But the CDC clearly state that it must be a recurrent infection to count as AIDS defining. Salmonella is a very common food-borne disease. The CDC estimates 1.4 million cases annually in the US You can do the math to find out how many cases you would expect over 4648 patient years.

    The next biggest group is 14 with transitory CD4 counts less than 200 cells/ml. The CDC is quite clear that repeat testing may be necessary to ensure that CD4 counts are truly reflective. Sheppard et al point out in this letter CD4+ T-Lymphocytopenia without HIV Infection that these CD4 counts were transient low counts amongs a background of normal counts.

    After that Duesberg lists 9 patients with Herpes zoster. I looked in the CDC list of AIDS defining illnesses and couldn’t find Herpes zoster. Now Duesberg does say he is using the CDC definition.

    Next Duesberg lists 6 patients with Thrush/oral candidiasis except the CDC definition clearly states that the cadidiasis must be esophageal or of the bronchi, trachea or lungs. Oral candidiasis doesn’t count it is frequently seen in immunocomptetent persons.

    Immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is also not in the CDC definition. It is also observed in immunocompetent persons as is TB. Given the incidence of TB in the US at the time was roughly 10 per 100,000 per year it is not unexpected to see one case in 4648 patient years.

    In short there were no HIV-negative AIDS cases in the SFMHS cohort. This has been pointed out to Duesberg before in the literature AIDS data.

    Duesberg was so desperate to produce HIV-negative AIDS cases that he stretches the definition so far that he includes the roughly 1.4 million people in the US that get salmonella food poisoning each year.

    This isn’t someone arguing from the evidence. He twists the evidence to match his own preconceived ideas.

    Duesberg invents his own definition of AIDS (and lies by claiming that he uses the CDC definition) but never asks himself why the HIV- subjects did not come down with PCP or KS as the HIV+ subjects did.

  368. nohivmeds Says:

    CN wrote:

    While I can definitely understand your skepticism regarding the benefits and side-effects of ARVs I think you are very much mistaken about the existence of HIV, the diagnosis of HIV infection and its role in AIDS.

    CN, I leave open all possibilities. I’m just commenting on the quality of evidence I’m being presented with. I’m always open to new evidence from either side.

    As for the existence of HIV — I’m not able to say. I’m simply not qualified to say anything but it does seem that Perth and deHarven have raised some important paradoxes that should really be addressed in a civil manner.

    As for the role of HIV in AIDS — my own personal opinion is that the evidence, once again, as Zvi Grossman himself has said, raises more questions than answers. A conundrum, was I believe what he called the current state of knowledge regarding HIV pathogenesis. I’m sure you must respect his opinion.

    I can’t really be “very much mistaken” when I refuse to endorse any of the current hypotheses, can I? Only you and others not utlizing the Fence could be “very much mistaken,” or potentially “somewhat mistaken,” or “not mistaken,” but that is far from clear. What is clear is that since I am not making any claims one way or the other — I most certainly cannot be “very much mistaken.”

  369. Chris Noble Says:

    As for the role of HIV in AIDS — my own personal opinion is that the evidence, once again, as Zvi Grossman himself has said, raises more questions than answers. A conundrum, was I believe what he called the current state of knowledge regarding HIV pathogenesis. I’m sure you must respect his opinion.

    The conundrum is exactly how HIV causes AIDS not whether it does. The exact mechanism of pathogenesis of many if not all other viruses is not completely understood. The more research you do the more questions are raised. That does not mean that we know nothing.

  370. Truthseeker Says:

    When you factor all of that in — and I know it will take some time — things might not line up so well for the sex, drugs, and rock and roll hypothesis of gay AIDS. An Inconvenient Truth, if ever there was one.

    All your above statements are unsupported by any statistics, NHM. So tell us a) the proportion of gay men who went into bathhouses and b) the proportion who became HIV+. Graphs preferably, over the years. Then we can judge for ourselves.

    One tires a little NHM of your constant refrain that we don’t know what gay men get up to. Obviously we know that most gay men are not drug crazed sex marathoners, but why is your own anecdotal reporting necessarily correct, especially since you are apparently not reporting from the front lines. We need proper stats. Give us a) and b) and we can see.

    You remind us a bit of someone who accumulates a stack of CDs on sale and then questions the total at the cash register because they cannot believe how quickly the prices add up. We must ask what the cash register says.

    Let’s see. If the population of the US is 300 million, 4% gay, that is 12 million people, or 6 million men, about 4 million sexually capable, we would guess. One in 300 people are positive, that is one million, of whom 60% are men, 600,000, 60% are gay, which is 360,000.

    So you have 360,000 gay men who are positive out of 4 million. That’s roughly 1 in 12.

    Doesn’t seem beyond reasonable that 1 in 12 gay men went into bath houses and took full advantage, thus contracting HIV which is otherwise rather difficult if not impossible, while the rest behaved more conservatively. But you no doubt have the right figures. What are they?

    Meanwhile let’s note that gay sex doesn’t seem from studies to be much more liable to transmit HIV or whatever it is that causes HIV tests to score positive than straight sex. So the whole theory is a crock anyway, probably.

  371. Truthseeker Says:

    Duesberg invents his own definition of AIDS (and lies by claiming that he uses the CDC definition) but never asks himself why the HIV- subjects did not come down with PCP or KS as the HIV+ subjects did.

    Possibly because they were not given AZT, would you say?

    The conundrum is exactly how HIV causes AIDS not whether it does. The exact mechanism of pathogenesis of many if not all other viruses is not completely understood. The more research you do the more questions are raised. That does not mean that we know nothing.

    Let’s recall that the original idea was that HIV directly killed CD4 T cells in vivo, and that is why they declined, why one got immune collapse, why one contracted any number of thirty or more symptoms, including the kitchen sink.

    Unfortunately that idea of direct killing didn’t check out. Nor did the indirect decimation of T cells. Nor did the idea that cell suicide was prompted by HIV. HIV did actually excite the multiplication of T cells, though, as Fauci confirmed.

    This is why we nominated him as a hero of AIDS, since he was the first man to imply that HIV could be the answer to AIDS.
    The point appears to have gone straight over your head, though, Chris.

    Still, we like your digging out AIDS symptoms used by Duesberg which were not AIDS symptoms. IF true that just shows he should have been more careful in predicting in his analysis that the HIV boys would claim almost anything as indicative of immune dysfunction, which is hardly an exaggeration. They claimed or claim cervical cancer at one point didnt they, which was a nice expansion from cell killing. Surprising that they didn’t add traffic accidents to the list.

    The conundrum is exactly how HIV causes AIDS not whether it does. The exact mechanism of pathogenesis of many if not all other viruses is not completely understood. The more research you do the more questions are raised. That does not mean that we know nothing.

    The question is whether it does, whether in fact there is any good evidence it does anything at all to anybody. The answer appears to be No. Up till this point in scientific advance we had a pretty good idea what caused what, even if the exact mechanism in detail was obscure. Nowadays however we have a range of alleged dangers such as SARS or bird flu or mad cow disease where we are not exactly sure whether we are dealing with dangerous viruses or dangerous virus hunters.

    You however maintain your confidence on what they tell you even as the science gets vaguer and vaguer. Maybe you should answer the question, when will your dormant skepticism finally awake? Why is it not awake already?

    let’s note you have answered none of the questions which were going to prove that you were not anonymous after all. The suspicion that you are paid to spend your time combating HIV∫AIDS critics on as many points as you can is getting louder and louder.

    Tell us it aint so, Chris. You are forcing us to that conclusion. It would never occur to us normally.

  372. Chris Noble Says:

    Possibly because they were not given AZT, would you say?

    Patients were given AZT after they progressed to AIDS. Unless the effects of AZT can travel backwards in time then your assertion is invalid.

    This is why we nominated him as a hero of AIDS, since he was the first man to imply that HIV could be the answer to AIDS.
    The point appears to have gone straight over your head, though, Chris.

    Your bizarre interpretation of the chapter by Fauci is an indication that you are fundamentally scientifically illiterate.

    IF true that just shows he should have been more careful in predicting in his analysis that the HIV boys would claim almost anything as indicative of immune dysfunction, which is hardly an exaggeration.

    Can you find Herpes Zoster anywhere in any CDC definition of AIDS? It isn’t there. Why does Duesberg assert that it is part of the CDC definition?

    Why is Duesberg so desperate to find HIV- AIDS cases that he — makes false statements about the CDC definition?

    Your loyal defence of Duesberg is admirable. Remember Duesberg claims that he used the CDC definition to find these ‘HIV- AIDS case’. This is simply not true.

    Duesberg’s apthetic response to the Ascher paper indicates why nobody in the scientific community takes him seriously.

    You however maintain your confidence on what they tell you even as the science gets vaguer and vaguer. Maybe you should answer the question, when will your dormant skepticism finally awake? Why is it not awake already?

    It is your understanding of science that is getting vaguer and vaguer. You make the logical fallacy of projecting your inadequacies onto everybody else.

  373. Truthseeker Says:

    Your bizarre interpretation of the chapter by Fauci is an indication that you are fundamentally scientifically illiterate.

    Reduced to insults, Chris? Sign of a defeated debater, my lad. If you have difficulty understanding that Fauci confirmed that HIV provoked a proliferation of T cells, refer to our post on the topic admiring him for being the first man to imply that HIV might be the answer to AIDS.

    Can you find Herpes Zoster anywhere in any CDC definition of AIDS? It isn’t there. Why does Duesberg assert that it is part of the CDC definition?

    Try reading the very link you boilerplated yourself. Herpes zoster is on it. “Herpes zoster (shingles), involving at least two distinct episodes or more than one dermatome”

    Objecting to Duesberg expanding the list of AIDS symptoms to salmonella when it is demanded that it is recurrent is absurd given the enthusiastic CDC expansion of the list to cervical cancer, for God’s sake, and the removal of the original marker, KS, by that point. This is bureaucratic BS, not medicine or science. You seem to have overlooked that KS had been removed by then. Guess you are too busy boilerplating your replies from your stock sites instead of using your overtaxed brain, is that it?

    Duesberg’s pathetic response to the Ascher paper indicates why nobody in the scientific community takes him seriously.

    Not in fact. Ascher’s bleating and error laden reply in defense of his messy and ill thought out study is the one that real scientists laughed at. You however unaware of this use it as a boilerplate source! The study was an appalling bit of trash that hid an entire group of HIV negative patients from sight because the assumption was that any AIDS symptoms they had were not AIDS symptoms because they didn’t have HIV. Classic specimen of the poor reasoning of paradigm addled researchers. Drugs caused the AIDS symptoms, Chris, not HIV, and the only reason that was obscured from the dim brained was because Ascher didn’t include a drug free group as is par for the course for this crowd, at least not one he reported on, and hid the HIV negative group and its AIDS symptoms from sight. Duesberg had to dig it up and expose it to public view.

    Have to say Chris, you are becoming tiresome with all this misinformation, especially when you don’t read your own boilerplate. This blog is reserved for thinking people. We asked you before and we’ll ask you again, a) what specific reasons if any do you have to believe that HIV causes immune deficiency, and b) are you paid to try and sabotage productive analysis of the wingless paradigm?

    If you can’t answer these two questions without boilerplate or evasion what good are you to any intelligent discussion?

    Good for target practice, that is about all.

  374. Truthseeker Says:

    Yes, I can empathise with your position. I can’t say what I would do in your position. Your experiences explain your distrust of doctor and the “orthodoxy”.

    Even if you accept, as I do, that on average the benefits of ARV treatment outweigh the side effects there are individuals where the opposite is true. I certainly respect your decisions about your own health I just hope that you remain open minded at all times. I also hope that you will not need to consider taking ARVs.

    While I can definitely understand your skepticism regarding the benefits and side-effects of ARVs I think you are very much mistaken about the existence of HIV, the diagnosis of HIV infection and its role in AIDS.

    Congratulations, at least, Chris, on this burst of reasonableness.

    Certainly the empty nature of Chris’s references has been exposed time and again. He never sent the quoted pictures of HIV (Gelderblom 1986), but we checked the papers concerned offline and found that what purported to be images of HIV were retracted ten years later (Gluschankof et al, 1997) as cellular microvesicles, as the NCI confirmed (Bess et al, 1997). What a crock it was to claim that these were photos of HIV. – TS

    CN – What are you talking about? Gelderblom has not retracted these images. Who told you that?

    Read the papers. Ten years on, it was found that there was cellular contamination. The pictures could not be said to be of HIV with any certainty. Both Gallo and Montagnier had thought otherwise, but were wrong. So did they isolate HIV and take some valid pictures? Nope. No can do.

    Slippery virus, this one. No camera at the scene of the crime.

  375. nohivmeds Says:

    TS,
    My information comes from several sources, including community-based survey research that is readily available to anyone interested, but even more importantly, from naturalistic and participatory observation (in other words, TS, I’ve seen it all). You can choose not to believe me if you’d like to, that’s up to you. Recent estimates say that in most major urban centers in the US, close to 50% of the gay male community has tested HIV ab+. This is significantly higher than the percentage who frequent bath houses and also significantly higher than the percentage who have serious drug problems.

    Plus, you ignore the role bath houses play for “straight” men, who are more frequent visitors, like I said, than the majority of gay men are. For Duesberg’s theory to work without caveat, at least 50% of the gay community would have to frequent bath houses and have serious drug problems, and that is simply not the case — neither in my own observations and research, nor in the work of others in public health and academia.

    The fact that anal-receptive sex seems to be significantly associated with becoming HIV ab+ supports Perth’s argument more than it does Duesberg’s, in my very humble opinion.

  376. nohivmeds Says:

    If I might make a constructive suggestion, TS — consult with actual gay men before makig pronouncements on their behavior. The fact that you find that unnecessary, and are still relying on the extremely out-dated writings of Crewsden, accounts for your warped perceptions of “gay life.” Things, of course, do change with time. The early 80s were a long time ago. Expecting that things are the same now as they were reported to be then (and his reporting has been legitimately questioned), is not at all surprising.

  377. nohivmeds Says:

    This disconnect, between what dissidents think takes place in the gay community, and what actually does take place, really does need to be rectified, regardless of the impact that has on people’s evaluations of the various theories available. See research by the STOP AIDS project in S.F, the SF AIDS Foundation, GMHC, NW AIDS Foundation and Gay City (in Seattle), UCLA, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Washington, and the CDC for starters.

    As far as my anecdotes go — know that I have visited bath houses in New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, and Upstate NY. That’s a fair sampling, I would suggest.

  378. nohivmeds Says:

    Or, think about it mathematically, by combining the probabilities of the low base rate behaviors so necessary for Duesberg’s theory to hold without caveat:

    Multiply:
    1. The probability that a gay man uses poppers regularly (at least several times per week), by
    2. The probability that the same gay man uses speed, cocaine, or heroin regularly, by
    3. The probability that the same gay man visits a bath house regularly, by
    4. The probability that the same gay man has a poor diet.

    That would inevitably result in a very, very small probability estimate, no where near the number/percentage of gay men testing positive in SF, NYC, and LA. Logic alone tells us this is so.

  379. MacDonald Says:

    you make the logical fallacy of projecting your inadequacies onto everybody else.

    Dear Chris, I know that it’s an evergreen among you guys’ talking points to imply whenever possible that denialists are illogical and irrational, but now you’re stretching it almost further than when Dr. Trrll informed us that all inductive reasoning is based on analogy (what the rest of us call ceteris paribus) and therefore not induction at all.

    “The logical fallacy of projecting one’s inadequacies”?? I haven’t read the masterpiece, but I’ll crawl out on a limb here and bet my last dime that particular fallacy wasn’t mentioned in the chapter on logic in Simon Blackburn’s book “Think”

  380. nohivmeds Says:

    This is, by the way, why dissident accounts of HIV/AIDS have such poor traction in the gay community. When theories fail to jive with people’s actual experiences, it is unlikely that dissent, however justified, will take root. This is also why dissident accounts are often viewed as homophobic, despite the fact that they are not. They’re just misinformed and have not adjusted with the times.

  381. Martel Says:

    Both CN and TS are right in what they have to say about microvesicle contamination: it IS a problem in the older papers (TS) but it is NOW known (or thought) that “real” virions can be distinguished by their cores…which, in electron micrographs, look like traffic cones in the middle of the virion bubble. There are some interesting papers by HG Krausslich (a with an umlaut) showing pictures of this.
    It is possible to purify virions–at least partially–from contaminating microvesicles. This has been done extensively in virus preps from cell culture. Interestingly, the virion itself has not been purified from microvesicles from patients.

  382. Celia Farber Says:

    It is not true that AZT was given only after symptoms of AIDS appeared. What period of time, governed by which Treatment Ideology, was Mr. Noble referring to?

  383. Truthseeker Says:

    You can choose not to believe me if you’d like to, that’s up to you. Recent estimates say that in most major urban centers in the US, close to 50% of the gay male community has tested HIV ab+. This is significantly higher than the percentage who frequent bath houses and also significantly higher than the percentage who have serious drug problems.

    NHM, we are not experts on gay behavior in bathhouses and have never claimed to be – in fact explicitly disavowed it more than once. Nor do we rely on Crewdson, whatever he wrote about it. We merely asked for statistics. The fact is that gays have informed us in person and on paper at the time and later that the numbers of encounters involved in bathhouses in the early days was stupendous. Larry Kramer himself has stated this. If you have conducted intensive research and reconnaissance across a wide geographic area and report that things are no longer so extreme, why should we contradict you? We imagine they are not.

    You state that close to 1 in 2 gays currently are positive, at least in major urban areas. This compares with the 1 in 12 average. So there are more than average in places where gays crowd together and where bathhouses exist. Why would this be?

    This is, by the way, why dissident accounts of HIV/AIDS have such poor traction in the gay community. When theories fail to jive with people’s actual experiences, it is unlikely that dissent, however justified, will take root. This is also why dissident accounts are often viewed as homophobic, despite the fact that they are not. They’re just misinformed and have not adjusted with the times.

    We doubt very much that this is why. Especially given your own reaction here, which is largely an imaginative response to what we wrote in its incorrect attributions. If you read what we said, we said that the idea of gays passing on whatever triggers a positive HIV test seemed unlikely given the low rate (1 in 700 was it?) assessed by studies. On the other hand, if it really is 1 in 2 in major urban areas and not a function of bathhouses and rampant sex there is some explaining to do, we suppose, and we await your theory.

    The drugs part is to do with people getting immune collapse from some other source than HIV, not whether they are positive or not. KS correlated with popper use. Statistically unusual immune collapse has always correlated with drugs, recreational and prescribed, it seems clear, or as clear as it can be under conditions where the HIV assumption infests everything. It also makes perfect sense.

    Duesberg has always done an impeccable job of surveying and analyzing this stuff on all fronts (for very good reason, given his excellent powers and with his reputation at stake) and we have no reason to suppose he wrote nonsense in this vein, which somehow his peer reviewers overlooked, and though we believe in working things out from first principles as far as possible, as you are doing, we are inclined to accept his findings, in spite of the anecdotal impressions you offer.

    But please, develop an alternative theory if you have one. Why do you think that 1 in 2 gays in urban areas are positive? Do you have literature which confirms that statistic, and the overall figure for male gays that are positive? Are you objecting to the drug part, the sex part, or both?

  384. Martel Says:

    CN is right to question my authority on the subject of proteomics, and I admit that in my current configuration, I don’t do much more than the occasional Western blot. My previous comments on future proteomics analysis of virions from patients were based on information from a former colleague who works almost exclusively with proteomic techniques (DIGE, MUDPIT, chips, etc., for CN’s benefit).

    Pace said CN, the failure to isolate and analyze virions directly from patient sera is not merely an arcane issue: if HIV=>AIDS is true, then it is a potential matter of life and death. Sure, many diagnostic tests for disease rely on surrogate markers; but these test results are accepted because the pathogen–let’s say, a bacterium–has been cultured, its infectivity demonstrated, transmission from host to host confirmed and characterized. It has been conclusively demonstrated that a particular bacterial cell wall protein is usually found in association with that bacterium, not floating about in serum, and that antibody specificity is high. There’s no or little cross-reactivity. All of these issues are still problems in HIV research, which is why a sceptical patient can be excused for questioning results.

    True, virus can be cloned from a patient and then used to infect highly receptive cells in culture. Or maybe you can “culture” virus directly from a patient with sufficient viral load. When cultured cells pump out presumably live virus, virions can be purified and analyzed by mass spectrometry. But what does that tell us about infection in the patient? By either method, we are applying selective pressures that may not exist in vivo, and/or removing evolutionary constraints that would be found in vivo. And cloning “the” virus as in the first method–that adds another real problem, because the virus exists in vivo as multiple genetic variants. Unless properly controlled limiting-dilution PCR is used (where each amplification is presumably multiplying a single piece of nucleic acid), you can’t be sure that you’ve gotten the right variants. The most common, too, may be the least fit, and the least threatening to the patient.

    The upshot is that it is extremely important to make progress on isolating virions directly from the patient. From a nucleic acid perspective, you would then know that you’re looking at valid sequences: real RNA in real virions that are actually circulating and potentially infectious. From a protein perspective, you know that the protein you’re measuring is similarly virion-associated, not just cell- or cell detritus-associated; you could map protein variants to the genetic sequences and form hypotheses to explain infectivity differences between strains; and, maybe most importantly, you could look at virion-associated host proteins to explain different symptoms in different hosts.

    Not that the true believers would care, but isolating virions would also change the minds many honest HIV=AIDS denialists.

  385. Truthseeker Says:

    Lost this post last night and had to quickly write another, but now have found it again. So we post it anyway, since it was more succinct than the substitute:

    Your bizarre interpretation of the chapter by Fauci is an indication that you are fundamentally scientifically illiterate.

    Reduced to blanket insults, are we Chris? Sign of lack of good argument, we would conclude. Are you having difficulty in understanding Fauci’s confirmation of T cell multiplication when provoked by HIV? Is there something in what he wrote that is above your head? If so, quote it and we will try and help you. Otherwise refer to our post on the topic.

    Duesberg’s pathetic response to the Ascher paper indicates why nobody in the scientific community takes him seriously.

    Reduced to repetition for lack of a good reply, Chris, are we? Not to mention insulting a man who is superior to you in intellect, science and sense, even though you are so very distinguished in all three. That sentence and the three above it are nothing more than what you already said. If you cannot understand the force of Duesberg’s critique of the Ascher paper we cannot help you, especially if you cannot articulate the issue as anything more than a question of how to define AIDS.

    Taking Duesberg to task for expanding the definition of AIDS is laughable given the expansion perpetrated by the CDC, especially when you are talking through your hat; herpes zoster is on the list, salmonella too, though recurrent as you say (can you read straight? one low T cell count IS enough in your own linked CDC reference of 1992. Try reading the proper source instead of quoting Ascher’s error laden reply, which wrongly reported HIV- patients had no AIDS symptoms because they assumed any symptoms they had were not really AIDS symptoms).

    Bottom line is that drugs damage people, not HIV, and the only reason this was successfully obscured by Ascher from the not very bright was that as is typical there was no drug free control group in the signally messy and poorly argued study that was reported. Moreover AIDS signalling conditions were occurring in the HIV negative group who had a history of drug use and had AIDS symptoms and were hidden from sight by Ascher.

    Bottom line here at NAR is that we are growing tired of your picking nits instead of killing the dog, even though it manages to bite you every time you lay a hand on it.

    We are especially tired of your inability to answer two simple questions: 1) What reason if any do you have specifically to believe that HIV causes immune dysfunction? and b) Are you paid to advance the cause of the wingless paradigm?

    If you cannot reply to these two questions we will have to stop taking you seriously, despite your leaden brilliance at producing an endless series of spurious, cheap and always unsuccessful objections to critics who point to blatant inconsistencies in the wingless but financially rocket boosted paradigm.

    If you cannot answer these questions, why should either critics or onlookers take you seriously, even as a spoiler?

    No boilerplating either.

  386. Martel Says:

    One more thing (sorry):

    Otis wrote: “I must point out that contrary to the inference, YBYL does NOT behave like Nature and Science, and although thoughtless, malicious and otherwise distracting comments are banned from the 20 Questions post, all others are NOT.”

    Otis cannot deny that comments are closed on the 20 Questions post, as well as on many or all of the Duesberg posts. TS has explained quite well why this is reasonable, and I agree that Otis may do what he likes with his blog.

    However, Otis seems to have an interesting interpretation of “distracting comments,” including in them any post containing what Duesberg calls “techno-babble” in his 30. October column, i.e. actual scientific language. Apparently, debating the science in scientific terms is distracting to YBYL readers. Hence, comments must be filtered through a moderator or moderators.

    The effect is to chill discussion, since most people want to post for the world to see, not for one person to read (or ignore); neither I nor anyone else has time to email every HIV connoisseur individually. Once again, that’s just fine, that’s Otis’s prerogative…but YBYL has constructed a nice little glass house with its tactics, and should be less critical of its fellow dissent-stiflers at Nature and Science.

    Kudos to TS for allowing this discussion!

  387. kevin Says:

    NMH wrote:
    YSG is an excellent person…

    That’s going a little bit far, isn’t it NMH?

    Judging YSG on his posts alone, which is really all we have to go on here, does not suggests that he is an “excellent person”…an excellent buffoon, perhaps; I’d give you that. I haven’t been reading this blog as long as many here, but I find Dave’s characterization of YSG to be apt:

    Yossarian, like many AIDS Inc lapdogs, often seeks to distract and derail, not to address important aspects of this medical/scientific tragedy that has hurt real people.

    Yossarians’s snotty little lie about Brown is typical of the AIDS establishment. That’s how they tend to react, that’s how Yossarian tends to react.

    NMH wrote:
    We should be examining each question we take up and ask ourselves if it is really a scientific quesiton of interest, or a politically-motivated question.

    I think the more important dictum would read:

    We should be examining each answer provided by the HIV establishment and then ask ourselves if it is really a scientific answer , or a politically-motivated answer .

    I agree that objective science is in a pathetic state and in a perfect world, the science and the politics would sleep in separate rooms. Alas the real world is a place where the questioning is controlled by those with political power. Thus the answers will invariably be politically-motivated since the very best questions are being censored to achieve pre-ordained political ends. Consequently, self-sensoring for political content is counter-productive since that content is an integral constituent of the HIV hypothesis and all that’s subsequently followed.

    YSG wrote:
    Its very difficult to contract leprosy. The math says 95 % of those in endemic leprosy areas do not get leprosy when exposed to the bacteria. That involves millions of people. In the USA, less than 100 new cases per year in a population of 300 million.

    Hardly the stuff that leads to an epidemic. And you’re using this analogy to bolster HIV=AIDS, in what way?
    It really is a complicated, super-duper virus, I guess—one that works mysteriously in the guise of a yet undiscovered bacterial host. Oh, the mystery…

    In response to NHM’s admiration for the complexities of PCR, YSG wrote:
    That’s the problem, NHM. And it is self-imposed, mind ye. Genuflection advised.

    If a scientist truly understands a process, he should be able to convey that understanding in layman terms, particularly to those laymen that show a capable interest in the topic. For further elucidation of this concept, see here:

    Books about Science that even non-Scientists enjoy reading.

    Besides, genuflection is so rarely appropriate, and I find it’s best avoided unless there is a sword to the throat.

    Kevin

  388. MacDonald Says:

    The editing of techno babble on YBYL has nothing to do with censorship or grumpy meta-moderators. Simply put, if one performs a multi-linguistic reverse dinode uplink protonically bisecting the three primary main processing cores cross linked with a redundant melacortz ramistat and fourteen kiloquad interface modules exhibiting the vectorbased FTL nanoprocessor units arranged into twenty-five bilateral kelilactils of magna capacity corresponding to a function of the square root of the intermix ratio times of the sum of the plasma injector quotient, the positronic field generated by the interdimensional subspace reflex system will cause a pulsary overload in YBYLS tertiary server circuits resulting in a Babylonian mess – something any science literate person ought to appreciate.

  389. AF Says:

    NHM &TS: Perhaps about 50% of gay men in major urban areas are HIV ab+ because they are pushed to get tested more than other categories of people or gay men outside those areas. And perhaps the very first AIDS cases were the small sub-group of gay men who were promiscuous and drug abusers, but now antibody testing for not-so-specific antibodies affects gay men that aren’t even sick or harming their bodies. Plus, since gay men in general are seen as at-risk their tests are more likely to be interpreted as true positives.

    I might also mention that in the 70’s new sexual lubricants targeted at gay men were produced that contained harmful chemicals such as benzene. Certain “gay” sexual practices (use your imagination) that became popular during that time required a lot of lube. Frequent use and the use of large quantities of lube could possibly have afflicted some gay men, especially if they used the lubes over many years or had other factors that would contribute to sickness.

    NHM, I don’t know if you’ve already read it, but Ian Young’s “The Stonewall Experiment” was a very interesting read to me as a young gay man. This is how I found out about the lubricants as well as many other possible contributors to what became AIDS (such as the Hep B vaccine). Although sometimes Young lets his biases slip into his writing (usually admitting them), I think his psychohistory should be read by all gay men with an open mind.

  390. kevin Says:

    MacDonald wrote:

    It doesn’t score a point on God much less constitute original thought to say His attributes are paradoxical, and don’t obey Aristotelian ‘either or’ logic (see the playground example).

    What other logic do you that propose we use? It sounds to me like you are a closet-creationist.

    And what is with all the animosity toward Dawkins in the UK? I have several Brit friends, all quite capable, who dislike Dawkins. I think Dawkins is incredibly valuable for his scathing critique of creationism, calling it a “preposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood”. That is, in my opinion, well-said. You, MacDonald, want to argue (at least, I think) that a rational analysis of God is semantically impossible. Well, I say that is bullsh@t. If we all must play the “language game” which constitues the accepted public discourse on religious matters, those of us capable of critical reasoning can damn well play another “language game”, namely the one that very easily results in a dismembering of the many preposterous falsehoods that malign all religious discourse. Language is certainly limiting, but not so limiting as to make me believe that God is ineffable.

    Kevin

  391. kevin Says:

    Chris Noble wrote:

    Now If we go through Table 1 Duesberg gives Salmonella as the AIDS defining illness for 18 of the 45. But the CDC clearly state that it must be a recurrent infection to count as AIDS defining. Salmonella is a very common food-borne disease. The CDC estimates 1.4 million cases annually in the US You can do the math to find out how many cases you would expect over 4648 patient years.

    Salmonella in a straigth male is apparently different. I know from personal experience that when it occurs in a gay male, it is often assumed to be HIV-related. I was tested for HIV as a result of a salmonella infection even after I informed the doctor that I had just returned from a month-long trip to Mexico.

    Next Duesberg lists 6 patients with Thrush/oral candidiasis except the CDC definition clearly states that the cadidiasis must be esophageal or of the bronchi, trachea or lungs. Oral candidiasis doesn’t count it is frequently seen in immunocomptetent persons.

    After testing HIV-, I couldn’t even get my doctors to treat me for the candidiasis that had been causing my recurrent respiratory infections for decades. It was in my esophagus, my bronchi, and my lungs but they assured me that I just needed a stronger antibiotic. Suffice to say, I am well because I became educated to the dangers of only following CDC-approved treatment protocols.

    You make it all sound so exacting, Chris, when in reality, the clinical presentation of these ailments does not correlate so neatly with HIV status, just as Duesberg points out. Instead, the significance of any one these ailments in any given situation is assessed largely on a review of the health questionnaire that patients must complete before receiving treatment, and/or HIV tests administered after the fact.

    HIV negative people are suffering opportunistic infections in large numbers. They just aren’t being properly treated for them. In fact, they are often-times ignored or told that their afflictions are psycho-somatic. I guess that’s a good thing given the track record for treating HIV.

    Kevin

  392. kevin Says:

    Chris Noble wrote:

    The conundrum is exactly how HIV causes AIDS not whether it does.

    The “how” usually precedes the “whether or not”, in a similar way that the cause must precede the effect. Once again, correlation is not causation.

    Kevin

  393. MacDonald Says:

    Kevin,

    That’s a furious NHM’sk posting spree you seem to be on there. But you have asked and shall therefore receive.

    I don’t know if it’s worse being a “closet creationist” than anything else.

    I don’t know much about Dawkins either, but I’m sure he’s a competent biologist. He may even be performing a useful function arguing against ‘creationists’, since it seems to me their ‘creationism’ – just like the apparent beliefs of the people called “secular progressives” by that great and patriotic thinker, Bill O’Reilly – is but a fig leaf for a political agenda that has very little to do with the message of Jesus.

    A rational analysis of our concept of God is indeed possible, just as rational analysis of ourselves and the world is possible.

    But when for example quantum mechanics heaps paradox upon paradox the deeper we delve, and the language of initially sober scientists becomes increasingly metaphorical, increasingly similar to the language of mystics of all ages and persuasions, in ever more futile efforts at expressing their insights about the nature of the universe, we don’t conclude the whole thing is hocus pocus, do we?

    The ‘language game’ in Western civilization predates Christian apologetics a thousand years. It was Socrates’ favourite party trick to take any everyday concept like ‘Justice’ or the ‘Good’ and show the speaker he didn’t know how to define the concept, catching him in a tight net of contradictions.

    But there is another, more joyful language game about which Coleridge said its purpose was to reconcile the opposites in a unity which is more than the sum of its parts.

  394. kevin Says:

    AF wrote:

    NHM &TS: Perhaps about 50% of gay men in major urban areas are HIV ab+ because they are pushed to get tested more than other categories of people or gay men outside those areas. And perhaps the very first AIDS cases were the small sub-group of gay men who were promiscuous and drug abusers, but now antibody testing for not-so-specific antibodies affects gay men that aren’t even sick or harming their bodies. Plus, since gay men in general are seen as at-risk their tests are more likely to be interpreted as true positives.

    Thank you, AF. My experience and the experiences of my friends echo this trend.

    I find it tedious that so many gay men want a succinct, all-powerful hypothesis — one that rivals the mysteries of HIV, for they’d be lost without it, I think. The only succinct answer that holds any value is that they were complicit in making this a “gay disease” by becoming guniea pigs for Big Pharma, which had both the treatment and the diagnostic machinations in place to make it a reality.

    Thanks for the book suggestion, too. I’ll definitely be checking that out, if I can find a copy.

    Kevin

  395. Truthseeker Says:

    (use your imagination) – AF

    OK. Thank you AF for remembering this is a family site. But then, now that imaginations are active on this blog, please avoid the word “rectified”, if you would, NHM. “Remedied” will do.

    a dismembering of the many preposterous falsehoods that malign all religious discourse. – Kevin

    Perhaps MacD means that religion is art and myth and thus immune to the strictures of logic and realism, which are irrelevant.

    But that of course is just the intelligent man’s understanding. Too many believe religious dogma is factually true, according to survey reports from the US and Britain. And this large share of the human race includes many intelligent people, such as Bill Moyers’ guests, who are often very intelligent, but very irritatingly for some viewers feel it is true in some naturalist way, it appears.

    The ease with which even intelligent people can be filled with superstition is the problem, as HIV∫AIDS shows so dramatically.

    But then of course HIV∫AIDS is an artistic construct, rather than scientific, since it is a work of the imagination, and the virus a supernatural virus, feared and worshipped and not to be examined directly lest the observer be blinded like Lot’s wife turning for a last look at Sodom and Gomorrah, for which she was turned into a pillar of salt.

    Behind me I left a city dripping dawn to its fate.
    What happened there I could guess

    afire as I stepped I heard the roaring of the sun
    the smoke of the land I felt my neck
    it was not longing to turn my eyes seized me

    with a curiosity that always overcomes fear
    was born in me the look backward
    when looking backward one doesn’t see a thing.

  396. Truthseeker Says:

    For their curiosity that overcomes fear those that look back at HIV∫AIDS’ Sodom are deplored for their ignorance.

    Those minds of steel that look askance at HIV or any other religion, and use analytical reasoning to evaluate the likelihood that it is right and/or useful, are deplored for their approach, which is missing the one important thing that most humans look for, and that is communication of emotion, for those that do not convey emotion, but place their trust in reason, are suspect.

    They are thought to hiding their own self interest, up to mischief, possibly in disguise and belonging to another tribe, and so on. Similarly, lack of imagination is suspect, perceived also as somewhat inhuman and anti social, since imagination provokes social emotion, while cold analysis chills the heart and soul.

    So MacD, a friendly soul, believes in the joys of religion as something that brings us together, which it does, through art myth and poetry. But the cold hearted analyst objects that it brings us together as tribes, one for each denomination, and thus engenders conflict between tribes, people being the territorial animals they are.

    Now science is desperately trying to enjoin poetry and imagination and love for the glories of the natural world in an effort to compete with religion in this all important way. Perhaps it will succeed, and save the world from where religion is taking us.

    A post on this will be launched as soon as the blogger returns from an important errand.

    (The verse is Asher Reich’s ‘Lot’s Wife: The Look Backward’)

  397. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    I’d heard that Lot’s wife was a pillar of salt during the day but a ball of fire at night. Now don’t get angry, it came from a ten year old Sunday school student.

  398. MacDonald Says:

    I would hate to call the HIV construct ‘artistic” so close on the heels of Coleridge. ‘Political’ seems to me the better definition; and not to be examined directly, the way any hypocritical government – and they all are – will not bear the heretic’s’ inspection.

  399. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    Kevin, let us explore:

    YGB: “… I’m still unsure that the process could be adequately explained in lay terms.” NHM

    That’s the problem, NHM. And it is self-imposed, mind ye. Genuflection advised.

    Kevin: “In response to NHM’s admiration for the complexities of PCR, YSG wrote: That’s the problem, NHM. And it is self-imposed, mind ye. Genuflection advised. ”

    Kevin, your nuance is grossly mis-placed. YGB was not challenging NHM or the complexities of PCR but those who speak with knowledge above the ordinary but refuse to share in dialogue. It is as applicable to NIH/CDC as it is other experts or presumed semi-knowledgeable speakers from entrenched positions. Like my old organic chemistry teacher, one had to not personally but psychologically genuflect so one would in fact be thrown a few pieces of hamburger so they might pass the final exams. Some professors are like that. I know a few.

    That is the impression one gets when attempting communication with some individuals. Barnesworld is one such place where dialogue is discouraged and avoided unless one jumps through certain hoops as pointed out by Martel above and TS earlier. BW is not a dialogue place. It is an announcement center. One must genuflect or else be a bobblehead for the dysentery dissentery as it were. As Darin Brown once announced on YBYL, “this is not a debate farm”.

    So, Kevin, I am confident it was not your intention to unwittingly re-confirm the false accusations made by Dave so I offer you the opportunity to present some actual evidence that demonstrate ANY lies were presented by the commenter, YossariansGhostbuster ? If you choose to present the Oprah/Magic forum thread, please be advised Darin Brown posted there as Shaft459 and so identified himself as Darin Brown at least twice in comments.

    Incidentally, Its YGB not YSG. YSG would refer to a commenter whom, I am not and I do not know by the name of Yossarian’s Ghost. See comment: 9.26.2006 12:28pm

    Thank you,

    YGB

  400. nohivmeds Says:

    Thank you, Martel, for explaining things slowly and clearly. I’m sure I don’t yet get everything you wrote, but with a little work, I will — so thank you.

    YBG/YSG/McK — I really don’t care what name is used. I agree with your sense of censorship being rampant. Certainly that is the reason I identify with you — otherwise are styles are quite different — but I like that. That’s the thing. It seems that what’s different is not always what’s liked. I certainly feel that at times. But I’m not backtracking to study the permutations of your identity. That’s crazy.

  401. nohivmeds Says:

    TS — I honestly cannot believe you asked me not to use the word, “rectified.” The word does not connote body parts for me, but if it does for you, I’ll try and be more sensitive.

  402. nohivmeds Says:

    AF – thanks. I was aware of the benzene hypothesis, but not of the Young book. I’ll check it out.

  403. Lise Says:

    To me, being, I suspect, of the tribe of the wife of Lot, since I’m often enough mistaken for a pillar of salt in the kitchen, Buster the younger is quite correct
    She who looks back on sin is in her heart not yet on the path trodden by all God’s kin.
    Lot’s wife recalls, our souls are not purged by halves.
    A pillar of salt by day, burning passion by night, Sodom still within is Sodom still in sight.

    Of course to my husband the morale is simply that woman is always the first and last to sin, ‘curious’ being a better word for ‘prone to the corruption of flesh’.

  404. nohivmeds Says:

    Kevin wrote:

    We should be examining each answer provided by the HIV establishment and then ask ourselves if it is really a scientific answer, or a politically-motivated answer.

    I’m fine with that, so long as you add:

    We should be examining each answer provided by “The Dissidents” and then ask ourselves if it is really a scientific answer, or a politically-motivated answer.

    That’s how things on the Fence work. Everyone gets questioned. No one gets special treatment. In fact, that’s how science is supposed to work as well.

  405. Robert Houston Says:

    Congratulations, threaders! You’re now over 400 comments, 240 pages and counting! This surpasses and may even double NAR’s previous record. A number of loose “threads” remain hanging here, however, and so for the record I’d like to sew some up. Here’s one:

    The 400 fold dilution required in Abbotts’s widely used ELISA antibody test for HIV was extraordinarily high and must represent a real requirement that can’t just disappear. Chris Noble stated that current HIV tests uses a dilution of “1:2 to 1:100.” If so, then the needed attenuation signified by the 1:400 dilution is being accomplished in different ways: by changing the technique or varying other parameters (e.g., the strength of added chemicals, the time of reactions, etc.). Even so, a 2006 review of “HIV Antibody Assays” by Dr. Niel Constantine (at a link Mr. Noble kindly provided) states that for the purpose of distinguishing an established HIV case from an early case with the Abbott ELISA test, “the sample dilution was increased to 1:20,000.”

    This reflects the high amounts of antibody that develop in HIV+ patients, which explains the difficulty in finding any actual infectious HIV in them – it’s been effectively neutralized by antibody (as virologist Robin Weiss reported 20 years ago). No wonder they can’t perform the gold standard, as with other infections, by checking the antibody test results with actual recovery levels of the putative pathogen. Most of the time, there isn’t any!

  406. Truthseeker Says:

    TS — I honestly cannot believe you asked me not to use the word, “rectified.” The word does not connote body parts for me, but if it does for you, I’ll try and be more sensitive.

    ummmm… it was a joke, NHM. Don’t worry. you are already sensitive enough.

  407. nohivmeds Says:

    I guess the joke is on me then. Robert Houston, what if anything do you know about the proteomic methods that Martel has discussed?

  408. nohivmeds Says:

    While we’re on the topic of the dilution — I’d like to request that our resident experts (CN, Martel, Robert Houston, others) take care to explain the “technobabble” as simply as possible without oversimplifiying — it is the Methods/Procedures sections of these papers that I find really difficult to evaluate. Procedures are presented without caveat — even if there should be one. It makes my reading of the literature much slower, because I feel I have to examine each procedure and see if there is an existing critique of it. For those like me who do not work in biotech-biomedicine, demystifying these techniques is very important.

  409. nohivmeds Says:

    For example — I’ve had a “Phenosense GT” test three times, yet I really have no clue what the test is doing, and whether or not the conclusions drawn (whether mutations have occurred in my “dominant HIV” strain) are legit.

  410. noreen martin Says:

    To Nohivmeds, its wise to consider all points of view and not to take the issues of drugs seriously. Sometimes, one can be damned if they do and damned if they don’t and only you know what’s best for your body.

    I can relate to Darin’s problem on the Oprah board as a couple of my posts, No.1 healthy, were placed under the “Shaft” posting.

    All of this debating back and forth makes for interesting reading, however, for those who live with the problem on a daily basis it is like the old story that when you are up to your ass in alligators, it hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp. These people have kicked it up a notch and need all the help that they can get.

    Personally, I would highly recommend that anyone in this boat to read up on staying healthy as much as possible and take the advice from Dr. McCoy, eat right and exercise. One other thing, read about Linus Pauling and the importance of minerals, which are lacking in our food, to one’s health.

    Thought that I would pass on my latest stats: viral load > 100,000 and CD4’s 136 and doing just fine!

  411. Truthseeker Says:

    I guess the joke is on me then.

    No, sorry, NHM, should have added smiley. Meanwhile, please post everything questionable your enquiring mind uncovers about testing for antibodies to a virus that isn’t there.

    No wonder they can’t perform the gold standard, as with other infections, by checking the antibody test results with actual recovery levels of the putative pathogen. Most of the time, there isn’t any!

    Are you suggesting that AIDS is caused by a virus that is not there? Surely not. Surely a world wide pandemic threatening millions cannot be caused by a virus that is not there. There must be some mistake. It must be hiding in some inaccessible part of the body. This is a cunning virus, after all, one of the most cunning viruses ever discovered.
    What makes you think it doesn’t see the antibodies coming and just get out of the way by rapidly mutating? After all, it knows enough to get out of the way of an electron microscope so quickly that no one has ever been able to take a candid shot of it smiling at Chris Noble.

    It is all too easy to underestimate the insidiousness of this virus, which was completely unknown, remember, until Robert Gallo discovered it in a Federal Express consignment from Luc Montagnier, and even today Montagnier thinks it needs cofactors to do anything at all, which just shows how clever this microbe is at concealing its true aim, which is to infest the minds of all who sit around the table at the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH and make sure that even if funding for disease which causes actual fatalities such as cancer and heart problems is cut, no one will ever turn down a grant to investigate the mystery of how a virus that isn’t there can cause you to take large amounts of drugs which will save you by attacking every last foreign life form in your body including your liver.

    I had a bug that wasn’t there,
    Oo it gave me such a glare,
    It wasn’t there again today,
    I wish that bug would go away.

  412. Martel Says:

    In response to NHM’s question,
    The Phenosense GT test, as you know, is a rather complicated assay of viral drug resistance. I believe it was first described in:
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi? tool=pubmed&pubmedid=10722492
    by ViroLogic, Inc.

    At the heart of the test is a simple indicator assay, but there are many steps to the entire procedure.

    It starts with a blood draw. Virus particles (read: a few virus particles plus loads of microvesicular cellular contaminants) are simply centrifuged to separate cellular RNA from viral RNA as well as possible without making the assay prohibitively expensive. (Do you know off-hand how much one test costs? It must be pricey as it is.)

    Next, detergents are used to pop open the viruses (and all of the other bubbly things in the mix), exposing RNA.

    Several fragments of viral RNA are then targeted for reverse-transcription into DNA. This is done using guides—primers—specific for the protease (PR) and reverse transcriptase (RT) genes of HIV-1. The actual transcription is performed by a genetically-engineered RT enzyme from a mouse leukemia virus.

    The amplified DNA fragments from PR and RT are then inserted into a replication-incompetent HIV provirus—basically the viral genome plus promoters, etc., that help it pump out a lot of virus products in a host cell. This provirus lacks its own protease and RT sequences, and also has a “reporter” in the place of part of its envelope (env) gene. The reporter encodes a protein that glows under the right stimulation (it’s derived from a firefly gene) so that you know approximate levels of transcription.

    When the vectors are ready, they are introduced into a cancer cell line. Since the provirus is still replication-defective, even with new PR and RT, another DNA vector is also popped in, this one churning out murine leukemia virus envelope protein to replace the shiny but defective env gene from the HIV-1 provirus.

    The combined contributions of host cell, HIV-1 vector, and mouse virus envelope result in high levels of virion production. Virus is collected from the liquid growth medium covering the cancer cells, the virus producers; I’m not sure whether or how it’s purified at this step. Virus is then placed on new cells, the recipient cells.

    The drug resistance part of the experiment is done differently for the two classes of inhibitors (protease vs reverse transcriptase). For PRIs, the drugs are administered to the producer cells after the DNA is placed inside but well before virus is collected for the infection round. This is because the HIV-1 protease presumably needs to do its work BEFORE the virion infects the recipient cell. For RTIs, since RT is thought by most to act within the target cell, generating DNA from viral RNA, the drug is first introduced to the recipient cells just before virus is unleashed on them.

    When the virus infects the recipient cells, it’s at a dead end, since its genetic material doesn’t contain any functional envelope recipes (the mouse DNA stayed back in the producer cells). It can’t make new virions. What it CAN do, however, is make the firefly protein. After an appropriate interval, a lab technician puts the plastic plate where the recipient cells are living into a “plate-reader” that illuminates the cells with a certain wavelength of light. If the protein is there, it glows, emitting light of a longer wavelength. The machine records the intensity of the emitted light, and there are your semi-quantitative readouts. The more intense the emitted light, the more resistant the virus apparently is to the drug tested. Results are compared with no-drug samples (should be very bright), wild-type vectors (should be dim), and vectors containing known resistant proteins (should be bright).

    Rats, that’s my lunch and I haven’t gotten into the problems with it all. I suppose you can all figure them out.

  413. Truthseeker Says:

    Multiply:
    1. The probability that a gay man uses poppers regularly (at least several times per week), by
    2. The probability that the same gay man uses speed, cocaine, or heroin regularly, by
    3. The probability that the same gay man visits a bath house regularly, by
    4. The probability that the same gay man has a poor diet.

    That would inevitably result in a very, very small probability estimate, nowhere near the number/percentage of gay men testing positive in SF, NYC, and LA. Logic alone tells us this is so.

    NHM, your probability math is not correctly applied here. If anything these causal factors should be added, not multiplied. Each of them can independently lead to immune deficit. Duesberg never said they were all needed together. Also let’s note they tend to overlap anyway. And you have overlooked another factor which you yourself usefully drew attention to, the great amount of antibiotics swallowed by many.

    Not to mention of course that you have confused HIV positivity with actual immune deficit. Again, what are your stats for both?

    Arguing that gays have some other reason than drugs and bathhouses for being HIV positive at a high level and suffer from immune deficit at a high level seems like a dead end. What would you suggest as an alternative?

  414. nohivmeds Says:

    I’m sorry about your lunch, Martel. I can imagine the problems, given the elaborateness of the procedures (as usual), and the introduction of other viruses, etc. But if/when you have time, your concerns about the process would be most welcome.

    THe process is “sold” to patients as a “genotype-phenotype resistance assay,” and the results provided are a list of all known drugs and then a column that indicates the presence of any mutation.

    What is curious to me: they aren’t really “getting” the genotype of my particular “virus,” they’re just testing it against the drugs. Also — even though I’ve done 4 long treatment interruptions, I have no mutations. This seems to be contraindicated by “HIV” theory. One doctor told me that this means that “wild type” is most prevalent, but there are likely other insiduous nasty strains with mutations that will eventually bust out on their own and kill me dead (not in those exact words, but you get the drift). What disappoints me is that all this work does not produce a genotype/phenotype particular to me — which, given the little I know about cancer research (read: very little) might actually be useful information. I also can’t understand why after nearly a decade of on-again, off-again use of the ARVs, I’m still running around with “wild type,” and no detectable mutations. This is especially problematic for anyone who posits that one can be “reinfected” with a different strain — that should have happened in my case, I think, if it were true. Again, I don’t really get it. But thank you for the clear narrative again on the testing procedures. Had anyone told me it involved fireflies, I might have liked it more! : )

  415. nohivmeds Says:

    TS — you multiply probabilities; you don’t add them (at least, in this case, when trying to get at a combined/intersecting probability). And the “great amount of antibiotics” theory could simply be added to the list — again, a small, small percentage of gay men. I wouldn’t suggest alternatives; I can’t make knowledge claims about the cause of the immune deficit — again, not my area of expertise. I can just question the logic of the existing knowledge claims based on my experience and knowledge.

  416. nohivmeds Says:

    I’m sorry, I’m not being clear. I’m multiplying in this case to create the “perfect Duesbergian gay man” — the intersection of all of these events. I’m doing this to illustrate that this person/persons are a very small group indeed. I believe you’re correct that any of those events singularly could cause immune problems — but not necessarily death from immune collapse — which, even in extreme drug abuse, is rare. A combination of these events is necessary for Peter’s theory to be viable, in my view, and that would, as I am trying to say, apply to very, very, very few gay men.

  417. MacDonald Says:

    A combination of these events is necessary for Peter’s theory to be viable

    One or more of these events + AZT is what’s necessary for Prof. Duesberg’s theory to be viable. In,

    Antiviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration report, The Lancet, Aug. 5, 2006; vol 368: pp. 451-458

    it is suggested that the best viral responses to therapy have been seen among homosexual men, while women and men infected via heterosexual contact have not benefited as much.

    This would jive with several explanations, but it’s interesting that it’s not only the disease, but also the treatment that seems to discriminate between gay and straight.

    Perhaps part of the answer would be that in the early heavy dose days gays specifically were shipped off wholesale by AZT and the likes, which would create the corresponding illusion that they are benefitting more than other groups from the new milder versions of the drugs, and the more varied treatment strategies.

    Alternatively, otherwise healthy gays, for whatever reason, are more susceptible to diverse microbial infections targeted by these drugs, whereas in the heterosexual patients underlying issues like poverty, hard-drug abuse, mental diseases are not so easily treated simply with antiviral drugs.

    Fact is Duesberg’s “lifestyle” hyposthesis is not as simple and straight forward as the virus theory, but that’s what he pits it against from a reading of the data given in the literature.

    Such an analysis is necessarily simplifying and genralizing, as you know. But what do you want the man to do? Append a couple hundred pages of exceptions, political correctness observances, qualifying remarks, disclaimers etc. to every friggin paper he tries to get his scientific colleagues at the journals to read and publish?
    Tell me how far do you think Duesberg would have advanced this issue in the real world by writing homages to scientific Fence squatting?

    Or how about having him go out publicly and admit that he’s got homophobic issues running in the family, apologize at the next gay pride parade, reveal he’s an alcoholic on Oprah, then promise to start therapy and community service in an Afro-Semitic bath house with Mel Gibson, what’s his face from Kramer and teh host of this blog?

  418. Chris Noble Says:

    Try reading the very link you boilerplated yourself. Herpes zoster is on it. “Herpes zoster (shingles), involving at least two distinct episodes or more than one dermatome”

    Objecting to Duesberg expanding the list of AIDS symptoms to salmonella when it is demanded that it is recurrent is absurd given the enthusiastic CDC expansion of the list to cervical cancer, for God’s sake, and the removal of the original marker, KS, by that point. This is bureaucratic BS, not medicine or science. You seem to have overlooked that KS had been removed by then. Guess you are too busy boilerplating your replies from your stock sites instead of using your overtaxed brain, is that it?

    Read closer. Herpes zoster has never been in the AIDS definition.

    KS has not been removed. Don’t believe what you read on “rethinker” websites. Who started this rumour anyway?

    AIDS defining diseases are just that because they are relatively rare in the general population but people with AIDS have a dramatically higher risk of these conditions. If you have PCP it is statistically very likely that you have AIDS.

  419. Chris Noble Says:

    The “how” usually precedes the “whether or not”, in a similar way that the cause must precede the effect. Once again, correlation is not causation.

    Did Robert Koch understand the ‘how’ of tuberculosis in 1882? Do we understand everything about the ‘how’ of tuberculosis in 2006?

  420. Chris Noble Says:

    It is not true that AZT was given only after symptoms of AIDS appeared. What period of time, governed by which Treatment Ideology, was Mr. Noble referring to?

    The data that Ascher used was based on the San Francisco Men’s Health Study cohort and involved 1034 men recruited in June-December 1984 and followed for 96 months.

    Of the 233 AIDS patients 64 did not take AZT at any time, 90 had an AIDS diagnosis before taking AZT and another 51 had a CD4+ count of less than 300 cells/ul befoire taking AZT.

    It is illogical to blame AZT for the depletion of CD4+ cells and progression to AIDS in these cases as it happened before treatment with AZT.

    I am not claiming that asymptomatic HIV+ patients were never given AZT. The vast majority of patients that were given AZT were either already diagnosed with AIDS or had low CD4+ counts.

  421. Chris Noble Says:

    Read the papers. Ten years on, it was found that there was cellular contamination. The pictures could not be said to be of HIV with any certainty.

    I have read the papers. Gelderblom has not retracted anything. All of the papers that you cited clearly distinguish virus particles from microvesicles. No matter how much confusion people like the perth group try to spread microvesicles can be distinguished from virus particles. Microvesicles do not have cone shaped cores and certainly not cores that contain HIV-p24 as evidenced by immunoferritin staining.

  422. nohivmeds Says:

    Macdonald,
    Your recriminations are entirely unnecessary. I have flat-out stated in this thread that there would indeed be no alternatives to think about, had it not been for Peter Duesberg. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to examine his theory critically. I’m going to look for what’s missing. I’m certain Dr. Duesberg would not begrudge me the opportunity to do that. The tone and assumptions of your post were entirely misplaced.

  423. kevin Says:

    Chris Noble wrote:
    Did Robert Koch understand the ‘how’ of tuberculosis in 1882?

    No one is asking you to explain every little detail about the purportedly deadly HIV virus, Chris. A morsel of consistency in the theory might have kept me loyal; however, in the face of counter evidence, the HIV-hypothesis is simply altered to meet the data set in question, or else you simple pander your own specialized brand of denialism, one that has said, over and over, how unfair are the dissident demands for accountabilty, even from such well-funded science, given the wiley ways of this very special retro-virus, human immunodeficiency virus. Being a curious fellow, I plugged HIV into Merriam-Websters online dictionary and was presented the following:

    Main Entry: HIV
    Pronunciation: “Ach-“I-‘vE
    Function: noun
    : any of various strains, serotypes, or clades of HIV-1 and HIV-2 that infect and destroy helper T cells of the immune system causing the marked reduction in their numbers that is diagnostic of AIDS — called also AIDS virus, human immunodeficiency virus

    Huh? Wonder when this will be updated. I mean, I was under the impression that the jury was still out on whether or not the virus actually infects T cells or whether it kills them indirectly, somehow, especially after the Rodriguez paper in JAMA. I guess that’s what you mean about not knowing the “how”, but it seems to meet that this example also implies that you don’t know the “whether or not”, either. I kinda figured that.

    A discussion of the dubious claim that HIV kills T-cells

    HIV research fails to measure up the the scientific standards that have served humankind so well for so long. No, these new standards are an abberration in the history of scientific progress, and the future will vindicate those of us who prefer our science without corporate aspirations. But to help you understand that, I assert that the following are much better “Koch” questions than the obvious one you supplied:

    Did Koch behave as though he did understand every little detail of TB disease by recklessly moving from failed treatment to failed treatment, which is exactly the level of acceptance members of the HIV establishment asks of you and me, in spite of our current state of confusion?

    More importantly, did (or would) Koch participate in a research environment where all dissenting opinions are censored from academia while simultaneously being publicly ridiculed through the use of dangerous propoganda devices like corporate advertising and multimedia? (I think he might find such standards lacking considering how much accountability his postulates demand of scientific claims.)

    How about, research funding, do you think Koch would approve of the current system where science that is beneficial to the pharmaceutical industry is given preferential treatment when public funds are allocated?

    Back to treatment, did he advise the use of chemotherpeutic-like treatments, (say high-dose arsenic) even though the science which might recommend such a drastic measure had been thoroughly debunked (Ho’s viral load anyone?)?

    You must be a Shill for the establishment, Chris. How else could you fail to see whether or not you are repeating yourself, considering how much time you spend on dissident sites. I bet your posts are scripted by the “real” scientists who have more important things to do than blog about the incredible certainty with which we know whether or not HIV causes AIDS. Godspeed the how !

    Kevin

  424. nohivmeds Says:

    Godspeed the how, yes. I second that. And I don’t care what/who has the answer/answers — I really don’t. I do think CN might admit to some level of uncertainty if he wants to be taken seriously. Because it’s clear that there is uncertainty. Anyone posturing with certainty is not seeing the situation realistically.

  425. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    That’s a cheap misplaced shot, nhm. Life is uncertain and death and taxes are. But I’m not certain.

    So what answers do you demand ? And of whom do you demand certitude ?

    You deal with the cards that you’ve been dealt ? You play your own hand. No one else can do it for you. But you can draw on friends and a knowledge bases and the best of or the worst of expertise and quackery.

    Medicine is not science, it is an art of clinical judgement based on accumulated knowledge information in which you get to be an active participant provided you don’t pick up the crayons and leave your brains at the door.

    Excuse the distraction, YGB is awaiting Kevins reply to a challenge for him, “to present some actual evidence that demonstrate ANY lies were presented by the commenter, YGB” regarding false accusations by Dave.

    I disagree that Chris is posturing re: certainty. And he is providing a plentitude more information you’ll ever squeeze out of Barnes, who believes all it takes is 175 heterosexual couples and no homosexual pairings to disprove HIV transmission in a world population of 7 billion people.

    Robert, excuse the “low ranking goon move” but the threadings now exceed 90,000+ words.

  426. Chris Noble Says:

    I do think CN might admit to some level of uncertainty if he wants to be taken seriously. Because it’s clear that there is uncertainty. Anyone posturing with certainty is not seeing the situation realistically.

    There is a great deal about HIV that is poorly understood and uncertain. By the same token there is a great deal that is very well understood and certain.

    Nothing is regarded as absolutely certain in science. However, there are some things for which the evidence is so great that a high degree of certainty can be placed on them.

    One “rethinker” tactic is to use a false dichotomy between 100% proven and completely unknown. If HIV tests are less than 100% specific then they are completely non-specific. Evolution is just a theory etc.

    If “rethinkers” could come up with valid reasons to doubt the existence of HIV and its role in AIDS then I would take them seriously. One way to test whether an argument is valid is to test it on other pathogens. When Duesberg says that all sexually transmitted diseases are equally distributed between the sexes then look at syphilis. When the Perth group says that HIV has not been isolated according to the “rules of retroviral isolation” then ask them to provide an example of a retrovirus that has been isolted according to these rules.

    I think you will also find that it is the “rethinkers” that are guilty of misplaced certainty. It is Duesberg that right from the start has said that HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS. Other “rethinkers” ask “unanswerable questions”. Is someone that asks “unanswerable questions” really interested in answers? I don’t think so.

    I use the term “rethinker” ironically because it is evident that most (hopefully not all) “rethinkers” have made up their minds a long time ago.

  427. C. Farber Says:

    So Mr. Noble, you are opposed to ‘confusion,’ which you have the gall to say is being spread by the Perth Group,
    and not the great Lava Lamp known as the HIV research establishment, which has broken all formely known records of brutality, hubris, arrogance, and incoherence in modern medicine. The only principle that seems never to have been confused since 1984 is that which dictates that you cannot say you were wrong, none of you can, ever, even when it is plain as day, totally undeniable.

    You like clarity? Then answer me one simple question:

    Did people die as a direct cellular result of AZT between the years of 1987 and 1993 or did they not?

    Did people die of AZT toxicity or did they not? Yes or no.

    I dare you to say no.

    I dare you.

    I spent some time this weekend with a man whose brother was killed by AZT, 18 years ago. I spent twelve hours with him, to be precise, to be sure I wasn’t getting ‘confused.’

    Nothing about it was confusing, but everything about it was harrowing, nauseating, rage-inducing. Assuming one is human, and assuming one sits there and listens, and assuming one is not in denial of stark reality.

    The beloved brother was the man’s best friend. Got that? He was healthy when coerced to get an HIV test, got that? He was placed on AZT and started getting violently ill in days. He then DEVELOPED clinical AIDS—KS, PCP, the works. He died a gruesome death which included what his brother described as “melting,” by which I mean to say that part of his face had disintegrated by the time he died. Did HIV do that to him?

    Did Perth group’s ‘confusion’ do that to him? Did “AIDS denialists,” or better yet “AZT Refusniks,” (Doug Ireland’s phrase) do that to him?

    Are you actually crazy?

    Answer the question: Did AZT kill people, yes or no?

    This man would like to know where he might direct his anger. Needless to say, I can’t bring his brother back.

    You have some nerve showing your face here, given what you are complicit in. All of you are complicit. I am sick and tired of being beaten and bashed and made to pay for your crimes.

    Answer the question, if you dare.

    Celia

  428. Dave Says:

    Because it’s clear that there is uncertainty. Anyone posturing with certainty is not seeing the situation realistically.

    This is a good statement.

    The problem, though, is compounded when, despite the uncertainty, scientists feign imperial medical wisdom, and then impose said wisdom on the rest of us.

    For example, in 1987, the AIDS brain trust was “certain” that AZT was a safe and effective drug — despite botched drug trials and no long-term data.

    The main sin, though, was refusing to even note that AZT was designed as cancer chemo, has all the side-effects of cancer chemo, and, unsurprisingly, would affect patients like cancer chemo.

    This was the primary drug used for 10 years — 1987-1996. Daily life-time doses were given. In 1990, huge numbers of the first AZT patients contracted and died from lymphoma.

    Myself, I think this was iatrogenic death of the worst kind. Gay men took the brunt of it.

    But shouldn’t the folks who were “certain” of this treatment take the brunt of our scorn, than those who were exhibited some healthy skepticsm?

    Don’t forget — 1 courageous scientist gently tried to stop the AZT freight train, in 1988 in the pages of Science:

    I fully support the view that “knowledge of the cause of a disease (etiology) is important for control.” Since the cause of AIDS is debatable, the control of AIDS may not be achieved by controlling HIV. This is particularly true for the highly toxic “control” (preventive or therapeutic) of AIDS with azidothymidine (AZT)-AZT is designed to inhibit viral DNA synthesis in persons who have antibodies to a virus that is not synthesizing DNA (14).

    Not only did few folks listen to him, but many of those who were “certain” he was wrong, actively tried to wreck his career.

  429. Chris Noble Says:

    I have never claimed that AZT is not toxic and does not have side-effects some of which may be fatal.

    I think it is certain that in some people the side effects from AZT would have been worse than the short term benefits of monotherapy. In some cases the cause of death may have been ultimately AZT.

    What I object to is Duesberg’s attempt to blame AIDS in HIV+ hemophiliacs on AZT.

    You asked me a specific question regarding the patients in Ascher’s cohort. I answered it with actual data.

    What caused the AIDS in the HIV+ hemophiliacs who were prescribed AZT only after progressing to AIDS or who progressed to AIDS despite not being prescribed AZT at all?

    Why was it that the HIV+ patients got opportunistic diseases such as KS and PCP while the best that Duesberg could find in the HIV- group was oral candidiasis, herpes zoster and salmonella?

    We also know from cases like Kimberly Bergalis that Duesberg can be economical with the truth. Duesberg tried to argue that Bergalis was completely healthy until she took AZT. And argued that AZT was responsible for all symptoms she had.

    In reality she had a CD4+ cell count of 41 cells/ul, PCP, weight loss, hair loss, thrush before she ever took AZT. It is simply not possible for AZT to have caused these illnesses.

    Yet, because people still buy Duesberg’s book and because Duesberg never admitted to being – economical with the truth – there is no shortage of people claiming that Bergalis was perfectly healthy until she started taking AZT.

  430. Robert Houston Says:

    We’ve heard some characteristic tactics of disinformation from Chris Noble: misrepresent the views of Duesberg, misrepresent the studies against him, and bring in new red herrings (e.g. the anecdotal case of Bergalis who in fact was in fine health until subjected to multiple toxic drugs after a positive HIV test).

    As should be well-known even by mouthpieces of the AIDS industry, Duesberg never claimed that AZT was the only cause of immunodeficiency. He specified abuse of recreational drugs (e.g., nitrites, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, etc.) among gay men and drug addicts, drugs that have been shown to be immunosuppressive in many studies (e.g., dozens are in the volume, Drugs of Abuse, Immunity, and AIDS, Ed.: H. Friedman et al., Plenum Press, 1993). The 1993 Ascher study sought to discount drug abuse as a factor even though it did not document AIDS cases in non-users of drugs (recreational or anti-HIV).

    In hemophiliacs, the immunosuppressive properties of transfusions and of foreign proteins that contaminated much of their injected factor-8 medication was established by several studies. Duesberg’s theory of hemophilia was called the foreign protein hypothesis – not the AZT hypothesis. It was the sharp rise in deaths among hemophiliacs after 1987 (confirmed by the Darby study) that Duesberg attributed in major part to AZT, since that was the year it was approved by the FDA and began increasing use in hemophiliacs. This was followed by a 10-fold jump in their death rate, even though HIV was already screened out of the blood supply in 1985.

    According to Joseph Sonnobend, M.D., a co-founder of AMFAR, “Sadly, the orthodox AIDS establishmet has made mistake after mistake. 1200 mg a day of AZT [the first approved dose in the ’80s] killed thousands, as did so-called early intervention.” (Quoted by Lederer in POZ, April 2006.)

  431. Chris Noble Says:

    (e.g. the anecdotal case of Bergalis who in fact was in fine health until subjected to multiple toxic drugs after a positive HIV test).

    It is a matter of public record that Bergalis was severely ill before she was a) diagnosed with HIV infection and b) prescribed AZT.

    AIDS From A Healer, Scorn From Others

    As should be well-known even by mouthpieces of the AIDS industry, Duesberg never claimed that AZT was the only cause of immunodeficiency. He specified abuse of recreational drugs (e.g., nitrites, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, etc.) among gay men and drug addicts, drugs that have been shown to be immunosuppressive in many studies (e.g., dozens are in the volume, Drugs of Abuse, Immunity, and AIDS, Ed.: H. Friedman et al., Plenum Press, 1993). The 1993 Ascher study sought to discount drug abuse as a factor even though it did not document AIDS cases in non-users of drugs (recreational or anti-HIV).

    In hemophiliacs, the immunosuppressive properties of transfusions and of foreign proteins that contaminated much of their injected factor-8 medication was established by several studies. Duesberg’s theory of hemophilia was called the foreign protein hypothesis – not the AZT hypothesis. It was the sharp rise in deaths among hemophiliacs after 1987 (confirmed by the Darby study) that Duesberg attributed in major part to AZT, since that was the year it was approved by the FDA and began increasing use in hemophiliacs. This was followed by a 10-fold jump in their death rate, even though HIV was already screened out of the blood supply in 1985.

    In Ascher’s study they looked to see whether drug use had any effect on the progression to AIDS. The result was that there was no difference between the high drug use and the low/none group. The only factor was whether the subject was HIV positive.

    In Darby and Sabin’s studies they also controlled for factor-VIII use and found no relation with AIDS. Again the only relevant factor was HIV infection.

    One of Duesberg’s responses was to make the claim that the correlation between HIV infection and AIDS was only an apparenet relationship because the HIV+ people were given AZT which caused AIDS.

    Ascher and Sabin have both made it absolutely clear that people were given AZT because they were ill. The majority of people that progressed to AIDS either had taken no AZT or were only prescribed AZT after progressing to AIDS.

    This must be Duesberg’s AZT-time travel thory of AIDS.

    Whatever happened to Occam’s razor?

    According to Duesberg recreational drugs are the cause of AIDS. If it wasn’t recreational drugs it must have been foreign proteins. If it wasn’t recreational drugs or foreign proteins it must have been the AZT even if the AZT was only taken after progressing to AIDS.

  432. MacDonald Says:

    Here’s another one the goon squad tried to sneak in

    When the Perth group says that HIV has not been isolated according to the “rules of retroviral isolation” then ask them to provide an example of a retrovirus that has been isolted according to these rules.

    Perth, DeHarven, even Lanka all provide examples of properly isolated and described microbes.

    Another pathetic tactic is to choose an example, like TB, which wasn’t ‘fully understood’ when postulated as a disease causing agent 120 years ago, but in hindsight seems to have held up. I think everybody here can think of a few rashly pronounced disease causing agents that didn’t hold up.

    But I’d like for Dr. Noble to go on the record for more than AZT.

    All of the papers that you cited clearly distinguish virus particles from microvesicles. No matter how much confusion people like the perth group try to spread microvesicles can be distinguished from virus particles. Microvesicles do not have cone shaped cores and certainly not cores that contain HIV-p24 as evidenced by immunoferritin staining (Noble)

    Is Dr. Noble saying that Gelderbom in all his papers distinguished between ‘real’ virus microvesicles and whatever else was in the soup by examining the shape of the particle core?

    Is he saying Gelderblom claims that detecting something with a conical core in serum from an AIDS patient is the same as detecting HIV?

    Is he saying that Hans Gelderblom identified HIV because within the conical core(?) of the particles he didn’t isolate was found an “HIV protein”?

    Or is that just Dr. Noble’s own extensive lab. and research experience?

    In that case maybe he can explain to us how it was established that the “HIV p-24” was an HIV-specific protein in advance of Gelderblom’s isolation of it.

  433. MacDonald Says:

    I have flat-out stated in this thread that there would indeed be no alternatives to think about, had it not been for Peter Duesberg. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to examine his theory critically. I’m going to look for what’s missing. I’m certain Dr. Duesberg would not begrudge me the opportunity to do that. The tone and assumptions of your post were entirely misplaced.
    NHM

    I don’t think that anyone here needs to re-read to get the impression that most of your posts are about people’s perceptions of gay men, Duesberg included.

    A construct like “perfect Duesbergian gay man” is indeed misplaced and offensive.

    Your so called examination of the so called flaws in Duesberg’s theories, which in my view consists mostly in not accepting that the man has to generalize and simplify in the kind of papers he writes under the conditions of publishing, would lose no force by keeping the gay perception issue out of it.

  434. Chris Noble Says:

    Perth, DeHarven, even Lanka all provide examples of properly isolated and described microbes.

    Can you name one virus that has been isolated according to the set of rules that the Perth Group have specified as being necessary? Just one?

    I have asked the Perth Group to name one. They never responded.

  435. Truthseeker Says:

    What caused the AIDS in the HIV+ hemophiliacs who were prescribed AZT only after progressing to AIDS or who progressed to AIDS despite not being prescribed AZT at all?

    Gee that’s a hard one, which we already answered, but here is Robert Houston to repeat it:

    In hemophiliacs, the immunosuppressive properties of transfusions and of foreign proteins that contaminated much of their injected factor-8 medication was established by several studies. Duesberg’s theory of hemophilia was called the foreign protein hypothesis – not the AZT hypothesis. It was the sharp rise in deaths among hemophiliacs after 1987 (confirmed by the Darby study) that Duesberg attributed in major part to AZT, since that was the year it was approved by the FDA and began increasing use in hemophiliacs. This was followed by a 10-fold jump in their death rate, even though HIV was already screened out of the blood supply in 1985.

    Wake up, Chris, or ask your team of advisers to brief you better.

    It is a matter of public record that Bergalis was severely ill before she was a) diagnosed with HIV infection and b) prescribed AZT:AIDS From A Healer, Scorn From Others

    That would be a win for you, Chris, if one could trust the story, which like so much in the Times on HIV∫AIDS is a swirl of speculation and superstition that smacks of all kinds of distortions in the heads of those drawn on for the story. Look at this appalling paragraph:

    What they were investigating was Kimberly. “They asked me about my dates with my boyfriend, where I put my mouth, where he put his mouth, where I put my hand, where he put his hand,” she said. The latency period for AIDS usually averages around seven years, so if the cause was sexual contact, it might have happened when she was a young teen-ager. Investigators asked her friends if Kimberly’s father had ever looked at her oddly or touched her in a suggestive way.

    So forgive us if we adopt your own rockheaded style and cling to our basic assumption, backed by so much evidence in the literature, that getting “AIDS” from a dentist via the transfer of HIV is not on the cards, scientifically speaking.

    Read closer. Herpes zoster has never been in the AIDS definition.

    Nice quibble. Herpes zoster is right there in category B, along with cervical cancer (for Gawd’s sake, cervical cancer, a political sop to women to allow them a share of the pork barrel) so it seems that you are depending on keeping “AIDS” only for Category C, which is counter to the trend of AIDS diagnosis year by year which is not only threatening to creep back all the way to category A these days but will probably include choking and train accidents as AIDS symptoms if we don’t watch out, which with universal super sensitive not so diluted AIDS testing will finally result in what the HIV∫AIDS ideal seems to be, which is that “all the world has AIDS”.

    CDC MMR December 18, 1992 / 41(RR-17) 1993 Revised Classification System for HIV Infection and Expanded Surveillance Case Definition for AIDS Among Adolescents and Adults

    The clinical categories of HIV infection are defined as follows:

    Category A

    Category A consists of one or more of the conditions listed below in an adolescent or adult (greater than or equal to 13 years) with documented HIV infection. Conditions listed in Categories B and C must not have occurred.

    *

    Asymptomatic HIV infection
    *

    Persistent generalized lymphadenopathy
    *

    Acute (primary) HIV infection with accompanying illness or history of acute HIV infection (29,30) Category B

    Category B consists of symptomatic conditions in an HIV-infected adolescent or adult that are not included among conditions listed in clinical Category C and that meet at least one of the following criteria: a) the conditions are attributed to HIV infection or are indicative of a defect in cell-mediated immunity; or b) the conditions are considered by physicians to have a clinical course or to require management that is complicated by HIV infection. Examples of conditions in clinical Category B include, but are not limited to:

    *

    Bacillary angiomatosis
    *

    Candidiasis, oropharyngeal (thrush)
    *

    Candidiasis, vulvovaginal; persistent, frequent, or poorly responsive to therapy
    *

    Cervical dysplasia (moderate or severe)/cervical carcinoma in situ
    *

    Constitutional symptoms, such as fever (38.5 C) or diarrhea lasting greater than 1 month
    *

    Hairy leukoplakia, oral
    *

    Herpes zoster (shingles), involving at least two distinct episodes or more than one dermatome
    *

    Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura
    *

    Listeriosis
    *

    Pelvic inflammatory disease, particularly if complicated by tubo-ovarian abscess
    *

    Peripheral neuropathy

    For classification purposes, Category B conditions take precedence over those in Category A. For example, someone previously treated for oral or persistent vaginal candidiasis (and who has not developed a Category C disease) but who is now asymptomatic should be classified in clinical Category B….

    APPENDIX B. Conditions included in the 1993 AIDS surveillance case definition

    *

    Candidiasis of bronchi, trachea, or lungs
    *

    Candidiasis, esophageal
    *

    Cervical cancer, invasive *
    *

    Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
    *

    Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary
    *

    Cryptosporidiosis, chronic intestinal (greater than 1 month’s duration)
    *

    Cytomegalovirus disease (other than liver, spleen, or nodes)
    *

    Cytomegalovirus retinitis (with loss of vision)
    *

    Encephalopathy, HIV-related
    *

    Herpes simplex: chronic ulcer(s) (greater than 1 month’s duration); or bronchitis, pneumonitis, or esophagitis
    *

    Histoplasmosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
    *

    Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal (greater than 1 month’s duration)
    *

    Kaposi’s sarcoma
    *

    Lymphoma, Burkitt’s (or equivalent term)
    *

    Lymphoma, immunoblastic (or equivalent term)
    *

    Lymphoma, primary, of brain
    *

    Mycobacterium avium complex or M. kansasii, disseminated or extrapulmonary
    *

    Mycobacterium tuberculosis, any site (pulmonary * or extrapulmonary)
    *

    Mycobacterium, other species or unidentified species, disseminated or extrapulmonary
    *

    Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia
    *

    Pneumonia, recurrent *
    *

    Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
    *

    Salmonella septicemia, recurrent
    *

    Toxoplasmosis of brain
    *

    Wasting syndrome due to HIV

    *

    Added in the 1993 expansion of the AIDS surveillance case definition.

    APPENDIX C. Definitive diagnostic methods for diseases indicative of AIDS

    Cryptosporidiosis, Isosporiasis, Kaposi’s sarcoma, Lymphoma, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, Toxoplasmosis, Cervical cancer Microscopy (histology or cytology)

    Candidiasis Gross inspection by endoscopy or autopsy or by microscopy (histology or cytology) on a specimen obtained directly from the tissues affected (including scrapings from the mucosal surface), not from a culture

    Coccidioidomycosis, Cryptococcosis, Cytomegalovirus, Herpes simplex virus, Histoplasmosis Microscopy (histology or cytology), culture, or detection of antigen in a specimen obtained directly from the tissues affected or a fluid from those tissues

    Tuberculosis, Other mycobacteriosis, Salmonellosis Culture ….

    With herpes simplex “indicative of AIDS” and herpes zoster in category B, let’s recognize the sense of all this for what it is – develping AIDS.

    However, Kaposi’s Sarcoma was kept on the list, you are right about that. We were misinformed. Why did we believe it? Because KS’s status as the chief marker of GRID and then AIDS has vanished. Gee, what happened? Can’t have been that the popularity of poppers dropped rather drastically can it? Must have been the mutating virus changing into such a new breed that it no longer causes that peculiar symptom, you would say, is that it?

    And don’t overlook the kind and now totally obsolete (except in the mind of Dr Anthony “HIV kills every which way” Fauci) explanation of how HIV∫AIDS works in this ridiculous document, emblematic of the worst expansionism of this hypothesis, in its convenient redefinition of AIDS to expand the numbers to counter what would otherwise have been an even more drastic decline.

    The etiologic agent of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a retrovirus designated human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The CD4+ T-lymphocyte is the primary target for HIV infection because of the affinity of the virus for the CD4 surface marker (3). The CD4+ T-lymphocyte coordinates a number of important immunologic functions, and a loss of these functions results in progressive impairment of the immune response. Studies of the natural history of HIV infection have documented a wide spectrum of disease manifestations, ranging from asymptomatic infection to life-threatening conditions characterized by severe immunodeficiency, serious opportunistic infections, and cancers (4-13). Other studies have shown a strong association between the development of life-threatening opportunistic illnesses and the absolute number (per microliter of blood) or percentage of CD4+ T- lymphocytes (14-21). As the number of CD4+ T-lymphocytes decreases, the risk and severity of opportunistic illnesses increase.

    Students of the science of human stupidity should study this document for it is Exhibit A in the history of that field. Notice that it doesn’t actually say that HIV kills CD4 cells. Notice that it says “asymptomatic infection” is one possibility in a range of resulting diseases which include “cancers” ie cell proliferation, not cell killing. Notice that it says the illnesses get worse as CD4 cells decline – but it doesn’t mention the putative agent, HIV, as a governing factor in terms of quantity.

    No thinking person can have read this without six alarms going off, unless their brain was infested with the HIV meme.

  436. nohivmeds Says:

    I’m really sorry that some folks think it inappropriate that I direct my criticisms in a rather equal manner (I think this thread bears that out). You’ll have to attempt to see it from my perspective. I was given the “answer” by the establishment, only to find out that much of that answer was incredible exaggeration and some outright lies. Given that cataclysm in consciousness, I’m simply not about to accept definitiveness from anyone. It doesn’t behoove me to do so, Macdonald, because I am struggling with an immune deficiency, not a need to show off my knowledge of certain philosophical questions.

    Although I’m sure I’ll be attacked for writing this — I’d also like to say that I am well aware of all the horrible things that happened to patients, to Dr. Duesberg, and to many excellent scientists and journalists because of their stance against the establishment. I’m aware of those things, I understand them, they’ve made me angry beyond belief — but that is the past. I have an uncertain present and and uncertain future medically. I don’t think it should be a surprise that I put my focus there.

    Also, I don’t honestly think that Peter Duesberg would think too much of me if I simply agreed with everything he has written (all of which, I’m saying yet again, that I’m extremeley grateful for). Good scientists don’t simply fall in line like soldiers — that’s what the establishment has done — and I feel again like I am being asked to do that by the dissidents. The oppressed emulating their oppressors once again. How many times will we discuss the horrendousness directed at Peter Duesberg? He is being elevated to the level of Joan of Arc. The man still works in his lab, still has graduate students. I’m sure what happened 15-20 years ago was horrendous, but he moved on to even greater things, i.e., aneuploidy. He has continued to make contributions. Why is every question regarding his AIDS work met with: oh but Peter sacrificed so much? That’s non-sensical and non-scientific.

    YGB, I did not accuse you of certainty. I don’t know how you could have thought that was directed at you. Remember who your friends are. You’re lucky to still have any from what I understand.

  437. nohivmeds Says:

    From what I know, Noreen, Kevin, and I are the only folks who post here who have personally struggled with health problems related to serious immune deficiencies. That anyone would expect that we would simply “join up” with any particular theory of why we are suffering immune deficiencies is beyond my ability to understand. And why people would take the time to attack our interest in what all parties have to say, or our right to criticize all the “answers” provided to explain our immune deficiencies, is not just something I fail to understand, but also, is something that actually really pisses me off. I think it’s a lucky thing for NAR that three individuals who are actively dealing with these issues (i.e., it’s more than just writing on the page for us) choose to comment here. It injects a dose of realism that clearly makes some people uncomfortable — but that is simply too bad. This is life on the front line, not in the parlour, sipping tea, and dissecting theories. Noreen bravely commended me for questioning. I’ve written the same about all the work Kevin is doing to try to understand his confusing situation. NAR is lucky to have our input.

  438. nohivmeds Says:

    Finally (for now) — any theory that wants to discuss immune deficiency is going to have to be able to explain my immune deficiency, Noreen’s, and Kevin’s — and, fascinatingly enough, even though this group of “immuno-deficients” is small — there is a lot of variability between the three of us. I would submit that no existing theory adequately addresses all three of us and our situations. I would also submit that any theory that wants serious consideration, is going to have to do so. That is a tall order, I understand that, but that’s life.

  439. Glider Says:

    TS wrote:

    “However, Kaposi’s Sarcoma was kept on the list, you are right about that. We were misinformed. Why did we believe it? Because KS’s status as the chief marker of GRID and then AIDS has vanished. Gee, what happened? Can’t have been that the popularity of poppers dropped rather drastically can it?”

    What evidence do you have that the use of poppers has dropped drastically? That’s certainly not my observation. But something you might consider which you may not be aware of and which may account for the drop in KS is that the formula for poppers changed in the mid-’80s to circumvent the law. They used to be stronger and consisted of amyl and butyl nitrite. Then they were changed to “light alkyl nitrites” such as isobutyl nitrite, butyl nitrite, and cyclohexyl nitrite.

  440. AF Says:

    NHM: Why does a one-size-fits-all theory have to be submitted? When I mentioned benzene lubes before you called it the “benzene hypothesis,” but I was just simply naming off one of many possible contributors. How could anyone here know why you have an immune deficiency when we are almost totally unaware of your mental/physical/medical history in detail? What if the question “What was/is AIDS?” has many answers and the information has become so contorted that we may never know exactly what it is in our lifetimes or ever? That, my friend, may be life.

  441. kevin Says:

    AF wrote:

    What if the question “What was/is AIDS?” has many answers and the information has become so contorted that we may never know exactly what it is in our lifetimes or ever?

    Exactly, AF. I think there are many answers to the question, and HIV is not one of them.

    I feel fairly certain about what caused my immune deficiency. Would anybody like to take a guess as to what that cause is? 😉 What, no one? 😉 I know I may have been a little excessive in my previous posts, but I just wanted to be clear and give details about my own health history and how my illness developed, and at the center of that story is antibiotic use.

    NMH, I would be very interested in hearing some more details about your own history of pharmaceutical use (antibiotics included), but only if you are so willing to divulge. Previously you wrote:

    And the “great amount of antibiotics” theory could simply be added to the list — again, a small, small percentage of gay men.

    First off, I contend that it does not take a “great” amount of antibiotic use to cause immune dysfunction, though the likelihood increases with frequent use. There are many examples of people suffering failed health after a single round of broad-spectrum antibiotics. I’ve previously posted a link to a patient database that illustrates that point. Perhaps the number of case histories was intimidating, but there really is a wealth of information in this database. Here are links to some of the more interesting individual patient histories from that database. They illustrate just how complex this new epidemic of immune suppression really is and also just how culpable antibiotic use and, subsequently, allopathic care is in causing or exacerbating this problem:

    Former marathon runner who suffers CFS after antibiotics

    Doc demands HIV test after antibiotics cause unresponsive candida infection (this happened to me)

    Another acne/antibiotic sufferer who is now ill

    After years of illness, patient has a new lease on life with proper treatment for candida(this also echoes my own experience

    There is hope with proper care. Dr Truss has been treating Candida since the early 80’s

    In addition, I do not believe that only “a small, small percentage of gay men” use antibiotics frequently. I’d say the opposite is true. In fact, for HIV+ gay men, antibiotics are often used as prophylactics. In my opinion, this is indeed a serious problem for people who are trying to recover immune health.

    Birth control, steriods, and a host of other pharmaceuticals can cause serious immune dysfunction in some people. Modern medicine refuses to acknowledge this and, as a result, health continues to decline and autoimmune diseases are increasingly prevelant. You may be a fence-sitter, NMH, but if you don’t connect the dots soon, it may be difficult to recover your health. I can empathize with your situation, but you must take responsibility for recovering your health. It is difficult but you will not find the answers you are looking for from most mainstream physicians because they are not enlightened to the real problem: widespread iatrogenic illness. Self-preservation forbids such enlightenement, and since the hippocratic oath is no longer the guiding force in modern medicinem, I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

    Kevin

  442. Truthseeker Says:

    I was given the “answer” by the establishment, only to find out that much of that answer was incredible exaggeration and some outright lies. Given that cataclysm in consciousness, I’m simply not about to accept definitiveness from anyone

    NHM, we are just asking you to think straight and hard and long without sidetracking into whether gays are being scorned, and accept a scientific case with not one strong argument against it, very numerous scientific and common sense arguments for it, and which is counter to a prevailing theory which has nothing to recommend it which withstands examination, and which grand error is precisely accounted for in motivation by gross political and financial distortions of science which everyone is familiar with, plus a few psychological ones which may be novel to many, but not to you, a psychologist. Is that too much to ask?

    Your otherwise understandable fence sitting is simply lack of as yet complete understanding of and familiarity with a reversal of your own long held assumption that the prevailing theory was valid, a theory in which you heavily invested your own destiny rather unthinkingly, and now have to reverse direction. But we are just asking you to stop rationalizing your own apparent internal alarm and confusion at this wholesale revision of your world view by coloring it enlightenment. There is nothing enlightened about being as yet insufficiently informed and insuffiently clear to have total conviction about your new perception, it is merely the inevitable predicament of anyone who has to change direction 180 degrees and treat the world as round rather than flat.

    You should accept our admiring tribute for managing to do a trick which is well beyond thousands of scientists, it is clear, which is to change your mind radically given new information and arguments. But don’t try and force upon us the idea that fence sitting is an admirable position to occupy. It should be rather painful, since the fence is rather thin and pointy, ie as full of contradictions as the conventional wisdom. Try jumping to the ground on the other side and see if it is solid or not. It is solid. Take the word of someone who has spent 20 years eyeing this monstrosity and the lead players of this drama.

    As for Duesberg not being a hero of science, that is also something else you should at once stop contradicting out of ignorance and superficial knowledge. He has one of the most stable and smart minds in the world, as the style and substance of his papers testify. There are very few men if any in science who could have taken on such a monster of misinformation and misapprehension as the HIV∫AIDS boondoggle and relentlessly exposed its lack of scientific and common sense across its whole range, which is exceptionally wide and diverse compared with any normal theoretical topic.

    For this he sacrificed immense amounts of time, having to repeat again and again for the benefit of even willing listeners such as yourself, truths which really should be obvious to most smart people, if they weren’t crippled by the pressure exerted by the idea that virtually all the world’s scientists and the entire host of humans that occupy this planet are united in an army that marches under this flag and will actively battle anyone who stands in their way.

    He sacrificed work on cancer which might well have led by now to better palliatives if not a cure for this monstrous way of dying, which takes so many more human beings off this planet than the ills of AIDS. He did this in a spirit of service in the public good which is now largely anachronistic.

    In return American science and American society has trounced him unmercifully in a manner which is shameful and should disgust everyone who bothers to find out what happened – not a penny from the NIH since, not a single grad student in his lab, where he is now alone except for undergraduate help – significantly, the undergraduates rose and applauded his course this year, except for one or some who immediately sent round an anonymous email letter before the final exam warning against taking up his view on how genes and retroviruses work, which is not to cause cancer in 35 year olds when the viruses are dormant in the cell.

    There is no more self demeaning stupidity in this affair than the urge so many smaller people than yourself have not to give Duesberg his due, calling it hero worship from his fans etc instead of acknpwledging greatness where it occurs without the approval (yet) of the Nobel committee, advised as they are by Baltimore, Varmus and other rip off artists of science who have finagled theirs for relatively doubtful if not useless work based on the death of one chicken a hundred years ago. Please don’t join in.

    The correct course of action in an ideal world would be to simply give Duesberg his own research department at the NUH with $1 billion to spend on pursuing real science, with a large administrative staff to run his errands perhaps including Anthony Fauci to look up things on Pub Med for him, if someone could teach that stalwart spokesman of HIV∫AIDS lore how to do that, in which process he might stumble across the papers we have referred him to a year ago that reveal that a tad of Vitamin A will do the trick as far as Bird Flu is concerned, since that is what provably defeats the production of TNF, the lung suffocating killer in that case.

  443. McKiernan Says:

    And perhaps one ought not mention TS that:

    “Over 70 primary immune deficiency diseases have been recognized. The antibody deficiencies constitute about 50% of all cases of primary immunodeficiencies. T cell deficiencies and combined immunodeficiencies are the second largest group, making up about 30%. Phagocytic defects and complement disorders make up about 18% and 2% of immunodeficiencies.”

    And as you know HIV/AIDS is a separate category. It seems a world reduced to Duesberg, non-Duesberg (HIV/AIDS) slightly misses the mark.

  444. MacDonald Says:

    Perth, DeHarven, even Lanka all provide examples of properly isolated and described microbes.

    Can you name one virus that has been isolated according to the set of rules that the Perth Group have specified as being necessary? Just one?

    I have asked the Perth Group to name one. They never responded.

    Chris, I’m positively shocked the Perth Group didn’t answer you, the truth seeking statistician from Murch. That definitely proves they don’t have a case.

    Now, I asked you 5 direct questions in the last mail not a single of which you answered. I guess that means you don’t a have a case 5 times over.

    It behooves me not to second guess the Perth Group’s judgment with regard to the sincerity and constructiveness of your request, so I’ll follow their example.

    As for the rest, both De Harven and Lanka offer viruses they themselves have isolated EM photographed and described as examples of ‘proper’ purification. They are the “friend” virus and Ectocarpus siliculosus respectively.

  445. nohivmeds Says:

    TS wrote:

    NHM, we are just asking you to think straight and hard and long without sidetracking into whether gays are being scorned, and accept a scientific case with not one strong argument against it, very numerous scientific and common sense arguments for it, and which is counter to a prevailing theory which has nothing to recommend it which withstands examination, and which grand error is precisely accounted for in motivation by gross political and financial distortions of science which everyone is familiar with, plus a few psychological ones which may be novel to many, but not to you, a psychologist. Is that too much to ask?

    I believe that is one of the most pompous things anyone has ever proposed to me — especially a non-scientist. The rest of your post discusses the past and you unadaulterated and therefore, not possibly even remotely critical, adulation of a friend of yours. That is your psychological situation to deal with, TS; the rest of us do not have to be privy for what is clearly a very personal attachment to Dr. Duesberg. Given that, you are in no place to question anyone’s objectivity. There is your answer.

  446. Dave Says:

    Hey glacial progress has been made!!

    Chris writes:

    I think it is certain that in some people the side effects from AZT would have been worse than the short term benefits of monotherapy. In some cases the cause of death may have been ultimately AZT.

    Glad to see he grudgingly agrees with Duesberg on this one:)

    On another note, real nice article about our Gal, Noreen Martin, in South Carolina newspaper:

    Good little blurb:

    At first glance, “AIDS rethinkers” like Martin seem to be buying into an elaborate conspiracy theory. Most rethinkers contend that the man who discovered HIV stole it from the French, many gay men get AIDS because of poppers and other recreational drug use, and most notably, there’s no AIDS epidemic.

    Their argument is based on one disputable fact: No scientific study has been done that proves that HIV causes AIDS.

    TS — I propose you end this 500 comment madness and do a separate post on this article.

  447. nohivmeds Says:

    Note this: you waste your time making such arguments to me. I am in no mood to be persuaded. I don’t expect you to understand that, TS — you’ve shown no evidence of being able to understand it. But let’s not waste time with posts like that again. I will not be moving from my current position. Attempts to marshall me to your cause will fall on deaf ears. Use your excellent ability to write writing something else.

  448. Martel Says:

    I’m pleased that CN has brought up the topic of Gelderblom’s 1987 paper again…you know, the one where HIV was isolated (well, grown from one of Gallo’s strains in some cancer cells high on antibiotics), purified, and viewed under the electron microscope.

    CN writes, refering to Pablo Gluschankof’s 1997 Virology paper entitled, “Cell Membrane Vesicles Are a Major Contaminant of Gradient-Enriched Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type-1 Preparations”:
    “Gelderblom has not retracted anything. All of the papers that you cited clearly distinguish virus particles from microvesicles.”

    CN’s first sentence is correct. Nothing was retracted. The presence of contamination doesn’t mean that the “real thing” is completely absent. In the 1997 paper, Gelderblom and colleagues estimate true viral particles to comprise 25-50% of the numbers of what they classify as contaminant vesicles.

    CN’s second sentence is less enlightening. Looking at the ’97 paper, I don’t see anyone clearly distinguishing anything. The authors sacrificed a lot of clarity from the get-go, when they thumbed their noses at proper controls. Figure 1 shows p24, another marker called HLA-DR, density, and infectivity plotted according to sedimentation fraction for samples from primary and cancer cultured cells infected with HIV. Where are the appropriate uninfected controls? They’re at the bottom of the figure, and neither p24 nor infectivity values are shown for them. They’re not real controls. The authors (and reviewers, which is worse) have no interest in proving to the world that the infections are real and different from HIV- samples. They assume that there can’t possibly be any p24 in uninfected samples, and they may well be right. Maybe they even did the experiments and didn’t include the results for space reasons. Whatever the excuses, this is still sloppy.

    Now skip to the kicker: Figure 2, which includes three electron micrographs of vesicles from infected cancer cells, chemically activated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), and uninfected cancer cells (where are the uninfected PBMCs?). The authors helpfully include arrows to point out the vesicles they consider to be virions. There are no arrows in the “uninfected” micrograph. The authors distinguish virions from cellular contaminants in the first two pics, as CN pointed out, by the presence of electron dense cores inside properly-size membrane-bound vesicles; some of them are cone-shaped, others appear round (which may or may not denote cones viewed end-on). So the classification of a vesicle as virion depends upon differences in electron density that show up as differences in a light-dark range. The problem is that the “uninfected” image is far lighter in general than the first two images. How many suspected virions might be present in this sample if it were analyzed by someone with no interest in the result? If I use my imagination, even looking at this light picture, I see one unambiguously virion-like particle containing what appears to be an end-on cone (in the right-most quarter of the picture, in the center vertically) as well as numerous other candidates that would show up better if we altered the brightness or contrast of the image, better to match the first two pictures.

    Lest anyone mistake my intentions here, I don’t mean to suggest that infectious retroviral particles do not have corn-shaped cores. The weight of evidence (I don’t know exactly, but there are at least scores of papers) suggests that they do. I only mean to suggest that CN’s “clearly distinguish” is a religious belief, not a scientific statement. Or perhaps CN has closely examined ALL of Gelderblom’s EMs from over the years…not just the “best in show” stuff that goes into papers, in addition to performing the control experiments that are lacking in so much of the literature, while inexplicably failing to publish on the results?

    If we look back to the 1987 Gelderblom paper, specifically Figure 2, we see some more wishful thinking.
    The authors use metal-labelled (thus electron-dense and capable of making an intense dot on the electron micrograph) antibodies to various HIV proteins to label their virions.

    As CN said:
    “Of particular is the immunferritin labelling that demonstrates that HIV p24 is localised in the tubular central core and that HIV gp120 is located on the outside of the virion”

    Chris has made an astute note indeed if “outside the virion” means “floating around between virions; on the surface of the virions; inside the virions; inside and outside vesicles that do not appear to be virions at all; at the cell surface; as well as inside the cell.” See Figure 2a. Same thing for gp41 in Figure 2b. You can find p24 outside the virion in d and f, and whatever the thing is in g–supposedly a virion labeled with p17/19–it doesn’t look to me like a virion or “shell-like, spherical labeling” as the authors claim. Nowhere is any quantitation attempted: how many dots are inside vs outside proper-morphology virions, for example? The reader is expected to be assured that “The evaluation of many crysections revealed a constant difference in localization…” even though the best images they could come up with hardly do that. Yet the authors’ localisation results are so convincing to them that they make a nifty drawing of the virion in Figure 3, a drawing that remains largely unaltered and widely copied to this very day.

    Fascinating, how well the review process works.

  449. Martel Says:

    CN, glad you liked the fireflies; don’t worry…I won’t criticize them! Luciferase is actually a nice tool. Here are my other thoughts on Phenosense GT:

    First, the procedure is so long and involved that the opportunity for mistakes is very high. The test has been compared with a similar test in a published paper, and both of them performed well; unfortunately, tests strangely but usually perform best in trials.

    Second, and this follows from the first, virus is produced in one set of cells and used to infect another set. That means a possibility for mutation during the assay, and a possible mismatch between the phenotype (drug resistance or lack thereof) and genotype (actual genetic sequence).

    Third would be the many, many manipulations that are occurring, including reverse transcription, amplification, cutting, and insertion of viral genetic material into vectors; growing the vectors in bacteria; and growing the virus itself in cancer cells that are treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics.

    Fourth, there’s a quite reductionist element to the strategy, since whole virus isn’t used. Who’s to say that a mutation outside of RT or PR can’t affect a strain’s drug resistance? Of course, the company mentions controls, and they look good to me, so I don’t put much weight on this point.

    Fifth, and this is the most important as far as I can tell, the assay looks at only one viral variant per test, and this viral variant is supposed to be the dominant strain in the patient. The company says the assay can be used for people with viremia of 500 copies per ml or higher. What does it mean if the rt/pcr steps amplify the most prevalent variety, while ignoring a minority of potentially far more deadly strains? An ideal test would strive to identify all circulating variants and use dilution-limiting pcr. This test would be ridiculously expensive, though.

    The phenosense gt is usually offered to patients who have apparently developed resistance to several drugs. Did anyone give you, NHM, a rationale for taking the test not once, but three times, when you have no known drug resistance?

    As for the genotype part of things, I think that the PR and RT genes are sequenced as part of the test. The results are given on the second or third page of the test report–it’s usually a very small section–with mutations in the RNA that would result in protein changes indicated in the format C121D (the cysteine amino acid residue at position 121 in “wild type” has mutated to an aspartic acid residue in the patient’s dominant strain).

  450. Chris Noble Says:

    That would be a win for you, Chris, if one could trust the story, which like so much in the Times on HIV∫AIDS is a swirl of speculation and superstition that smacks of all kinds of distortions in the heads of those drawn on for the story.

    Is that the best you can do? Duesberg has created the myth that Bergalis was completely healthy before she took AZT without a scrap of evidence. Duesberg just assumed that she must have been completely healthy because he knows that HIV cannot possibly cause AIDS.

    Nice quibble. Herpes zoster is right there in category B, along with cervical cancer (for Gawd’s sake, cervical cancer, a political sop to women to allow them a share of the pork barrel) so it seems that you are depending on keeping “AIDS” only for Category C, which is counter to the trend of AIDS diagnosis year by year which is not only threatening to creep back all the way to category A these days but will probably include choking and train accidents as AIDS symptoms if we don’t watch out, which with universal super sensitive not so diluted AIDS testing will finally result in what the HIV∫AIDS ideal seems to be, which is that “all the world has AIDS”.

    Quibble? Category B contains conditions that are commonly seen in people that are not severely immune suppressed. The conditions are, however, more common in HIV+ people and are therefore indicative of immune suppression. For example, the incidence of cervical cancer was found to be significantly higher in HIV+ people with CD4+ cell depletion.

    If other illnesses or conditions are found that are have a dramatically higher incidence in people with AIDS then they might be added to the definition. This is no excuse for Duesberg’s blurring of the definition when it suits him.

    If you really want to help you can answer why category C conditions were seen in the HIV+ subjects in Ascher’s cohort while only category B conditions were seen in the HIV- subjects. Please don’t try to tell me that AZT given after progression to AIDS caused the AIDS.

    However, Kaposi’s Sarcoma was kept on the list, you are right about that. We were misinformed. Why did we believe it? Because KS’s status as the chief marker of GRID and then AIDS has vanished. Gee, what happened?

    KS is still one of the most common opportunistic disease. Where did you get the idea that it had vanished? The incidence of KS has dramatically decreased (along with most other opportunistic illnesses) with the advent of HAART. ARV treatment can also reverse the course of KS.

  451. nohivmeds Says:

    Martel, you asked:

    The phenosense gt is usually offered to patients who have apparently developed resistance to several drugs. Did anyone give you, NHM, a rationale for taking the test not once, but three times, when you have no known drug resistance?

    It’s because I’ve had huge breaks in treatment — each time I decided to reinitiate the meds, the docs have all wanted this test. The assumption is that going of-and-on-and-of-etc. of the ARVs will inevitably lead to mutations that will cause resistance. Apparently, my data counter that idea.

    That could mean a lot of different things, depending on your theoretical bent. If I put my “Estabishment” cap on, the explanation for my odd results would be that I had excellent “adherence” while on the meds, and stayed on them for periods to short in duration to allow for mutations. Most folks I know who have resistant strains did not utilize structured treatment interruptions — they’ve been on the the meds continuously for any number of years — and they had less tha optimal adherence — too many skipped dosages.

    I recently tried out another clinic in the town I live in, and the Nurse Practioner I saw at my initial intake told me that the SMART study had proven that treatment interruptions were bad, bad, bad. I took exception — the study has horrible methodological flaws that render the data uninterpretable (according to my doc). I said I thought that spending as much time off treatment as possible was, if anything, going to be the key to my survival. She then told me that in the SMART study, more individuals in the treatment interruption arm died. I told her I thought we could terminate the appointment.

    The SMART study is being used all over the country to pressure people to take the drugs everyday forever. Folks like me who walk in informed about our strategies and with a good health record, are also told that even thought the interruptions have seemingly worked well for us — we’re going to die, because of the SMART study. The way the Establishment is using that study to terrify people onto medication would be good thing, TS, to investigate.

  452. nohivmeds Says:

    And sorry for my earlier snottiness. I just found out I have to have a surgery. I apologize for taking it out on you in particular, TS. Just a bad day.

  453. C. Farber Says:

    Such intelligence gathered here, such fly-trap minds, and yet, it would appear nobody has yet reacted to the thing that ought to hit us all like a punch in the stomach, in the NYT article about Bergalis that Chris Noble posted as evidence she was gravely ill prior to the 3 nukes she took.

    It was right there in plain English.

    Bergalis was an indeterminate. When gravely ill with whatever it was, she did not test conclusively positive. Read it again.

  454. McKiernan Says:

    Kimberly Bergalis, a 22-year-old woman, developed candidiasis and a transient pneumonia 17 and 24 months,respectively, after the extraction of two molars (Centers for Disease Control, 1990). After her dentist had publicly disclosed that “he had AIDS,” she was tested for HIV, although Bergalis was a virgin and did not belong to an AIDS risk group (Breo and Bergalis, 1990). Since she was HIV-antibody-positive the CDC concluded that she had contracted AIDS from her dentist (Centers for Disease Control, 1990), who was a homosexual with Kaposi’s sarcoma (Ou et al., 1992).

    The words of Peter Duesberg.

    Reference: Pharmacology &Therapeutics 55: 201-277, 1992

  455. Truthseeker Says:

    I believe that is one of the most pompous things anyone has ever proposed to me — especially a non-scientist. The rest of your post discusses the past and your unadaulterated and therefore, not possibly even remotely critical, adulation of a friend of yours. That is your psychological situation to deal with, TS; the rest of us do not have to be privy for what is clearly a very personal attachment to Dr. Duesberg. Given that, you are in no place to question anyone’s objectivity. There is your answer.

    Silly, and in its display of ingratitude to a man who has saved your life, disgraceful. But you are entirely forgiven, since as I keep repeating there is nothing in the world that throws one off more than assaults on one’s person, either from microbes or from the medical profession in their intense desire to cure all your ills by following their manual.

    TS — I propose you end this 500 comment madness and do a separate post on this article.

    The point of this 450 comment battle is to bring people out, Dave, so that they let their hair down and their weaknesses if any get exposed. This has been pretty effective, wouldn’t you agree? For example, the dominance of “mood” and other emotions such as “defensive gay pride” in ever reactive but forgivably so NHM, the interminable misleading nit picking of the stalwart, in fact immovable paid guard of the paradigm, Chris Noble as he takes refuge among the trees, forever unable to rise above them to see the forest (climb up, Chris, we’re rooting for you to make it up there), the fact that MacDonald, Houston et al are more than a match for him (congratulations, boys, the prizes will be awarded shortly), the regrettable early retirement of Trrlll, a good enough scientist presumably nervous of being publicly exposed as interested in discussing the topic even if he mostly acted as a knee jerk defender of the faith, the demonstration by Kevin that not all gays curl up and die when faced with logical reasoning, or accuse straight men of being in love with each other, and so on.

    Excellent fun, folks! and educational, even movingly so as Noreen, NHM, Kevin and others reveal the parameters of their own predicament (Noreen, how many antibiotics and doses of paracetamol or acetaminophen (Tylenol, Exedrine etc) were you/are you in the habit of taking, one wonders?) Since everybody contributing has above average intelligence except your faithful blogger (didn’t catch that Bergalis was an ‘indeterminate’, Celia, good one) it seems worthwhile to keep it going until Chris Noble is able to get up to speed on ordinary logic, or else gives up trying to bring us all down to his level.

    Quite honestly, the following paragraph has to be Exhibit A in any study of how weak logic can be if one starts with a premise introduced into the mind as a fairy tale meme. Note that every sentence without exception shows reasoning derailed: Quibble? Category B contains conditions that are commonly seen in people that are not severely immune suppressed. The conditions are, however, more common in HIV+ people and are therefore indicative of immune suppression. For example, the incidence of cervical cancer was found to be significantly higher in HIV+ people with CD4+ cell depletion.

    Of course, if this thing passes 500 then one might have to move on, in case someone’s browser blows up, and anyway given some of Chris’s posts it seems about time, even though he is doing a remarkable job. But like a party, the more one hangs around instead of going home the more interesting things happen to one. Certainly we didn’t know that KS was still a leading indication of HIV caused AIDS. Anyone else notice this? Will Bob Gallo entirely approve?

    There is a lot happening all at once but we shall try and get the train moving again once the track is cleared. Perhaps we shall do a post for World AIDS Day on Heroes of AIDS, putting Duesberg at the top to irritate NHM. The topic of whether the science of HIV∫AIDS is correct or not is over now for us as an interesting question, and we are tired of lambasting the kingpins of the field and of the media to little effect. We want to expand into other topics such as the religious impulse and why in a country the size of the United States with billionaires littering the landscape there is no one offering to be the patron of Duesberg and his supporters in their attempt to remedy a gross injustice and attack on minorities and the poor of the world by the highly paid scam artists at the NIAID, Cornell and elsewhere, allied as they are with drug companies who appear to have no other motive than profit, although we know from the ads they must have a heart of gold.

  456. Chris Noble Says:

    Such intelligence gathered here, such fly-trap minds, and yet, it would appear nobody has yet reacted to the thing that ought to hit us all like a punch in the stomach, in the NYT article about Bergalis that Chris Noble posted as evidence she was gravely ill prior to the 3 nukes she took.

    It was right there in plain English.

    Bergalis was an indeterminate. When gravely ill with whatever it was, she did not test conclusively positive. Read it again.

    Nowhere does it say that Bergalis tested indeterminate.
    The first test was tentatively positive the second test confirmed that she was HIV+. After this her HIV was sequenced. Not even Duesberg has questioned whether she was HIV+.

    None of this addresses the point that I made. Duesberg’s version of events was that Bergalis tested positive for HIV and was put on AZT despite being perfectly healthy. Duesberg claims it was AZT that made her ill not HIV.

    The problem with this is that she suffered weight loss, hair loss, thrush and PCP before she was even diagnosed with HIV let alone given AZT. She was actually diagnosed with HIV infection before the dentist’s illness with AIDS was known.

    Why is it that Duesberg won’t admit to being wrong about Bergalis?

    Why are loyal “rethinkers” still repeating the myth that Bergalis was perfectly healthy until she took AZT?

  457. Chris Noble Says:

    Certainly we didn’t know that KS was still a leading indication of HIV caused AIDS. Anyone else notice this?

    You were also under the impression that KS had been taken out of the CDC definition. This suggests that you get your information from “rethinkers” rather than reading the scientific literature.

  458. pat Says:

    “The problem with this is that she suffered weight loss, hair loss, thrush and PCP before she was even diagnosed with HIV let alone given AZT. She was actually diagnosed with HIV infection before the dentist’s illness with AIDS was known.”

    and then proceeded to bombard her with azt (which you admit to being often more detrimental than anything else). did she get any treatment for her actual conditions? Could her state of health plus the drug regiment have done her in? I do remember reading a letter from the relatives of this women in support of “rethinker” approaches. did I dream this? (asking before I google…again).

  459. Chris Noble Says:

    and then proceeded to bombard her with azt (which you admit to being often more detrimental than anything else). did she get any treatment for her actual conditions? Could her state of health plus the drug regiment have done her in? I do remember reading a letter from the relatives of this women in support of “rethinker” approaches. did I dream this? (asking before I google…again).

    None of you seem to be able to deal with the evidence. Duesberg claims that she was perfectly healthy before she took AZT and that AZT must have caused her AIDS.

    Duesberg calls weight loss, hair loss, uncontrollable candidiasis etc all symptoms of AZT toxicity. These symptoms and PCP all occurred before AZT was given.

    Bergalis’ CD4+ cell count was down to 41 before she was given AZT.

    None of you can bring yourselves to admit that Duesberg was wrong about Bergalis.

  460. Truthseeker Says:

    OK Dave, you got your request.

    Chris, come on. You are wasting everyone’s time. Duesberg was not wrong about Bergalis unless HIV caused all those symptoms, and with many other reasons typical of young women why she could have had such symptoms, there is no need to believe it was HIV unless you must have your paradigm regardless. The poor girl was murdered by a belief that was entirely superstition and her death is in no way a proof of the belief.

    Yes, a rethinker told us that KS was off the list, and we believed him. His record is that good. In this case he was wrong. But KS has become very much lower than at the beginning as you know. Are you aware of that, and how its cause has been shifted from HIV to poppers (rethinkers) or herpes virus (Gallo)? Why then are you harping on this? Are your successes so rare that you need it? Do you wish to waste our time pretending that the demotion of KS hasn’t happened, or that the fatuous reallocation of cause for a symptom which was once THE leading way to recognize AIDS hasn’t happened?

    You constantly expose yourself as unable to get the main point. You are like a chess player that wins a pawn and find himself checkmate.

    That is your entire record on this blog, Winning a pawn here and there, losing many pawns, and unable to appreciate that you have lost the game, because you do not think on the meta level.

    You perform a useful service in keeping rehtinkers on their toes, but really, you shouldn’t waste people’s time on this blog. Please confine your challenges to important points and keep the issue on the higher level, and spare us the necessity of having to clear up the mess of misleading small points you make.

    We ask you once again a) what reasons do you have to believe HIV causes immune dysfunction which are your own and not boilerplated off the NIAID site, and b) are you paid to waste the time of critics?

  461. Truthseeker Says:

    For the record this is what the Times piece says:

    Within a month of the 1987 tooth extraction, Miss Bergalis said, bumps broke out on her face, and she began to suffer from a sore throat. Then these symptoms disappeared until late in the spring of 1989, as she was about to graduate from the University of Florida. Then came a parade of infections, big and little — sore throats, weakness, coughing, white patches in her mouth. But she had a hectic schedule. “I thought I was just stressed out,” she recalled.

    When she saw a doctor for the infection in her mouth, he said it was peculiar; it looked like thrush.

    “Are you a diabetic?” he asked.

    “No,” she said.

    “Are you on antibiotics?”

    “No.”

    “That’s funny. Usually, you only get thrush when you’re a newborn, a diabetic, on antibiotics. Or if you have AIDS.”

    The suggestion seemed absurd. But over the summer she became upset about the deterioration in her health, the weight loss, the hair that fell out in clumps so large it clogged the vacuum cleaner. She saw doctors and got a grab-bag of tentative diagnoses: hepatitis, flu, bone-marrow cancer, hysteria, diabetes.

    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.

    In January 1990, a second test confirmed what Miss Bergalis could not believe. She had AIDS. “I thought maybe the Government was wrong,” she said. “Maybe you can get it by kissing. That’s the only thing that made sense to me, an exchange of saliva or something.”

    Celia was wrong about the tests, that seems clear, unless this Times story is incorrect.

    But where did Duesberg say she was perfectly healthy before she took AZT? He said Kimberly Bergalis, a 22-year-old woman, developed candidiasis and a transient pneumonia 17 and 24 months,respectively, after the extraction of two molars (Centers for Disease Control, 1990). After her dentist had publicly disclosed that “he had AIDS,” she was tested for HIV, although Bergalis was a virgin and did not belong to an AIDS risk group (Breo and Bergalis, 1990). Since she was HIV-antibody-positive the CDC concluded that she had contracted AIDS from her dentist (Centers for Disease Control, 1990), who was a homosexual with Kaposi’s sarcoma (Ou et al., 1992).

    McK posted this. Where did you find your belief that
    Duesberg claims that she was perfectly healthy before she took AZT and that AZT must have caused her AIDS.

    There are plenty of reasons that could cause immune dysfunction other than HIV (claimed), as you well know.

    This is what we mean by waste of time.

  462. nohivmeds Says:

    I think if anyone will saved my life, it will be me, TS. But thanks for your forgiveness.

  463. john Says:

    Kimberley indicated not taking antibiotics. But, when we are torn extracted a tooth, we certainly have to receive a precription of flagyl, no?

    Now, flagyl is of metronidazole, a nitroimidazole, quite as azathioprine (or imurel).

    It reacts with glutathione and thus decreases its quantity.

    Why did not they try to know if she had received a lot from it?

  464. Celia Farber Says:

    My point was simply this: The sentece reads: “The first test was tentatively positive.”

    It goes on to say that she was only “confirmed” positive on a later test in 1990. Why and how does this NOT mean that the first test was indeterminate? What do you guys think “tentatively positive” means if not indeterminate? A positive is not repeated nor does it require “confirmation.” Nor it it “tentative.”

    Hence: She first tested indeterminate. Or at least one can be forgiver for thinking so based on the text of that NYT article.

    I shall consult an HIV testing expert to shed light on this. I shall also try to contact the family. I believe in old fashioned shoe-leather reporting. There is no substitute. It would appear by the way, that Ms. Bergalis did indeed suffer some form of immune suppression before being given not only AZT but if memory serves, a cocktail of nukes. (She wrote about this in Newsweek I think. Can we dig that up?) However, the speed with which she got sick, purportedly following “infection,” from Acer, belies even the HIV hypothesis itself, even at THAT time. As the article states, the sands at the time were at the shifting point of claiming that it takes “on average seven years,” for “AIDS to develop.”

    There are numerous mini-epidemics of immune suppression in the total absence of HIV. For heaven’s sake. I recently spoke to a woman who had just recovered from the very common ailment known as MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) which is a crash of the immune system following toxic overload. She mentioned in passing that she had virtually no CD4 cells.

    Bergalis had something wrong with her. What was it?

  465. Dan Says:

    Up to this point, I hadn’t heard the phrase “tentatively positive”. What the hell does that mean? It sounds like an “indeterminate”, that hopes to someday grow up to be a “positive”.

    This whole Kimberley Bergalis discussion amazes me. It seems as if the dots can get connected with her case, then the rethinkers can go home. HIV=AIDS, end of story.

  466. pat Says:

    its like being a a little pregnant.

  467. kevin Says:

    John wrote:
    Kimberley indicated not taking antibiotics. But, when we are torn extracted a tooth, we certainly have to receive a precription of flagyl, no?

    Very true, though Flagyl is not necessarily the most common antibiotic prescribed by dentists. They usually prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics to guard against the widest range of microbes. Regardless, just because she wasn’t taking an antibiotic when the interviewing doctors asked her those questions does not mean she did not have a recent history of antibiotic use. When molars are extracted it is common practice to prescribe antibiotics before and after the extraction. Since Miss Bergalis was presenting with candidiasis at the time of her HIV+ diagnosis, she most certainly could have been suffering that affliction during the period of sickness leading up to that diagnosis. Hair loss, weight loss, fatigue and general, but severe malaise are all systems of candidiasis. In addition, recurrent pnuemonia is common for those who suffer respiratory symptoms from advanced candidiasis.

    PCP is a fungus, therefore, I suspect it is much more common in people with candidiasis, whether positive or negative, in much the same way that fungal sinusitis presents in people with compromised immunity, particularly when systemic fungal overgrowth is present. The diagnostic discrepancies can be explained by the fact that people who test HIV negative are not usually tested for PCP when presenting with symptoms of pneumonia. They are often presumed to suffer from bacterial pneumonia and treated as such. Ironically, certain antibiotics are effective against PCP, especially Bactrim which is also a common treatment for community-acquired pneumonia. All things being equal, when other respiratory support is adequate, HIV negative sufferers of PCP would also recover with standard treatments for pnuemonia, though their overall health might be further compromised by this treatment. Also, PCP is usually slow to develop (though aggressive, once established) so if someone is “stressed out” as Miss Bergalis admitted she was, it is not unlikely that immune deficencies sufficient enough to cause her ill health were present before her diagnosis.

    As with many of the opportunistic infections associated with HIV, the diagnostic procedures and the subsequent treatment decisions are biased based on HIV positivity. If people who present with these infections were properly treated for the underlying systemic fungal overgrowth, recovering the health of severely compromised people would be far easier. Then again, these clinical prejudices are similar to the laboratory biases that are corrupting the science supporting HIV=AIDS, i.e. they are necessary to keep the meme alive.

    Celia wrote:
    I recently spoke to a woman who had just recovered from the very common ailment known as MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) which is a crash of the immune system following toxic overload. She mentioned in passing that she had virtually no CD4 cells.

    At my sickest, I too suffered severe Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. It is very common with advanced candidiasis. The immune system reacts to ANY exposure to chemicals because the blood becomes full of partially digested proteins due to intestinal wall damage from fungal overgrowth. These proteins are seen as foreign invaders and keep the immune system in a constant state of overdrive. As far as I know, my CD4 counts were only measured once, and it was during this sickest period. They were in the low range (450 ish) but since I was HIV-, the doctors refused to see it as relevant. The told me I was just “run-down” and that I just needed rest and a stronger antibiotics for my chronic sinusitis. If my sinusitis would clear, my doc was certain that the chemical sensitivities would go away too. He was right, but he had no clue as the “how”, just like CN. I assert, once again, that it is a miracle that I did not test positive considering how many antibodies were probably floating around in my blood.

    I also agree with Celia’s comment regarding the rapidity with which Miss Bergalis’ heatlh declined after her supposeded infection. In my opinion, it was probably due to an already compromised immune system that was essentially destroyed by AZT and other nukes. She seems to have developed full-blown AIDS in a matter of months, which even the Establishment purports to be a rare event.

    Kevin

  468. Dan Says:

    She seems to have developed full-blown AIDS in a matter of months, which even the Establishment purports to be a rare event.

    It certainly wasn’t following the party line at the time. But they seemed to need her case…for…some…reason.

    I remember the high drama occurring with the case of Kimberley Bergalis. Ryan White too. These were huge media events. Both of these unfortunate people became the AIDS establishment’s way of trying to shock us into believing that “AIDS” was for everybody.

    Africa, despite it’s impressive numbers, was too removed from our lives in America. AIDS, inc. needed to “prove” that AIDS isn’t just for gay men and anonymous dark-skinned people on the other side of the ocean. Solution? A hemophiliac, and a young woman with a dentist that seemed to have trouble keeping his blood to himself.

  469. Truthseeker Says:

    I think if anyone will (have) saved my life, it will be me, TS. But thanks for your forgiveness.

    NHM, you are in for surgery, a fate we would wish on no man, even as punishment for your sins, in this case, allow us to gently say, as kindly as we can, the sin of selfish, unimaginative ingratitude, if our understanding of what you have confesssed is correct, which is that “scientist” as you are, you nevertheless ignored the critics of HIV for some reason (unaware? dismissive? unread?) and popped most of the poisonous pills you were prescribed until Celia culminated the long story of self sacrifice of Peter Duesberg and supporters and their 22 years of sticking to their guns on the issue even in the face of the likes of Fauci’s and Chris Noble’s best anecdotal objections, not to mention in Duesberg’s case (and others) the severe financial penalties, research blockage and grotesque social penalties exacted by his fellow elite, all in the cause of truth, enlightenment and the welfare of ingrates such as yourself, by extending her own self sacrifice in the face of gross insults to her mind and sensitivity, sticking to her guns and relentlessly researching and reporting on the global insanity until finally she wrestled her revelation into Harpers, when at last to your credit you then finally twigged that just maybe you were suffering from drug debilitation in your body, a lethal meme in your mind and a deadly gas cloud of other’s self serving delusional lies and knowing deceits in your environment, rather than the assault of a harmless virus that wasn’t there, and isn’t there again today, and you started reversing your perception, which being that your mind is a massive and somewhat ponderous structure is something that takes time, rather like an ocean liner changing course from an iceberg to New York City, and we are all having to wait while you think things through seventeen times just in case all this nonsense is true after all as Chris Noble insists in the face of all logic and the literature, which explains so well otherwise, until you finally face the horrid truth, which is that you were scammed by a science that is such blatant trash that its leaders have avoided justifying it in public for 22 years as much as they can, remaining silent while their cause is taken up by geniuses such as Chris, knight errant of the spotless virgin paradigm, who thinks that whatever dim understanding of Kim Bergalis’s case can be gleaned from the New York Tims and other repositories of hearsay, this anecdote proves that HIV causes AIDS because the dentist was rated a victim of the same meme and treated accordingly with Washington’s equivalent of Jonestown Kool Aid, a scientific cock and bull story you swallowed (hold that imagination!) without serious examination for years even as the drugs were so blatantly bad for you that you took “holidays” from them or otherwise avoided their full impact, just as Larry Kramer did.

    If this is saving your own life in your mind, so be it. But least don’t try and sell your ingratitude around here as a fight against the subliminal, closeted homosexual infatuation of your faithful blogger for the exemplary Duesberg, whose virtues are not our doing, we merely report on them. Even in his super Galilean refusal to sell out, he is pretty much uniquely virtuous in the current world of science, filled as it is with those who hardly deserve the name stampeding towards Wall Street and the riches generated by the drug companies and their exploitation of a market they partially create by stirring fears and delusions and exploiting ignorance, not to mention their ignoring danger signals when something like Vioxx starts killing people.

    This is the coffee. Smell it, and don’t keep telling us you can’t decide for sure whether it is coffee or diesel oil.

  470. Truthseeker Says:

    The Times:

    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.

    In January 1990, a second test confirmed what Miss Bergalis could not believe. She had AIDS.

    Celia:

    It goes on to say that she was only “confirmed” positive on a later test in 1990. Why and how does this NOT mean that the first test was indeterminate?

    The gap appears to be very small, a week or two after Thanksgiving to January is a month.

    However, everything else you say is true. This is a classic case of an uncertain anecdote rather than a research study, which lay discussion of HIV∫AIDS is full of – no controls, no certain symptoms or diagnosis, full scope for the imagination – medicine in action on the front lines!

    The point and purpose of this blog is to say what the literature reveals about the HIV∫AIDS story and its diagnostic value, which is nil, of which this anecdote with its conflict with what has been established in the literature, is a very good example.

    How exactly the dentist is meant to have transferred HIV to his patient one shudders to think. Did he kiss her? Did he drool on her? Does not the literature, common understanding and even the newspapers tell us that kissing doesn’t transfer the virus (which is not there)? Did he lick his instruments and then cut her gum?

    This is all such nonsense from twelve points of view that it is a case study in Chris Noble’s gullibility, which is apparently infinite, because he is paid to spoil intelligent examination of the paradigm, according to his refusal to even protest otherwise.

  471. Richard Jefferys Says:

    Celia Farber, Harper’s Magazine:

    “Duesberg thinks that up to 75 percent of AIDS cases in the West can be attributed to drug toxicity. If toxic AIDS therapies were discontinued, he says, thousands of lives could be saved virtually overnight.”

    NEJM Volume 355:2283-2296
    November 30, 2006 Number 22

    CD4+ Count–Guided Interruption of Antiretroviral Treatment
    The Strategies for Management of Antiretroviral Therapy (SMART) Study Group

    ABSTRACT

    Background Despite declines in morbidity and mortality with the use of combination antiretroviral therapy, its effectiveness is limited by adverse events, problems with adherence, and resistance of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

    Methods We randomly assigned persons infected with HIV who had a CD4+ cell count of more than 350 per cubic millimeter to the continuous use of antiretroviral therapy (the viral suppression group) or the episodic use of antiretroviral therapy (the drug conservation group). Episodic use involved the deferral of therapy until the CD4+ count decreased to less than 250 per cubic millimeter and then the use of therapy until the CD4+ count increased to more than 350 per cubic millimeter. The primary end point was the development of an opportunistic disease or death from any cause. An important secondary end point was major cardiovascular, renal, or hepatic disease.

    Results A total of 5472 participants (2720 assigned to drug conservation and 2752 to viral suppression) were followed for an average of 16 months before the protocol was modified for the drug conservation group. At baseline, the median and nadir CD4+ counts were 597 per cubic millimeter and 250 per cubic millimeter, respectively, and 71.7% of participants had plasma HIV RNA levels of 400 copies or less per milliliter. Opportunistic disease or death from any cause occurred in 120 participants (3.3 events per 100 person-years) in the drug conservation group and 47 participants (1.3 per 100 person-years) in the viral suppression group (hazard ratio for the drug conservation group vs. the viral suppression group, 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9 to 3.7; P
    Conclusions Episodic antiretroviral therapy guided by the CD4+ count, as used in our study, significantly increased the risk of opportunistic disease or death from any cause, as compared with continuous antiretroviral therapy, largely as a consequence of lowering the CD4+ cell count and increasing the viral load. Episodic antiretroviral therapy does not reduce the risk of adverse events that have been associated with antiretroviral therapy.

  472. noreen martin Says:

    I believe that it may be possible to develop AIDS in a few months as in the spring and summer of 2003, I had minor issues, except for memory problems, which were due to encephalitis or PML,they’re not sure; HIV should not be implicated in these diseases.

    By the fall, I went down hill and in a hurry. I believe this to be due to a “domino” effect as when one has one or more things going on or one’s health is not up to par, then it is easier to contract something else.

    I had some of the same symptoms as Kimberly, yeast problems and hair falling out. What bothers me about this disease or any other for that matter is that the doctors fail to take in account the patient’s diet, vitamins and the all important mineral salts which are so critical to health. The responsibility for health needs to be place back onto the patient and not always blaming the latest virus making the rounds. If one would eat right to stay healthy, then these “wild” germs would not be a problem in the first place.

  473. Dan Says:

    Back to terminology for a moment, on the longest thread yet, I believe.

    It goes on to say that she was only “confirmed” positive on a later test in 1990. Why and how does this NOT mean that the first test was indeterminate? What do you guys think “tentatively positive” means if not indeterminate? A positive is not repeated nor does it require “confirmation.” Nor it it “tentative.”

    Like so much of the language used when discussing “AIDS”, this is suspiciously vague. “Tentatively postive”, as far as I know, has no meaning, unless it’s just another way of saying “indeterminate”. My gut is telling me that “tentatively positive” is Latin for BS. Maybe Celia will be able to shed some light on this after talking to an HIV testing expert?

    Resisting the urge to put the last three words of the preceeding sentence in quotation marks.

  474. Martel Says:

    NHM, Sorry to hear about your surgery. I hope all goes well. I also apologize for calling you CN yesterday.
    As for CN, who wrote,
    “All of the papers that you cited clearly distinguish virus particles from microvesicles,”
    I raised some serious doubts about Gelderblom’s studies yesterday, and I hope CN will have a chance to respond and (I hope) educate me on where I am wrong.
    Of course, CN also asked,
    “Can you name one virus that has been isolated according to the set of rules that the Perth Group have specified as being necessary? Just one?”
    And when MacDonald gave him the example of the Friend Murine Leukemia Virus, CN failed to respond.
    CN has defended the multibillion-dollar AIDS establishment’s failure to visualize even once an actual virion from an actual patient, first by claiming it has already been done (by Gelderblom and colleagues, which is patently false since the Gelderblom papers use laboratory-generated virus strains propagated in cancer cells), then by claiming that doing so is impossible, since no one can meet the Perth Group’s standards (which, according to MacDonald, is also inaccurate).
    Will CN claim that Gelderblom used patient samples, and that MacDonald is wrong about the Friend virus? Or does CN wish to concede this point and admit that primary HIV isolation from a patient sample has never occurred, despite the theoretical possibility?

  475. kevin Says:

    Noreen wrote:

    What bothers me about this disease or any other for that matter is that the doctors fail to take in account the patient’s diet, vitamins and the all important mineral salts which are so critical to health. The responsibility for health needs to be place back onto the patient and not always blaming the latest virus making the rounds. If one would eat right to stay healthy, then these “wild” germs would not be a problem in the first place.

    So true, Noreen.

    Diet is the single most important factor in maintaining good health. The standard diet for most Americans is severely deficient in nutrient content. We are malnourished, yet we are fatter than ever. How ironic.

    Holistic health care is not new-age or anything of the sort, though it often portrayed that way in the mainstream. It is only in the age of medical profiteering that holistic care has developed negative connotations. Holistic care is practical and necessary. I mean if you question a doctor about a particular prescription, he or she often is offended by patients who demonstrate such an interest in their treatment options and many of them are seem bothered when asked to truly considering the impact of side effects on particular patients. They pretend that they desire educated patients, but my experience has been the opposite. No, they expect patients to blindly accept each new drug as the latest miracle panacea, and any negative outcomes for an individual patient is simply the price of progress. Such hubris combined with such ignorance is a deadly combination. Many are drug dealers, plain and simple, and they’ve got a schedule to keep so concerned patients are a financial liability.

    A quote from the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath:

    I will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.

    It seems to me that the above statement in bold is critical to understanding the current state of healthcare. With so many medicines being prescribed in such large numbers, it’s easy for docotors to rationalize their negligence. Is it any wonder that so few were courageous enough to question the use of high-dose AZT even when presented with horrific clinical results?

    Kevin

  476. kevin Says:

    Dan wrote:
    My gut is telling me that “tentatively positive” is Latin for BS.

    To my mind, it would make more sense if “tentatively positive” meant that a patient was presenting with symptoms characteristic of AIDS but was not actually testing positive, since tentative means “unsure” or “uncertain”. Either way, the bullsh@t factor is off the charts, as usual.

    Of course, the cirmustances of Miss Bergalis’ decline in health is largely conjecture without the “shoe leather” reporting recommended by Celia. Even then, the truth may be so far buried beneath an inflated backstory that we’ll never know the real truth. Like you Dan, I remember the media storm surrounding the Bergalis case. You’re spot on in your assessment. It was an attempt to bring the fear into every home in America, and it worked. I grew up not far from Ryan White’s hometown, and I could paint his portrait from memory, for his withering visage was on the nightly news for what seemed like years. Poor kid. He definitely died from AZT poisoning.

    Kevin

  477. McKiernan Says:

    However, everything else you say is true. This is a classic case of an uncertain anecdote rather than a research study, which lay discussion of HIV∫AIDS is full of – no controls, no certain symptoms or diagnosis, full scope for the imagination – medicine in action on the front line s!

    Actually, TS, there were seven uncertain anecdotes regarding patients of Dr. Acer that were found hiv positive, four of whom shared common phylogeny. And it is just likely that oral surgery on wisdom teeth and/or periodontal procedures does involve cross exposure of blood components.

    It would appear TS, that the seemingly smoke and mirrors response of your last comment falls short of your high standards.

    Another reference from Peter Duesberg:

    “In view of the celebrity of the (Dr. Acer) case and the fear it inspired among patients, 1100 further patients of the dentist came forward to be tested for HIV (Ou et al., 1992; Palca, 1992a). Seven of these, including Bergalis, tested positive. Four or 5 of these, including Bergalis and another woman, did not belong to an AIDS risk group, but 2 or 3 did. At least three of those who did not belong to a risk group received $1 million settlements from the dentist’s malpractice insurance (Palca, 1992b). ” (To which one might add, not from the AZT specialists).

  478. Truthseeker Says:

    Conclusions Episodic antiretroviral therapy guided by the CD4+ count, as used in our study, significantly increased the risk of opportunistic disease or death from any cause, as compared with continuous antiretroviral therapy, largely as a consequence of lowering the CD4+ cell count and increasing the viral load. Episodic antiretroviral therapy does not reduce the risk of adverse events that have been associated with antiretroviral therapy. Richard Jefferys

    Dear me, Richard, is the NEJM contradicting the Lancet and JAMA?

    Interrupting the use of broad spectrum killers such as ARVs, if it results in a temporary decline or even death, as this paper indicates, has an effect which like the temporary health booster effect initially, which unfortunately precedes death as the ultimate effect in too many cases, needs to be examined closely to find out what is going on, rather than automatically accepting it as support for the theory that ARVs prove HIV causes AIDS, when there is overwhelming evidence against the idea that HIV causes AIDS.

    As we have noted, it may be that the ARVs act as an artificial substitute for the immune system in clearing infections, as well as known effects in correcting trace elements ratios (probably through improving absorption by killing off infections that interfere with that) and exerting an antioxidant effect.

    Whatever the way things work, this statement following:

    Background Despite declines in morbidity and mortality with the use of combination antiretroviral therapy, its effectiveness is limited by adverse events, problems with adherence, and resistance of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

    is a little out of date, wouldn’t you say, now that we know that there has been no improvement in mortality since ARVs were brought in fully in 1996 and that viral load in indviduals doesn’t correlate with CD4 count.

    Thanks for the paper which suggests that ARVs as broad spectrum killers act aa a crutch for the immune system, and when the crutch is taken away the patient falls down.

  479. Dave Says:

    Martel,

    Great work above! I am reminded of Karl Popper (which I shamefully stole from another unamed blog!)

    Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.

    Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

    A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

    Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

    Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)

    Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem.”)

    One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

    The main problem with AIDS: The folks spending billions of tax-payer money to study it, never think to falsify, refute or test their own hypothesis — instead they personally attack those who do.

  480. noreen martin Says:

    What’s happening is that the basics are being forgotten in lieu of medicines. Why do they even bother with the Hippocratic Oath anymore instead one should be devised by the drug companies as at best, most are legalized, drug dealers.

    As 3 years as an AIDS patient I have never been questioned by the I.D. doc’s about diet, etc. Although, I did make it a point to give them a list of all my vitamins, supplements and herbs. Unfortunately, most of the things on the list they were unfamiliar with.

    Kevin, you are right, they do not want educated patients or those who question them. I have gone round and round with them but its not all bad as the more disagreements that I had with them, the stronger I became and they know that.

    I would like to share one thing from an AIDS seminiar at the local medical school this morning. It was a question and answer session for new, student doctors with one of the head I.D. doctors. He made a point of how wonderful it was that everyone should be tested and spouted the party line. One student ask how to get to get a pregnant woman to get tested who did not want too. The answer was this, wait until she goes into labor and ask her to be tested as being under duress, she probably will consent.

    Is it any wonder we are #17 in the world in longevity yet we spend more money; we are not producing quality doctors.

  481. Dan Says:

    To my mind, it would make more sense if “tentatively positive” meant that a patient was presenting with symptoms characteristic of AIDS but was not actually testing positive

    Either way, the bullsh@t factor is off the charts, as usual.

    Kevin,
    I agree with the BS factor.

    Your take on “tentatively positive” makes sense for a clinical diagnosis, but Celia’s quote is about the test , and not a diagnosis .

    The first test was tentatively positive.

    This takes us back to the test itself. How can a test be “tentatively positive”? I think this is part of the unfortunate fluidity of the language used when discussing “AIDS”. There seem to be few, if any, agreed upon terms and definitions.

  482. Truthseeker Says:

    And it is just likely that oral surgery on wisdom teeth and/or periodontal procedures does involve cross exposure of blood components.

    It would appear TS, that the seemingly smoke and mirrors response of your last comment falls short of your high standards.

    Probably due to lack of imagination, McK, which is what HIV defenders specialize in. How do you imagine that a dentist who is HIV positive makes his patients positive? The story is riddled with questionability.

    The source you referred to reads as follows:

    A phylogeny created using DNA sequences of the HIV virus taken from the dentist, patients, and other individuals within a 90 mile radius is shown below. Note the cluster containing sequences from the Dentist, Patient A, Patient B (the elderly woman), and Patient C (the second patient described above).

    The sequences in the boxed cluster differ by an average of 3.4%, consistent with HIV strains obtained from a single person or HIV strains from individuals who share a common source of infection. The genetic relatedness of the strains, along with other corroborating evidence, presents a strong case that the dentist somehow transmitted the virus to multiple patients. Subsequent analyses revealed other patient to whom the dentist transmitted HIV, though not all of the Dr. Acer’s HIV positive patients obtained the virus from the dentist (e.g., Patient D).

    To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet to present a clear picture of how the dentist transmitted the virus to his patients. It is possible that he sustained small abrasions while operating on patients which allowed his blood to enter the patients’ mouths. Even though we lack a clear mechanism, the evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that Dr. Acer is the source of some of his patients’ HIV infections.

    Some news outlets expressed skepticism regarding the conclusions reached by the CDC. A response to the news coverage surrounding the investigation can be found here.

    Within a 90 mile radius? Perhaps that proximity accounts in some other way for the similarity in virus. Note that even this conventional analyst (evolgen on Seed’s list of science blogs) cannot think of a reasonable way in which transmission of this very untransmissable virus occurred.

    The “here” above is the Journal of Internal Medicine and a paper which concludes in its abstract:

    Controversy remains about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) conclusion that a dentist in Florida transmitted human immunodeficiency virus to six of his patients in the late 1980s.The most vocal doubt has come from journalists affiliated with the television program 60 Minutes. Although unanswered questions about the case remain, the evidence continues to overwhelmingly support the CDC’s theory. The criticism of the CDC investigation consists largely of assertions that contrary evidence theoretically might exist.

    We agree with Sixty Minutes, though we haven’t read the whole of this article. The dentist story stinks. The CDC should stay out of the area of fictional treatments.

    But we could be wrong. Maybe HIV does transfer from dentist to patient, even though it cannot be detected in most HIV positive people, once antibodies do their work.

    Maybe the cow jumped over the moon.

  483. MacDonald Says:

    Martel,

    like Dave, I also want to take up a few a lines of this mega thread to thank you for your “fair and balanced” contributions. So far, they’ve gone the rethinker way by a slight margin in my book; I realize that could very easily change.

    But I want to thank you for staying on point, and actually contributing new knowledge to those of us who, like me (and CN), aren’t experts on molecular biology or similar disciplines … This regardless of what may come.

  484. trrll Says:

    Up to this point, I hadn’t heard the phrase “tentatively positive”. What the hell does that mean? It sounds like an “indeterminate”, that hopes to someday grow up to be a “positive”.

    It reflects the fact that any test is going to produce some level of “false positives,” which tend to be more common with the quickest and easiest tests. The CDC recommends that a positive HIV result be followed up with a second test to confirm the diagnosis. So a positive result from a single test can reasonably be described as “tentative.”

  485. nohivmeds Says:

    TS–you need to get your facts straight. I opposed the meds and took my first treatment break in 2000 — 6 whole years before Celia, you, or anyone else ever wrote anything that I read. I’ve been aware that the drugs were toxic for longer than I’ve been diagnosed. Reread my Harper’s letter, why don’t you. Do you assume the surgery has something to do with…what exactly? I take back my apology. You know only that which you want to know — and not all of that would be considered the “truth” by anyone else. I do not owe my life to rethinkers, thank you very much. I owe it to my own goddamn intuition. You are insufferable.

  486. Chris Noble Says:

    A tentative diagnosis is just that. It reflects the care that the doctors took in diagnosing HIV infection in someone particularly when she did not have any known infection risks. It was not known at that time that the dentist was HIV positive or had AIDS. The first test was confirmed shortly afterwards by a second test. After that HIV sequences were isolated.

    Insisting that Bergalis was “indeterminate” is just the latest in a series of pathetic ad hoc attempts to “rethink” a case which “rethinkers” apparently feel threatened by.

    Duesberg used his standard tactic of blaming everything on AZT. He didn’t even bother to establish the facts. He just assumed that she must have been healthy before she took AZT. “Rethinkers” such as MacDonald still regurgitate this myth without the least bit of skepticism.

    I don’t know how Bergalis became infected. The hypothesis that she became infected during invasive dental procedures is the best available explanation. The genetic analysis of HIV sequences definitely supports this hypothesis.

    I find it bizarre that the same group of “rethinkers” that trot out Gisselquist when arguing against sexual transmission of HIV also passionately argue against transmission via invasive dental procedures.

  487. Dan Says:

    A tentative diagnosis is just that. It reflects the care that the doctors took in diagnosing HIV infection in someone

    Oops, Chris. You missed something. Actually, you didn’t. You’re just doing your usual misrepresentation. Take a look at what was written.

    The first test was tentatively positive.

    This is just about a test. Not about diagnosis. I’m sure that you’re aware that those are two separate things. Nice try.

  488. Chris Noble Says:

    And when MacDonald gave him the example of the Friend Murine Leukemia Virus, CN failed to respond.
    CN has defended the multibillion-dollar AIDS establishment’s failure to visualize even once an actual virion from an actual patient, first by claiming it has already been done (by Gelderblom and colleagues, which is patently false since the Gelderblom papers use laboratory-generated virus strains propagated in cancer cells), then by claiming that doing so is impossible, since no one can meet the Perth Group’s standards (which, according to MacDonald, is also inaccurate).

    Friend and De Harven used a different protocol to the “rules of retroviral isolation” proposed to be absolutely necessary by the Perth Group.

    The Friend Virus Complex is actually a mixture of two viruses and so does not fulfil the Perth Group’s personal defition of isolation.

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

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

    While the titre of HIV in serum is much lower than that for the Friend Virus Complex in inbred mice HIV is present in much higher quantity in lymph tissue. There are many electronmicrographs of HIV virions in lymph tissue directly from AIDS patients. Staining methods that are specific to HIV antigens or HIV RNA are also used to demonstrate the presence and localisation of HIV in lymph nodes.

  489. Dave Says:

    Don’t wanna wade too deep into the Kimberly Bergalis debate.

    But….

    This young girl had no sex, and did not use needles.

    We all agree that HIV can be transmitted perinatelly.

    Therefore, isn’t more likely that she got “it” (whatever it is) from birth, than a dentist?

    Is there any other case in the nation where a dentist transmitted HIV to a patient or vice-versa?

    I wonder if anyone thought to test her mother to rule this out…

  490. Chris Noble Says:

    Therefore, isn’t more likely that she got “it” (whatever it is) from birth, than a dentist?

    You are one of the “rethinkers” that have repeatedly cited the studies by Gisselquist that assert that tranmission via medical procedures is a dominant transmission route for HIV infection in Africa. Why is transmission during an invasive dental procedure so unlikely?

    Stored blood samples from the time when Bergalis was born show that HIV was very rare in the US. The vast majority of people infected with HIV in the early eighties were in specific risk groups. This comes from the same CDC reports that Duesberg cites. Unless you believe in amazing coincidences it is impossible that these people were all infected perinatally.

    Duesberg’s statistical analysis of the Bergalis case is another example of bad mathematics. He starts with his assumption that Bergalis must have been infected perintally and then creates a spectacularly bad argument to support his initial premise. The major flaw is that he assumes that HIV is randomly spread through the population. The very CDC reports that he cites for the estimates of HIV prevalence demonstrate that this is not true.

  491. Dave Says:

    Why is transmission during an invasive dental procedure so unlikely?

    Well, genius, because of the ~1 million people purportedly infected with HIV in the USA over the past 25 years — it apparently only happened once.

    What is this — the Murchison Meteorite of dentistry:)

    Let me repeat my question:

    Since we all agree that mother-to-child transmission is a viable mode, was this ruled out or not?

  492. Truthseeker Says:

    There was no further case of dental transmission in the news as far as we know. That is where the pinch or pillar of salt comes in. The whole story is too incredible for words.

    TS—you need to get your facts straight. I opposed the meds and took my first treatment break in 2000 — 6 whole years before Celia, you, or anyone else ever wrote anything that I read.

    Not talking NHM about your healthy suspicion of drugs as toxic (which everyone can see or feel from experience it seems) which led to your drug holidays, we were talking about the fact that many people fought this fight against the ruling wisdom for twenty years ignored by scientific you until Celia broke the “news” in Harpers, or that was the story as you told it here earlier. So presumably Harpers changed your mind rather radically, even though you have yet to fully recognize the consequences or to express your gratitude for those who struggled to bring it to your attention. Is this wrong?

    We were not asking you to apologize to us but to the heroes of AIDS, ie Duesberg, Celia etc., who brought you notHIV. As you know there is something which rubs us the wrong way about people who scorn Duesberg while acknowledging he may have a point in rejecting the HIV∫AIDS paradigm, thus ignoring the battle he has fought like a real trooper – like a leader, in fact, as well as a great scientist – for two decades at great cost.

    But gratitude is a rare commodity, possibl even a litmus test for character. Takes a tough man to thank a stranger for their help. Can you manage it? Perhaps it is hard to feel anything when facing surgery, which must focus the mind wonderfully, like a hanging. Maybe later, after it is over, we can ask you again.

  493. McKiernan Says:

    Dave,

    Duesberg claims through his science conjecturings retroactive 22 years prior to Ms. Bergalis’s leaving her mortal coil that her hiv seroposivity was perinatally transferred and that concept seemingly trumps any sense that Dr. Acer could have cross transferred some of his own hiv blood into any soft tissue exposurings during her wisdom tooth extractions. It seems a stretch how one can retroactively propose certainty 22 years post birth. And then again, he is unsure.

    Is there any other case in the nation where a dentist transmitted HIV to a patient or vice-versa?

    Strangely, you should ask as the CDC according to Peter Duesberg did hiv testing on the majority of Dr. Acers 1100 + patient and to quote:

    “In view of the celebrity of the case and the fear it inspired among patients, 1100 further patients of the dentist came forward to be tested for HIV (Ou et al., 1992; Palca, 1992a). Seven of these, including Bergalis, tested positive. Four or 5 of these, including Bergalis and another woman, did not belong to an AIDS risk group, but 2 or 3 did. At least three of those who did not belong to a risk group received $1 million settlements from the dentist’s malpractice insurance (Palca, 1992b).

    However, a plausible mechanism of HIV transmission from the dentist to his 4-5 positive clients without AIDS risks was never identified, and there is no consensus as to whether the viruses of the three carriers studied by the CDC and the insurance companies were sufficiently related to claim a common source (Palca, 1992a,b).

    In addition, you may note a similarity in the evolgen reference above. Again, not definitive proof for transfer but definitely a strong case for the CDC.

    The let’s test mom theory is functionally invalid in studies in Africa since negative mom’s can produce positive offspring particularly when a substitute nursing nanny is hiv positive and breast feeds the baby. In addition, the Mom is Positive stuff from Darin hasn’t as yet yielded any information on those private testings. That’s a question.

    Now the unique thing about the Dr Acer/Bergalis/others cases is that it is one of the rare instances in which hiv has been found to be transferred in a health care setting. So seemingly, the dissidents would have had a field day falsifying those data given that millions of surgical procedures have taken place in health care clinics. But no such findings can be found, apparently except for the few sentences in Duesberg literature. Isn’t that odd ?

    Your Karl Popper statements above are noteworthy re: science
    and falsification of hypotheses, unfortunately in the medical field one is dealing with living human beings with medical doctors who are not gods.

    Our illustrious host seems to have shuffled off these kind of questions into his,

    “Maybe the cow jumped over the moon file.”

    Thank you for your dialogue.

    McK

  494. pat Says:

    “The let’s test mom theory is functionally invalid in studies in Africa since negative mom’s can produce positive offspring particularly when a substitute nursing nanny is hiv positive and breast feeds the baby. In addition, the Mom is Positive stuff from Darin hasn’t as yet yielded any information on those private testings. That’s a question.”

    How handy is our own ignorence of the world. we can explain HIV transmissibilitry through african wide nursing-baby-sharing theory. Non-sense theories take root to explain the unexplainable when common sense should. Is there data to support this? Did you invent this? On first hand it merely resembles a “hand-waving” exercise

    “Now the unique thing about the Dr Acer/Bergalis/others cases is that it is one of the rare instances in which hiv has been found to be transferred in a health care setting. So seemingly, the dissidents would have had a field day falsifying those data given that millions of surgical procedures have taken place in health care clinics. But no such findings can be found, apparently except for the few sentences in Duesberg literature. Isn’t that odd ? ”

    Not odd at all but rather obvious considering the political pressure only few of us can resist. I am not impressed at this line of pontification. The obvious actually stands out (the chickens stole the coop).

    “unfortunately in the medical field one is dealing with living human beings with medical doctors who are not gods”
    Words of wisdom

  495. nohivmeds Says:

    Again, TS — wrong. I’d never heard a word about you, celia, peter, anyone — until Harper’s. All it did was confirm my suspicions. You’ve crossed a line. As if you have any right to question me, my scientific credentials, my ideas.

    When exactly was the last time you published in peer-reviewed journal? Never? Oh, but some of your best friends do? Ah, well then, that settles it. You must be more expert in science than my full-ride PhD.

  496. chase Says:

    Pat darling, what really is amazing is that everyone but gays gets it from their moms. Now that’s really amazing. Gays, as we know from this blog, get it because they all snort poppers, have sex with hundreds of other men in less than sanitary conditions — wait, I’m sounding like the religious right, aren’t I? Now isn’t that odd!

  497. Chris Noble Says:

    Since we all agree that mother-to-child transmission is a viable mode, was this ruled out or not?

    They apparently considered the possibility that Bergalis’ father was the source of infection so I find it hard to believe that other members of her family were not tested. If her mother had tested positive it would have been reported.

    As I have stated before the problem with your theory is that stored blood samples indicate that the HIV prevalence in the US population was close to zero at the time Bergalis was born. In the early 80s the virus was found almost exclusively in specific risk groups of which Kimberly Bergalis’ mother was not a member. The probability that Kimberly Bergalis was infected perinatally is vanishingly small.

  498. Celia Farber Says:

    Truthseeker and NHM:

    I find myself in the envious position of having two great men fight over the possibility that I have been less than fully honored, and I am dancing a galliard in full maiden dress across the cold floor and hoping to prolong this as long as possible.

    Not but seriously–I do not take lightly the gift of being defended, and am torn in half by this rift because both Truthseeker and NHM have defended my WORK, never mind ME, but my WORK, and my heavens what a gift in this world, this time, this topic, this mess.

    Truthseeker’s attention to my post-Harper’s radar odyssey is documented; What is not documented is that NHM attempted to stop the initial pogrom against me in the total absence of knowing me or ever having spoken to me.

    He went after the attack pack and got between my ribs and their steel-tipped Doc Martens in a way that very few people who have known me for decades have done or would do. That takes guts. I thanked him and have told him I would like to return the favor.

    I value you both so much and I beseech you to stop fighting.

  499. Celia Farber Says:

    The quote Richard Jeffreys brings up is one which my editor and I sent back and forth; It was an instance of his being more direct and me trying to be more opaque. He was editor and I was writer. In the end, it simply says what DUESBERG THINKS/ARGUES/POSITS.

    Man, entire cover stories of magazines around the world transcribed the oracular and soon falsified utterings of David Ho, circa 1999.

    What is the issue with Duesberg being permitted to say what he thinks, or being paraphrased in Harper’s. It does not say you folks agree with him.

  500. Chris Noble Says:

    What is the issue with Duesberg being permitted to say what he thinks, or being paraphrased in Harper’s. It does not say you folks agree with him.

    What is the issue with people pointing out the data that contradicts Duesberg’s assertion that ARVs are the major cause of AIDS?

    I have listed three different cases where Duesberg blames AZT for the development of AIDS that occurred before the patients took AZT.

    Kimberly Bergalis
    Ascher’s study
    Darby’s study

    Why does Duesberg expect people to believe that iut was in fact AZT that caused these AIDS cases when AZT was given after the progression to AIDS?

    In addition if ARV treatment was actually the major cause of AIDS you would expect treatment intteruptions to have a beneficial effect.

    Duesberg’s theory is simply untenable.

  501. Dave Says:

    If her mother had tested positive it would have been reported .

    Nice dodge. You don’t know whether she was tested or not.

    The probability that Kimberly Bergalis was infected perinatally is vanishingly small .

    Perhaps. But is the probability that she was infected by her dentist double-plus vanishingly small, since such transmission has never happened before or since?

  502. MacDonald Says:

    While the titre of HIV in serum is much lower than that for the Friend Virus Complex in inbred mice HIV is present in much higher quantity in lymph tissue. There are many electronmicrographs of HIV virions in lymph tissue directly from AIDS patients. Staining methods that are specific to HIV antigens or HIV RNA are also used to demonstrate the presence and localisation of HIV in lymph nodes.

    tsktsk, Chris Just because and you take the Lanka position on animal viruses, it doesn’t give you license to dodge the question and repeat your unsubstantiated bs.

    I’m sure the titre is MUCH higher in lymph nodes, I’m sure there are staining methods VERY specific to HIV and even more specific to HIV RNA. Howevever, the question was not what colour the soup turns when you pee on it, but how you, Dr Noble, and whoever else helps you with your entirely unreferenced homework, know it’s HIV you’re localizing? – although I notice you’re not isolating it anymore, just “localizing” and photographing?

    I guess you are in a position to help NHM after all then. Perhaps you can “localize” and photograph some of the high titre virions in his lymph nodes, like he asked you to do earlier.

  503. Truthseeker Says:

    Personal insults are banned on this blog, especially when directed at the blogger. The software removes them automatically, and if they continue, blocks the poster for a cool off period of 24 hours.

    Again, TS — wrong. I’d never heard a word about you, Celia, Peter, anyone — until Harper’s. All it did was confirm my suspicions. You’ve crossed a line. As if you have any right to question me, my scientific credentials, my ideas.
    When exactly was the last time you published in peer-reviewed journal? Never? Oh, but some of your best friends do? Ah, well then, that settles it. You must be more expert in science than my full-ride PhD.

    OK we give up NHM, you refuse to be publicly grateful to either Duesberg or Celia or anyone else for anticipating your own revelation that HIV∫AIDS is a boondoggle, or contributing to it, even though it is a position you are not yet committed to, and you came to that not yet firm conclusion all by yourself, and Celia’s Harpers article and the sacrifices it took to get there, and Duesberg’s efforts over two decades, and everyone else’s, are nothing to say Thank you for. Even though you have rushed to the defense of Celia as she says in a way which demonstrated the words that you cannot write.

    Also, you agree that Duesberg may be a good scientist but you do not want us to go overboard in crediting him.

    Is that correct? If so, good. We won’t raise the topic again, especially since you continually misinterpret what we say, and say we have no right to question “you” or “your ideas”, and reply with a respect fight.

    Your scientific credentials were never at issue, as such. The issue is only your thinking and your emotions, and only those relevant to this blog and its topic, which is the truth or falsehood of HIV=AIDS, and the people and politics of that issue.

    On behalf of the blog, however, and anyone else here who agrees with us, we would like to hereby recognize Peter Duesberg, a very distinguished and honorable scientist and author, Celia Farber, a very distinguished and honorable journalist and author, and Harvey Bialy, a very distinguished and honorable scientist and author, for their efforts to enlighten the world as to the real situation in HIV∫AIDS, and wish them very few returns of World AIDS Day.

  504. chase Says:

    Celia is right that I fought viciously for her before I knew her. In fact, I fought viciously for Peter as well — which was the central contention of my letter in Harper’s, which argued he should be funded to do his research. He was the first person I contacted after I read the Harper’s piece. I have praised him and his work twice in this thread alone, and numerous times before. I have done the same with Celia and her work. I have nothing to prove to you, TS. My loyalties are out there in print and on this and other sites for the world to see. You are the only one who has ever quesitoned them, simply because I refuse to endorse Peter hook, line, and sinker. Anytime I have ever even raised an intelligent quesiton about Peter’s work, you have simply scoffed and said it is due to my poor scientific training, or my emotionalism, or other such nonsense. But no, I do not believe I am indebted to anyone but myself for keeping myself healthy, now for 10 years, and to argue anything else is simply self-serving.

    Celia, your attempt to run interference is a gift to me — thank you for your effort.

  505. chase Says:

    You’ll note the change in screen name. I believe we are chasing logic here, and too often, we are coming up short. For example, arguing with anyone (CN, others) about EJ’s death is unnecessary and simply allows for a reinforcement of the myths the coroner wrote — I think discussion of EJ is over — the LA District Attorney did not file charges because he could not win his case. That’s all that needs to be said. It is also unnecessary to argue about K. Bergalis’s death — even Peter acknowledged in his writings on that issue that we do not know all we would like to know. Most importantly, these are single cases with much media hype. As single cases, they could never actually “prove” either side’s arguement. These disputes only serve to distract from the real issues at hand. It is time to give both EJ and Kimberly back to their families with no more argument. That is the respectful thing to do, and the best thing to do from a scientific perspective as well. No single case will ever prove either side right or wrong.

  506. chase Says:

    And now, if it’s allright, I will withdraw for a while. I am worn down by your never-ending attacks, TS. You have spent so much time attacking a friend that I’d really hate to witness what you’d do to an enemy. You have used me as a scapegoat for your confusion and anger against all gay men, and against anyone who would question Peter. I need your attitutude like I need another “AIDS” doc telling me I’m going to die if I don’t take the meds. You should learn that all criticism is not necessarily bad for your cause. You should also, I think, be honest with your readers and acknowledge the fact that your deep personal attachment to Peter may in fact, on occasion, cloud your better judgements — do you think there is anything ignoble in caring? There isn’t. Regardless of what you do or don’t do, I’m taking my leave for a while. The email address associated with my “nohivmeds” post is real — if people want to be in touch. Others (including yourself) have other, additional ways of reaching me.

  507. Martel Says:

    CN,
    Thanks for the clarification on the Friend virus. That’s what I get for sticking my neck out on something I know little about. Just for those who are interested, the other purified agent listed above was not a virus, but a fungus. So it appears the Perth group may not have isolated any viruses according to their own protocol.

  508. Truthseeker Says:

    Same old same old, NHM, you cannot read straight it seems. No one dissed your scientific qualifications, knowledge, personal integrity, ideals or gayness. The issue is simply your specific refusal to thank these people that you have fought so viciously for etc etc, just as they and everyone else would thank you for fighting for them.

    Anybody in your position who can write

    But no, I do not believe I am indebted to anyone but myself for keeping myself healthy, now for 10 years, and to argue anything else is simply self-serving.

    is suffering from an inability to think straight (and where does self-serving come in? are we self serving to ask you to thank other people for their contribution to your welfare?) owing to emotional flux of some kind, whether as we repeatedly have granted you, illness, or continual misinterpretation of what is being said, or whatever, perhaps just resistance at being forced to show gratitude in public, as some kind of loss of status, is that it? If the latter, we cannot be expected to understand such irrational behavior, and you have not explained or justified it. Meanwhile you throw up all kinds of misleading emotionalism like a smoke cloud, culminating in your usual method of escaping the point, which is to retire from the field to regroup.

    As far as this blog is concerned this is an important political point – why are you and others so anxious not to credit and thank those who have brought the other side of the politics and science of HIV∫AIDS to your attention, even if that was only reinforcing your suspicions and ten years of questioning as you now claim? Is it narcissism? Envy? Some political motivation? We want to understand, but your flurry of emotional replies is not helping. It can’t be that you don’t support them, since you have just trumpeted your vicious fighting on their behalf (against whom? maybe you can expand on this, and we can thank you for your efforts).

    Whatever the reason your refusal is irrational, so we have every right to question your performance as a scientist, since reason is a fundamental pillar of science. For example,

    . I have praised him and his work twice in this thread alone, and numerous times before. I have done the same with Celia and her work. I have nothing to prove to you, TS. My loyalties are out there in print and on this and other sites for the world to see. You are the only one who has ever quesitoned them, simply because I refuse to endorse Peter hook, line, and sinker.

    Where does a demand that you show gratitude translate into a demand for praise, or a demand to prove your loyalty, which was never at issue, since we don’t even think it is relevant to a scientific discussion, which should be separated from politics.

    Anyone motivated in this discussion by loyalty should try and move over to reason and evidence on the blog, if you don’t mind, especially since we are demanding that Chris Noble tell us if he is being paid, and if so who is paying him, and how much, to waste time with implacable attempts to derail HIV∫AIDS critics and spike their objections to incredible science, rather than have an honest discussion, though we credit him with keeping to science ie reason and evidence, in his contributions, which are a good test for HIV∫AIDS critics, who should know their stuff if they are ever to get to a public platform rather than preach to the choir. However, we strongly disapprove of his schoolboy insults to Duesberg’s intelligence, and mean to tell him so.

    Anytime I have ever even raised an intelligent quesiton about Peter’s work, you have simply scoffed and said it is due to my poor scientific training, or my emotionalism, or other such nonsense.

    More loose talk. We have not criticized your scientific training, of which we have only a vague idea, but which seems technically informed, except to ask why it allows your emotionalism, including wild accusations that if we try and keep the emotionalism out, we must be anti-gay.

    You have used me as a scapegoat for your confusion and anger against all gay men

    No one is talking against gay men in general on this blog, with the single exception that we have criticized the amazing inability of most gay men to save themselves from the HIV∫AIDS scam, where they have been so keen to evade responsibility for an excess of sex, drugs and rock and roll in night clubs and bathhouses (an excess which Larry Kramer himself deplores, not just scientific observers, as dangerous to the health) that they have delivered themselves into the hands of the drug companies who have proceeded to feed them expensive poison under the cloak of helping them survive an absent microbe, and enlisted them as an army of activists to repulse critical examination.

    It is not we who are confused and angry, NHMchase, it is you, it seems, to suggest that our views are politicized or personally driven by gay loathing, which is a projection onto us of your fears. On the contrary, we see no reason to divide the world into gays and non gays on any basis other than cultural, and we cherish the contributions on this blog of more than one gay man who talk more sense than most people on this scientific and science-political topic.

    Not that we have a very clear idea who is gay and who is not, since it doesn’t affect the scientific discussion any. The politics is a can of worms, where gay acquiescence is one of the problems and puzzles, and gays can report from the front lines, but here objectivity should be the aim also. We are certainly glad to have the benefit of your and others’ extensive experience in bathhouses across the country as valuable reporting from the front, however, and we recognize that Larry Kramer is one of the few leaders in politics who might listen to Duesberg.

    But we have to think that only a gay man would talk this way about our limited relationship with Duesberg:

    be honest with your readers and acknowledge the fact that your deep personal attachment to Peter may in fact, on occasion, cloud your better judgements — do you think there is anything ignoble in caring?

    Where do you get this stuff except from your own inflamed imagination? Heterosexual men don’t have to be deeply personally attached to each other to be comrades in arms against bad science and injustice in politics. Yes, we at NAR admire and thoroughly approve of Duesberg’s decency and scientific spirit in not selling out or giving in to maximum pressure against him and his family, and we have found his science and logic to be impeccable across a breathtakingly wide range of false claims forced on his attention by the miserable pack of self serving or dimwitted scientists, irresponsible officials, unprofessional reporters, robotic doctors, unaware health workers, and foolish patients, who include one “scientist” who took medications for ten years while by his own account distrusting them and yet never looked into it enough to have heard of Peter Duesberg or Celia Farber before the Harpers piece, or if you had heard of them, to credit them with anything worth looking into, if your own account on this blog is understood correctly.

    Beyond that we don’t know Duesberg that well, except over the years encountering him in public infrequently and spending a little time interviewing him. We are not in love with him, and only a gay man in a semi hysterical state under medical assault would imagine such things. Certainly the implication that our ideas are influenced by admiration for Duesberg’s cheerful and witty persona is stupid. Yes we admire him for remaining unaffected by all the disgraceful exhibitions of personal animosity and idiocy he has aroused by just doing his job as a thinking member of the scientific elite.

    As such, you should be grateful for his efforts. But no we don’t think he is necessarily right on everything. We just know that no one has proved him wrong in our experience except the statistical nerd who demonstrated recently, as we posted, that he had misphrased his remark about the chances of hterosexual transmission, which when fixed made no difference to the argument.

    Is he a hero of science? We say Yes, he is a heroic figure who will be a name in the history books of science and his critical work objecting to the grand pile of absurd science that is HIV∫AIDS will be studied at Harvard as exemplary (as it has been already in Walter Gilbert’s graduate seminars) far into the future, unless independent scholarship in science goes down down the YouTubes along with traditional quality in other spheres.

  509. Martel Says:

    NHM,
    I’m sorry to offend you with my rearguing of the EJ case in the newspaper article thread, but for better or for worse, EJ’s tragic death was placed into the public domain because of who her mother is.

    I don’t know why or how EJ died, but I don’t know any MD who would give credence to al-Bayati’s report; the dual amoxicillin-parvovirus hypothesis is simply untenable, in my opinion. I couldn’t conscientiously let TS’s statement–implying that it was all a conspiracy, and anyone who knows a trachea from a tracheotomy is “of course” aware that she died of anaphylactic shock–remain unchallenged.

    This is a very singular case…and very singular cases are often the most informative for medicine. For me, personally, EJ’s death and the subsequent delayed flurry of reports, counter-reports, etc., was one of the reasons I stepped back from becoming a full-fledged rethinker…a path I once followed, albeit perhaps more for personal than for scientific reasons. I only wish that there were some more clarity here, so that other families don’t have to go through a similar loss, and believing wholeheartedly in medical fantasizing will not clarify anything.

  510. trrll Says:

    Well, genius, because of the ~1 million people purportedly infected with HIV in the USA over the past 25 years — it apparently only happened once.

    Of course, for a patient with any other risk factors, it is unlikely that anybody would even consider transmission during a dental procedure. So I’d be hesitant to presume that it only happened once; there could be quite a few other cases that were blamed on sex or dirty needles. So the best we can say that there is only one clear case where that seems to have been the mode of transmission.

  511. Dan Says:

    So the best we can say that there is only one clear case where that seems to have been the mode of transmission.

    One clear case where that seems to have been?

    Trying to have it both ways there, Mr. trrll.

    How “clear” is something that “seems to”?

    Why not be bold and say this is a clear case where that was the mode of transmission?

  512. trrll Says:

    Trying to have it both ways there, Mr. trrll.

    How “clear” is something that “seems to”?

    Why not be bold and say this is a clear case where that was the mode of transmission?

    It would be nice if everything in the world were absolutely clear, but scientists have to live in the real world of probability and doubt, and scientists value accuracy over boldness. When you look at the original scientific literature, you will find that most conclusions have probabilities attached. Transmission in the course of a dental procedures is the most likely explanation for this case, but how do you completely exclude the possibility that there could be some other route that you don’t know about? The converse of that is that there could be other cases that we don’t know about because there was another plausible route of transmission that got blamed. Always remember the scientific adage “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Showing that there is one case is a very different thing from showing that there is only one case.

  513. MacDonald Says:

    scientists have to live in the real world
    (-:(-:(-:

    Trrll,
    once more please, full name, title and affiliation; I’m collecting quotes from you, and they just keep getting better.

    Martel,
    I don’t think the Perth Group is in the business of isolating viruses. But your neck’s hardly in any danger for that reason if you ask me. The Perthies are way ahead of CN’s ancient history, wouldn’t you say?

  514. Dan Says:

    It would be nice if everything in the world were absolutely clear, but scientists have to live in the real world of probability and doubt, and scientists value accuracy over boldness

    scientists value accuracy over boldness

    And you were neither accurate, nor bold.

    Transmission in the course of a dental procedures is the most likely explanation for this case, but how do you completely exclude the possibility that there could be some other route that you don’t know about?

    I’ve got an idea! Why not question the validity of the test instead? I think this is where we started…with that interesting phrase used to describe a test result: “tentatively positive”.

    From Abbott Labs HIV Elisa: “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.”

    Tell me, trrll,
    how do we get positive, negative, indeterminate or tentatively postive test results, given the information above? Please do your best to explain. Thank you.

  515. Dan Says:

    I do not owe my life to rethinkers, thank you very much. I owe it to my own goddamn intuition

    NHM,
    so, if you have intuition that is able to serve you and guide you, wouldn’t you agree that others have intuition as well?

    I ask because so far you’ve been adamant about science. Now you’ve moved out of hard science (at least momentarily) and into something that I’ve mentioned a few times…intuition, or the “gut”.

    I bring this up because MY intuition has guided me extremely well throughout this mess. My intuition was telling me that something was terribly awry a long time ago.

    I think if more people listened to what their gut may be trying to tell them, we might well be better off for it.

  516. McKiernan Says:

    Dan,

    Get off his case. TS has treated him very poorly.

  517. Dan Says:

    McK,

    I’m not “on his case”. Not at all.

    I’m heartened to see that he has given his intuition the credit it may be due.

    Now…get off MY case!

  518. kevin Says:

    I bring this up because MY intuition has guided me extremely well throughout this mess. My intuition was telling me that something was terribly awry a long time ago. –Dan

    So was mine. So was mine.
    Discussing HIV with other gay men was always a chore. I resented having to hold my tongue when certain utterances were spit out without any understanding of what was being actually being said. I don’t like that characteristic in anyone but when your being told that you’re going to die, you really ought to be able to see through some of the bullshit, some of the time. I rarely hold my tongue in that situation, now.

    I think NHM is a thoughtful gay man, but he is also overly sensitive when discussing TS’s “attitude” toward gay men. I don’t find TS’s views offensive, not in the least; however, I do have to agree that he is a little hard on NHM some time, and the reverse of that is true, as well.

    Your post, however, was nothing of that sort, Dan. McK seems to be over-reacting. Perhaps he is trying to befriend NHM…bring him back into the fold, so to speak.

    They’re really like that, ya know 😉

    Kevin

  519. trrll Says:

    From Abbott Labs HIV Elisa: “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.”

    Tell me, trrll,
    how do we get positive, negative, indeterminate or tentatively postive test results, given the information above? Please do your best to explain. Thank you.

    What information? To a scientist, all that statement means is that Abbott labs developed their own assay rather than using a standard set by somebody else. And based upon the data that they obtained documenting the specificity and reliability of their assay, they were able to obtain FDA approval.

    All diagnostic assays have some rate of false positives. This is why a HIV test is considered positive only after a positive result has been obtained in two assays. So a single positive assay could reasonably be described as tentatively positive pending confirmation by a second assay.

  520. Truthseeker Says:

    To a scientist, all that statement means is that Abbott labs developed their own assay rather than using a standard set by somebody else

    Thank you trrlll for clarifying usefully. Always thought that statement was rather odd. Good one. Thank you.

    “McKiernan (mail): Dan, Get off his case. TS has treated him very poorly. Dan: McK, I’m not “on his case”. Not at all. I’m heartened to see that he has given his intuition the credit it may be due. Now…get off MY case!

    There is something obnoxious about telling others not to make post on any topic relevant to the issue. In this case, NHM or Chase or whatever meaningless moniker he goes to next (a very irritating habit, is it too much to expect people to choose a meaningful name and stick to it, even if it is artificial? Beelzebub was a good one, for example, and very apt, why the switch to Otis? these random name choices sabotage the clarity of the discussion and have no rational purpose that we can see, except to abandon all personal responsibility for what one posts, which is inappropriate for a Comment section attended by other persons of standing who are trying to have a civil and productive exchange), was an unapologetic ingrate and boasted of it as some kind of proof of his independence of mind, like his fence sitting.

    Anyhow please do not post personal attempts to direct what is meant to be an entirely free discussion on which nothing is censored except bad manners, bad language, personal insults and attempting to censor people, which is the prerogative of the blogger who has long ago abandoned the responsibility to very intelligent and perceptive neural network software.

    I’m heartened to see that he has given his intuition the credit it may be due.

    As far as intuition goes, in the absence of truthful information from the authorities this definitely has a place, we agree, but in a focused discussion like this concerning the validity or otherwise of the HIV∫AIDS paradigm, why not rely on reason and evidence?

  521. chase Says:

    he was an unapologetic ingrate and boasted of it as some kind of proof of his independence of mind, like his fence sitting…….nothing is censored except bad manners, bad language, personal insults….

    a total loss of credibility, TS. plain as day. to everyone else — i need a break from TS, as i mentioned, so i’m taking some time off. please get in touch with me directly if you’d like. it’s unnecessary to continue to post about me. thanks.

  522. chase Says:

    And I do mean it when I invite direct contact from anyone here:
    nohivmeds@yahoo.com

  523. Dan Says:

    To a scientist, all that statement means is that Abbott labs developed their own assay rather than using a standard set by somebody else.

    Trrll,
    I read the statement on the Abbott HIV Elisa to mean exactly what it says…that there is no standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2. This is correct.

    You’re simply stating the obvious…that different labs have different “standards”.

    Which brings me back to my question (with a little more padding now): how do we get positive, negative, indeterminate, false positive, false negative and tentatively positive test results with no standard?

  524. Dan Says:

    As far as intuition goes, in the absence of truthful information from the authorities this definitely has a place, we agree, but in a focused discussion like this concerning the validity or otherwise of the HIV∫AIDS paradigm, why not rely on reason and evidence?

    I agree, Truthseeker.

    Everything has it’s place.

    For those of us who are lucky enough to have all this information readily available, we have an obligation to make use of it.

    What about people in remote places in Africa without internet connections? I hope they can use their intuition and avoid being unnecessarily poisoned in mind and body.

  525. trrll Says:

    Which brings me back to my question (with a little more padding now): how do we get positive, negative, indeterminate, false positive, false negative and tentatively positive test results with no standard?

    That just means that Abbott laboratories had to independently develop a standard for their particular diagnostic test, and prove its validity to the FDA by evaluating it against appropriate positive and negative controls.

  526. trrll Says:

    It occurs to me that perhaps it is not clear to nonscientists what it means to develop a standard for an assay. Generally, any assay must be calibrated by running it against a set of standards. If there was a “recognized standard,” then all Abbot Laboratories would have needed to do was run their assay against those standards. In the absence of a recognized standard, they would have to develop their own set of standards in order to determine what level of response constituted a positive result or a negative result. Most likely they would start with a set of positive and negative samples, probably from AIDS patients and healthy controls without HIV risk factors. Or they could use samples from people who have been shown to be HIV positive or negative by other assays, such as PCR. This would allow them to determine what the background level of signal was for HIV-negative individuals, and what level of signal is obtained for HIV-positive individuals. Based upon this, they will define the signal level that best distinguishes between HIV-positive and -negative individuals. Most likely they would choose a cutoff point that favored minimizing false negatives at the expense of some false positives, because the practical consequences of a false negative are more severe than the practical consequences of a false positive, because after a false negative result the patient will go away, receive no treatment and perhaps infect others. A false positive, on the other hand, will normally be caught, since the standard is to verify all positive assays with a different test.

    These studies would also determine the appropriate assay conditions. I remember that earlier in this thread there was some complaint about the fact that a particular assay required a high sample dilution, and produced false positives if this was not done. However, it is normally the case that an assay of this nature will be valid only under a defined range of conditions, and will tend to produce misleading results outside this range. In general, antibody studies involve determining what sticks to what, but just about all proteins are a little bit sticky, so even an antibody that is considered highly specific will cross-react nonspecifically with the “wrong” proteins if those proteins are present at too high a concentration. One dilution is not better than another, it just has to be correct for the antibody and antigen in question. If those conditions are not adhered to, the result is quite literally meaningless.

  527. Dave Says:

    Hey Trrll,

    Instead of all that gobbledygook, Why not just culture the virus from AIDS patients?

  528. trrll Says:

    Instead of all that gobbledygook, Why not just culture the virus from AIDS patients?

    Because for a diagnostic test you want something easy, cheap, fast, and reliable. Cell culture is difficult, costly, and time-consuming. And once you cultured the virus, you’d still need some kind of an assay to measure the virus in the cell culture. So it makes far more sense to cut to the chase and assay the blood directly.

    Science is all about detail. If you dismiss it as “gobbledygook” because you lack the patience to follow it, you will end up being misled by notions that sound simple and plausible, but are nevertheless wrong. For example, you’ve obviously gotten it into your head that if there is “no recognized standard” then there is no way to determine whether a test is positive or negative. This is utter nonsense, but if you are unwilling to pay attention even to a couple of paragraphs explaining how standards and assays actually work, you’ll never manage to figure that out.

  529. Truthseeker Says:

    i’m taking some time off.

    Fair enough, NHMC. Apologies for pursuing the matter too far, but we cannot accept assertions that we must be in gay love with Duesberg to credit and thank him for the quality of his work and what he has done to save your hide and millions of others, even though you are “on the fence” and still taking the meds despite what he has written.

    Your informed contribution will be missed while you are away, except for your depreciation of the important post on nutrition as the key to HIV∫AIDS’s remaining mysteries once HIV is dismissed.

  530. Dan Says:

    Dan: Which brings me back to my question (with a little more padding now): how do we get positive, negative, indeterminate, false positive, false negative and tentatively positive test results with no standard?

    Trrll: That just means that Abbott laboratories had to independently develop a standard for their particular diagnostic test, and prove its validity to the FDA by evaluating it against appropriate positive and negative controls.

    Trrll,
    you’re running circles around the question. As you can see above, you didn’t answer it.

    Care to try again?

  531. trrll Says:

    Which brings me back to my question (with a little more padding now): how do we get positive, negative, indeterminate, false positive, false negative and tentatively positive test results with no standard? You’re running circles around the question. As you can see above, you didn’t answer it

    More accurately, you ignored the answer, dismissing it as “gobbledygook.”

    So let’s see if I can simplify it even further for you:

    “No recognized standard” doesn’t mean that no standards were used; it means that Abbot Labs did not have a standard provided to them, and had to develop their own internal standards, derived from individuals of known HIV status. To get their test approved by the FDA, they had to document that their assay, developed using their own standards, provided accurate, reproducible results consistent with other HIV assays.

    Generally, such diagnostic assays produce either a positive or a negative reading. The result would be referred to as indeterminate only if there is reason to believe that the assay was not performed properly, such as failure of a control to yield the correct result. A positive result in a single assay constitutes a tentatively positive HIV test, which becomes a definite positive once it is confirmed by a second assay. A false positive would be a positive reading on the assay for an individual known to be HIV negative, or a positive reading that is not confirmed by subsequent follow-up assays. A false negative would be a negative reading on the assay for an individual who is known from other evidence to be HIV-positive.

  532. john Says:

    trrll,

    All the serological tests associated to the presence of a virus present a cut’ off which indicates that below this limit you do not possess enough antibodies towards one or several antigens of this virus.

    But below this cut’ off, the test reacts to the same proteins as above.
    The “hiv” test would thus be the only one viral serology for which proteins found below the cut’ off would be, as by magic, other antigens having nothing to do with the “hiv”

    This is really scientifically ridiculous, unless somebody presents here the sequencing of proteins which would give crossed-reactions below the cut’ off.

    Really, we are every “HIV”-positive persons… due to the oxidative stress from the nitrogenous oxidizers, but at certain persons it became pathological and irreversible.

    For example, strong visible prevalence at tuberculosis-ill persons can be explained by the excessive use of isoniazide, source turned out of nitrogen monoxide in excess, and thus of peroxynitrites reponsables of the apoptosis.

  533. Dan Says:

    The statement is written in plain english, and can be understood in plain english.

    “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.”

    There’s NO STANDARD for determining HIV infection.

    You’re simply stating the obvious trrll. Different labs get to come up with their own “standards”.

    What does this mean? Just what any thinking human being would understand it to mean. I could test “positive” with a test from one lab, and “negative” on a test from another . THERE’S NO STANDARD. The statement above is readily understood by anyone with basic english skills.

  534. Truthseeker Says:

    What does this mean? Just what any thinking human being would understand it to mean. I could test “positive” with a test from one lab, and “negative” on a test from another. THERE’S NO STANDARD.

    Very well put, Dan, thanks. So what is the variation between these different tests? How often do they disagree? would seem to be the issue.

    Bottom line, how far can these tests be trusted to say anything about the patient which is worth knowing, even if HIV antibodies did prove the significant presence of HIV, and HIV caused any immune dysfuction, when apparently neither is the case.

    Is it true for instance that only 1/3 of initially positive Elisa tests are confirmed by additonal Elisas and Western blots? This would seem to indicate an inaccuracy rate far higher than admitted ie less than 99.7% or whatever each company is claiming currently.

    What are these tests worth? Looks like close to zero, when all is said and done. But the AIDS boys and girls are keen to expand testing to the world, and find millions more who “have HIV” when they don’t.

    The trust that gentlemen like our distinguished poster Terrell have in the technicalities seems a little silly when the rationale is analyzed.

  535. trrll Says:

    All the serological tests associated to the presence of a virus present a cut’ off which indicates that below this limit you do not possess enough antibodies towards one or several antigens of this virus.

    But below this cut’ off, the test reacts to the same proteins as above.
    The “hiv” test would thus be the only one viral serology for which proteins found below the cut’ off would be, as by magic, other antigens having nothing to do with the “hiv”

    This is really scientifically ridiculous, unless somebody presents here the sequencing of proteins which would give crossed-reactions below the cut’ off.

    Really, we are every “HIV”-positive persons… due to the oxidative stress from the nitrogenous oxidizers, but at certain persons it became pathological and irreversible.

    This is utter nonsense and betrays a profound ignorance of the science behind antibody tests. Cross-reactivity is a universal problem with antibodies. It is not at all unique to HIV. Anybody who has worked with any kind of antibody based assay has had to wrestle with the issue. Antibody tests fall into the general category of binding assays, a very powerful technology with some very well understood limitations. Basically, binding assays work by measuring what sticks to what. All binding assays suffer from the same fundamental problem—the ubiquitous presence of nonspecific binding. Fundamentally, biological molecules are promiscuously sticky—at sufficiently high concentration, just about anything will stick to anything. So it is ultimately a matter of degree—how tightly the two molecules stick together. A binding assay is made reliable by carefully adjusting the dilutions such that the concentrations are low enough that most of the binding reflects the highest affinity “specific” interactions—but there is always a background of “nonspecific” binding that has nothing to do with the molecule that the assay is intended to detect. If the concentrations of reactants are too high, then the nonspecific binding completely swamps specific binding, and the assay becomes worthless. Note that this is all very basic information that anybody who has bothered to even causally research the science behind antibody tests should be well familiar with.

  536. trrll Says:

    What does this mean? Just what any thinking human being would understand it to mean. I could test “positive” with a test from one lab, and “negative” on a test from another . THERE’S NO STANDARD. The statement above is readily understood by anyone with basic english skills.

    Except of course, that a company would never be able to get their test approved by the FDA, or be successful in selling it, if it did not agree with other tests. The lack of a recognized standard merely makes things a bit more difficult and expensive for the developer. If there were such a standard, they could simply say, “Our test performs according to the accepted standard,” and that would be that. Without such a standard, they have the burden of developing their own standards–and then proving that those standards are valid and that their assay is reliable within a reasonable margin of error, so that the situation that you describe, in which different tests yield contradictory results, does not arise to an appreciable extent.

  537. trrll Says:

    Is it true for instance that only 1/3 of initially positive Elisa tests are confirmed by additonal Elisas and Western blots? This would seem to indicate an inaccuracy rate far higher than admitted ie less than 99.7% or whatever each company is claiming currently.

    This is the sort of argument that cracks me up. If you thought about this rationally for even a moment, you’d realize how meaningless this is. But of course, you clearly very much want HIV tests to be worthless, so your capacity for rational thought is diminished. But let’s see if I can temporarily stimulate your rational thinking muscles:

    Let’s consider a population in which nobody is actually infected with HIV. Then what percentage of initially positive tests would fail to be confirmed by further testing? Obviously, all of them! 100% of all positives would turn out to be wrong! And must be true no matter how rare false positives are for the assay in question.

    So the fraction of initially positive tests that are not confirmed on retesting depends not merely upon the accuracy and reproducibility of the test, but also on the prevalence of infection in the population in question.Anybody thinking rationally about the question will of course realize immediately that the relevant statistic is not the fraction of positives that turn out to be false, but rather the fraction of all tests that yield false positive results

  538. Truthseeker Says:

    This is the sort of argument that cracks me up. If you thought about this rationally for even a moment, you’d realize how meaningless this is. But of course, you clearly very much want HIV tests to be worthless, so your capacity for rational thought is diminished. But let’s see if I can temporarily stimulate your rational thinking muscles:

    Try not to jeer at some omission in a polite enquiry which you should know goes without saying, Terrell Gibbs. It is the mark of a donkey in debate. You are so busy eeyawing you have not answered the question.

    Of course it depends on prevalence, and since prevalence in the US is 1/300, one would expect quite a few positives to be false. We are asking how many you would expect to be false the first time on Elisas in the US general population, which you presumably like your fellow members of the “We believe irrationally in HIV as the cause of AIDS” club want to universally test?

  539. MacDonald Says:

    Except of course, that a company would never be able to get their test approved by the FDA, or be successful in selling it, if it did not agree with other tests. The lack of a recognized standard merely makes things a bit more difficult and expensive for the developer. If there were such a standard, they could simply say, “Our test performs according to the accepted standard,” and that would be that. Without such a standard, they have the burden of developing their own standards–and then proving that those standards are valid

    Dr. Goobledygook,

    gee, I do empathize with the poor pharma companies that ‘have the burden’ of developing their very own HIV test standards that accord with other compnanies’ very own standards; but even though everybody’s very own standards accord with everybody else’s very own standards, they can’t be pronounced ‘recognized standards’, cuz all the standards that agree with everybody else’s standards aren’t everybody else’s standards after all, and so disagree with those standards which aren’t everybody’s standards when you think about it – and ain’t it a pity, cuz the test developers make only a couple $gazillion, while the HIV+ – or maybe not get all the benefits.

    Of course we all know that the fraction of falsely accused HIV positives ain’t important, I mean statistically speaking But all of us ‘non-scientific’ individuals just wanna know this,

    If there was a “recognized standard,” then all Abbot Laboratories would have needed to do was run their assay against those standards. In the absence of a recognized standard, they would have to develop their own set of standards in order to determine what level of response constituted a positive result or a negative result. Most likely they would start with a set of positive and negative samples, probably from AIDS patients and healthy controls without HIV risk factors. Or they could use samples from people who have been shown to be HIV positive or negative by other assays, such as PCR. (Dr. Goobledygook)

    1. If individuals have already been ‘shown’ to be HIV positive or negative on ‘other assays like PCR’ why don’t those tests count as the recognized standard?

    2. When Abbott laboratories, following all the finest scientific traditions of being detailed, accurate and mindful of lawsuits, rather than bold, as evidenced in their test disclaimer, announced their results, why weren’t they made the recognized standard of HIV testing?

    Even more interestingly, Dr. Goobledygook-Trrll, how does it feel to be so crap at what you’re normally doing that you have to be a hired pea shooter at an obscure dissident website, being afraid of signing anything with your real name and affiliation because you have to return again and again for more humiliation, although all of your scientific colleagues are laughing at you?

    No really, tell me how does it feels to have no talent and no career but prostitution in sight, and being exceptionally short to boot?

    For the real fractions on HIV testing:

    Perhaps the most devastating analysis of HIV testing was offered by Dr. Harvey Fineberg. When I interviewed Fineberg in 1988, he was Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health. Later, he went on to become Provost of Harvard University, and then was appointed president of the very prestigious Institute of Medicine. A man with impeccable conventional credentials, Fineberg had, in the spring of 1987, published a statistical analysis of HIV testing in Law, Medicine, and Healthcare.

    “To begin with,” Fineberg told me on the phone, “in the study, we accepted the advertised accuracy ratings of the Elisa test. It’s reportedly able to find true [HIV] positives at a rate of 93.4 percent, and it supposedly can detect true [HIV] negatives correctly 99.78 percent of the time.

    “So let’s say that three out of 10,000 people in the US are really infected with the HIV virus. If we consider a sample of 100,000 people, that means 30 will actually be infected with HIV. The Elisa test will be able to pinpoint 93.4 percent, or 28 of those people.

    “On the other side of the ledger, that leaves 99,970 out of 100,000 who are truly not infected with the AIDS virus.

    “If the Elisa test is 99.78 percent capable of finding these real [HIV] negatives, it will locate 99,750 of these people without fail. That leaves 220 [HIV] negatives it missed.” How did it miss? By calling those 220 people [HIV] positive.

    Fineberg stated, “So now you have, out of every 100,000 people, 28 truly [HIV] positive and 220 falsely positive test results. That means the statistical chances are about 90 percent that [an HIV] positive-reading Elisa is wrongly positive [false-positive].”

    Fineberg continued: “A second Elisa won’t change that either. If you do a Western Blot, the odds might, at best, be lowered to 25 percent. In other words, a fourth of the time, a positive AIDS test would be false-positive.”

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world
    /2006/09/index.html

  540. Truthseeker Says:

    But of course, you clearly very much want HIV tests to be worthless, so your capacity for rational thought is diminished. But let’s see if I can temporarily stimulate your rational thinking muscles:

    Also, Dr Eeyore, we don’t “very much want HIV tests to be worthless”, we already recognize they are completely and absolutely worthless, since they a) show only antibodies are present and not HIV, with HIV effectively absent in any person who is positive beyond a few weeks after infection, and b) HIV shows no sign (to intelligent people who bother to address the issue with their minds) of causing “AIDS” or anything else after that point.

    This testing part being a microcosm in itself of the wholesale irrationality of the entire HIV∫AIDS paradigm, we would like to nail down its complete list of scientific weaknesses with your helpful confirmation, that’s all.

    Just give us the accuracy average of the Elisa tests to be used and we will tell you the number of false positives we can expect with universal testing in the US, if you like.

  541. trrll Says:

    If individuals have already been ‘shown’ to be HIV positive or negative on ‘other assays like PCR’ why don’t those tests count as the recognized standard?

    Since PCR does not measure HIV antibodies, there is no way that it could constitute a “recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.”

    PCR is of course the most sensitive test, but as I noted before, diagnostic tests—especially those used for initial screening—need to be quick, easy, and cheap.

    When Abbott laboratories, following all the finest scientific traditions of being detailed, accurate and mindful of lawsuits, rather than bold, as evidenced in their test disclaimer, announced their results, why weren’t they made the recognized standard of HIV testing?

    Given that there are multiple companies producing a variety of reliable HIV assays, it is hard to see a fair basis to pick one and acclaim it as the standard. Who, specifically, would you expect to do this? Besides, there are advantages to having multiple tests that use different methods of measuring the same thing.

  542. trrll Says:

    Just give us the accuracy average of the Elisa tests to be used and we will tell you the number of false positives we can expect with universal testing in the US, if you like.

    The false positive rate in a low-prevalence population (voluntary blood donors) of a standard HIV test protocol (enzyme immunoassay with confirmation by Western blot) in actual practice has been measured experimentally:

    The false-positive prevalence was 4.8% of Western blot–positive donors and 0.0004% (1 in 251000) of all donors (95% confidence interval, 1 in 173000 to 1 in 379000 donors).

    Based upon these results, the authors recommended that an additional confirmation by PCR should be carried out to further reduce the incidence of false positives.

  543. Robert Houston Says:

    The CDC’s estimate of one million HIV antibody-postives in the U.S. was based on a series of antibody tests (as in the Army studies by Burke et al., which used several ELISAs plus Western blot tests). The U.S. is a low prevalence area with an HIV+ prevalence rate of only about 0.3% (1/300). According to the current package insert of one of the major HIV test manufacturers, the majority of initial ELISA positive tests will be false positives in such a low prevalence population:

    “Reactive specimens upon initial testing with the Vironostika HIV-1…Microelisa System should be re-tested in duplicate. Reactivity in either or both of the duplicate tests indicate a potential for the presence of HIV-specific antibody… However, when the ELISA is used to screen populations with a low prevalence of HIV infection, non-specific reactions may be more common than specific reactions.”

    In other words, the initial result will usually be wrong!

    The Positive Predictive Value (PPV) is the probability that a positive test is a true positive. Confirmation is usually by Western blot, a more elaborate antibody test which is often indeterminate. A 2004 study (Zacharias et al. High false-positive rate of HIV…J Perinatol 24:743-7, 2004) in a Texas population of about 10,000 women found that nearly 2/3rds of the initial HIV positive results were false positives (“the ELISA-positive predictive value: 37.7%”).

    A recent study of 5,000 men in Pakistan found that 77% of the initial positive ELISAs were false positive (A. Sheikh et al. High frequency of false positive results in HIV screening..J. Pak Med Assoc 56(Sup 1):S72-5, 2006). “Only 11 [23%] were found to be true positive.” (Note: Pakistan has an antibody prevalence rate for HIV similar to the U.S.)

    Thus, in mass screening in the U.S., two or three false positives can be expected to occur for every initially positive HIV ELISA result. This would represent two or three million people who may be unjustly stigmatized.

    A valuable discussion of the problems in HIV testing was recently provided by Dr. Rebecca Culshaw.

  544. john Says:

    Trrll

    If it is it the science developed by the biologists, I do not congratulate you. You do not even respect the classic rules of the chemistry.
    And you do not answer the essential question: were the structures of the crosses-reacting proteins sequenced ?
    As long as the answer to this question was not given, it is necessary to consider that you are bad scientists.

  545. Truthseeker Says:

    The false-positive prevalence was 4.8% of Western blot–positive donors and 0.0004% (1 in 251000) of all donors (95% confidence interval, 1 in 173000 to 1 in 379000 donors).

    No, answer the question. What is the claimed percentage accuracy of the Elisa that is likely to be most often used in “universal testing” in the US as a first test? That will tell us how many false positives we are going to get the first time around in the US population, if we test all 300 million, an up-to-date goal you presumably support. If the accuracy of the new speedier home tests is lower, what is that?

    But perhaps you would also explain the quote. “4.8% false positive on Western blot-positive donors” means what exactly – please translate into English. Western blot is not usually done first, is it? Whatever, it sounds remarkably high, while the second figure sounds remarkably low. What’s really meant here?

    Quite remarkable how poorly expressed and evasive of the public gaze these technicalities are. Luckily, however, we have you willing to explain them. This is a very great contribution to public understanding.

  546. kevin Says:

    Trlll wrote:

    PCR is of course the most sensitive test, but as I noted before, diagnostic tests—especially those used for initial screening—need to be quick, easy, and cheap.

    What about accuracy? I’d think that a diagnostic test would, first and foremost, need to be accurate. Quick, easy, and cheap sounds more like reasons to explain why a test is a poor diagnostic tool, especially when dealing with a contagious killer like HIV.

    Kevin

  547. kevin Says:

    Trlll wrote:

    Besides, there are advantages to having multiple tests that use different methods of measuring the same thing.

    It sure makes it easier to justify erroneous conclusions.

    Kevin

  548. Bialyzebub Says:

    Call me a dirty dog, but I am in receipt of an email from Michael Geiger that was addressed to Prof. Trrll and copied to TS as well, and since I see that the TS has referred to this indefatigable poseur by his right name, I am at a loss as to why he did not reproduce the rest of Mr. Geiger’s wonderful letter because what opened even these jaded eyes wider than wide was to discover that this grossly inept defender of viral AIDS is a PHARMACOLOGIST who studies the toxicity of AMPHETAMINES.

    The open letter to TRRLL:

    “I read your remarks on New Aids Review as “trrll” and I am absolutely amazed at your seemingly mindless responses and inability to see any other side to the HIV AIDS issue than you do. Particularly as you yourself wrote the following:

    “There is ample evidence that it is possible for psychoactive drugs – and stimulants in particular – to harm the brain,” said Dr Terrell G, of the Boston University School of Medicine, whose research has shown that high doses of amphetamines can cause brain damage in animals. (ref)

    Mr. G, methamphetamine use in the California gay community, where HIV supposedly began, has been unbelievably rampant since the late 1970’s in Southern California where “AIDS began. Even most of the supposed leaders of the gay community were strung out on it, including the publishers of our local gay press. As a matter of fact, the amount of Crystal Meth used in the community has mirrored the rise of supposed HIV/AIDS right here where I live in San Diego as well as in LA and San Fran.

    Particularly as those using meth are also up for days with no appetite for food, and exposing themselves to many STD’s on a regular basis, and then taking massive amounts of antibiotics to treat the STD’s. Perhaps you suppose that this is no problem for one’s immune system over time? The gay bath houses and gay party scene here has been drenched in meth use since the mid 1980’s when the supposed AIDS epidemic began. Here in San Diego, 95 out of every 100 AIDS cases either is or has been a frequent crystal meth user. I can still go right over to any of the three gay bath houses in town and buy street made crystal meth right from the guys working at the counter of the clubs. I can go into any gay bar here in town and find several people selling it on any Friday night. The local gay 12 step meetings are full of HIV positive meth addicts. Even some of the local cops got caught selling it!

    You are bright enough to admit in your own words in the link above, the cellularly destructive ability of meth as regards brain cells, and are seemingly completely unable (or more like unwilling) to suppose that it may also destroy the immune system, and instead choose to wholly blame HIV for the supposed AIDS destruction of the immune system, wasting, and dementia claimed to be due to HIV. You are obviously able to see the harm caused by meth use in brain cells and you ignorantly suppose that the damage stops there. Is there some intelligent reason to consider the ravaging effect of meth on the immune system? Is there some intelligent reason why you wish to blame the obvious damage on the immune system strictly on HIV?

    Terrell G, a real scientist, presented with all of the information that you have been presented with by the AIDS Dissent community, would never stop questioning the mainline HIV = AIDS hype or mindlessly spout that he knows what is going on with it all as you regularly seem to do on NAR, especially after seeing the damage in animals due to meth. Are you just getting old or lazy, or what?

    As a supposed research scientist, you should be ashamed of yourself.”

    Michael Geiger

    HEAL, San Diego

  549. Truthseeker Says:

    PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT FURTHER ON THIS THREAD, BUT CONTINUE ON THE New mainstream coverage of rethinkers COMMENT THREAD (Next post).

    This is requested because printers asked to print out the last few pages of this record 550 comment thread now take too much time.

    THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1315 access attempts in the last 7 days.