While all the HIV “dissidents” are milling around….

…I’m sure they’ll be happy to see that Gambia’s president is curing AIDS:

From the pockets of his billowing white robe, Gambia’s president pulls out a plastic container, closes his eyes in prayer and rubs a green herbal paste onto the rib cage of the patient — a concoction he claims is a cure for AIDS.

He then orders the thin man to swallow a bitter yellow drink, followed by two bananas.

“Whatever you do, there are bound to be skeptics, but I can tell you my method is foolproof,” President Yahya Jammeh told an Associated Press reporter, surrounded by bodyguards in his presidential compound. “Mine is not an argument, mine is a proof. It’s a declaration. I can cure AIDS and I will.”

Foolproof, y’hear? Who needs research when we have an assurance like that?

More after the jump…

The only good news about this is that, as far as African countries go, Gambia’s rate of infection is still fairly low–the article puts it at 1.3%. Additionally, Jammeh hasn’t publicized (yet) what the “cure” is comprised of, so for now, patients must be treated by him individually–you can’t make it in your own backyard. However, he does require that patients go off their antiretroviral meds in order to be “cured” by him. (Patients must also forgo coffee, tea, alcohol, and sex). But hey, he backs it up with science!:

Jammeh has gone to great lengths to prove his claim, sending blood samples of the first nine patients to a lab in Senegal for testing. A letter on the lab’s stationery indicates that of the nine, four had undetectable viral loads, one had a moderate viral load and three had high loads, a result posted on the government’s Web site as proof of a cure.

This is problematic, though, for a number of reasons. First, as noted in the article, there was no baseline measurement taken for this. Those who had undetectable viral loads easily could have had them at that level prior to treatment, so it can’t be said that the treatment reduced the viral levels in the blood. Second, one with “moderate” and three with high viral loads–and he’s touting that as “proof” of his cure?

Of course, in the end, it all comes down to the anecdotal evidence, science be damned:

“It feels as if the president took the pain out of my body,” Ousman Sowe, 54, told the AP. Diagnosed with HIV in 1996, he is among the first nine men and women Jammeh has treated and has been under the Gambian leader’s care for nearly a month.

“My appetite has come back and I have gained weight,” said Lamin Ceesay, thin from a nine-year battle with HIV.

Small comfort, I suppose, that at least they’re not claiming that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS (as far as I know; otherwise, the viral load tests would seem to be rather pointless).

And of course, what would a magical cure be without invoking god?

Jammeh then held up the Quran, pointing it at each of the patients: “In the name of Allah, in three to 30 days you will all be cured,” he said.

582 Replies to “While all the HIV “dissidents” are milling around….”

  1. Tara writes:

    Second, one with “moderate” and three with high viral loads–and he’s touting that as “proof” of his cure?

    Another odd thing…nine patients had their blood tested, but there are only 8 when you add up the “four had undetectable viral loads, one had a moderate viral load and three had high loads”.

    What happened to the other guy??

  2. Your choice of headline betrays your propensity for “Schubladendenken” (compartmentalization). What does this crackpot have to do with people who question the HIV/AIDS theory? As far as I can tell, and by application of your compartmentalisation logic, this guy is quite squarely an “orthodox” crackpot!

  3. besides, “viral load” explains disease progression only 5% of the time. So if your viral load is high relax; there’s a 95% chance that it means absolutely nothing.

  4. pat the moore you talk about rodriguez et al the moore you show your understanding of the paper extends precisely to and not beyond a knowledge of the first authors last name.

  5. Enter stage left, WIC (hurling insults)

    “pat the moore you talk about rodriguez et al the moore you show your understanding of the paper extends precisely to and not beyond a knowledge of the first authors last name.” -Wic

    “pat the moore you talk about rodriguez…” mmm, either a typo repeated twice or an attempt at humour.

    “…only a small proportion of CD4 cell loss variability (4%-6%) could be explained by presenting plasma HIV RNA level”

    “CONCLUSIONS: Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline only minimally in untreated persons. Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection. These findings have implications for treatment decisions in HIV infection and for understanding the pathogenesis of progressive immune deficiency.”

    “Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection”…go figure.

  6. I know what causes AIDS! It’s obviously another of Lord Voldemort’s plots! He’s come up with a new curse, and from the looks of it, it should be unforgivable.

  7. What does this crackpot have to do with people who question the HIV/AIDS theory?

    How is what this man is doing any different from the professional Deniers peddling vitamins and lemon juice?

  8. As far as I can tell, and by application of your compartmentalisation logic, this guy is quite squarely an “orthodox” crackpot!

    ERV already beat me to it, but exactly–his use of an unproven herbal concoction rather than proven drugs puts him in league with y’all, pat. He may not deny that HIV causes AIDS (as far as I know), but you certainly have a spectrum of denial, from “HIV doesn’t exist” to “AIDS is caused by antiretroviral and other drugs.” That it can be “cured” in 30 days by a few herbs certainly doesn’t put him on the side of science.

  9. Tara, thank you for sharing with us your belief that any of the anti-HIV antiretrovirals are, as you called them: “proven drugs. However, I am not sure what you mean by that.

    I realize you have heard the fable many times over that these drugs are “life saving” or “life extending”. But none have ever been tested against either placebo or no treatment at all.

    If this is what you meant, it seems Lancet’s page 451 of Vol 368, August 5, 2006 disagrees with you that any of these are “proven drugs” in any healthy way.

    The study involved 22,217 HIV positive people in Europe and North America, including many from sub-Saharan Africa, who had never taken ARVs before, and about 75% had no AIDS symptoms at the start of medication.

    As the Lancet says in its own comment, HAART’s first decade: success brings further challenges,p 427,

    “The major findings are that, despite improved initial HIV virological control (percentage <500 copies per mL at 6 months increased from 56% in 1995-6 to 83% in 2002-3) there were no significant improvements in early immunological response as measured by CD4-lymphocyte count, no reduction in all-cause mortality, and a significant increase in combined AIDS/AIDS related death risk in more recent years.”

    Why, Tara, are you claiming that antiretrovirals are “proven drugs” when the orthodox studies show them to be proven ineffective, toxic, and even deadly?

    Were you just not aware of this study? Are you unaware that the leading cause of death in HIV positive Americans is actually liver failure, which is not due to any virus?

    As for these “proven drugs”, they are not quite as fast at killing the patient as AZT, but obviously just as ineffective at preventing illness, and perhaps also quite “proven” effective at causing other damage such as lipodystrophy, neuropathy, kidney failure, and of course, as I said, the study of 5700 gay american HIV positive deaths done by Amy Justice/2002, shows the leading cause of death in HIV positive Americans is now liver failure with a direct corelation to taking these drugs.

    Tara, what exactly did you mean by “proven” drugs? Did you mean as in “proven deadly” or “proven ineffective at keeping a person alive or healthy, or proven to cause deadly side effects, or proven toxic to the mostly gay and black patients taking these drugs?

    Surely you did not mean proven effective in any healthy healing curing way, as the science on this does not currently back you up.

  10. lincoln the study which you refer to says nothing that could honestly be interpretted in the way that you have.


    HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and North America in the first decade of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis.

    The strongest possible conclusion is that HAART in 2002-2003 is no more or slightly less effective than HAART in 1995-1996. The study also provides some explanations for the lack of improvement the foremost being that the demographics changed in this time period.

    In classic Schubladendenken “rethinkers” fail to note table 1 which gives the median CD4 count at the iniation of HAART for the different years. In 1995-1996 it was 170. This rose to 269 in 1998 but fell to 202 in 2002-2003.

    This directly contradicts Celia Farber’s claim parroted from Peter Duesberg that HAART accounts for 75% of AIDS. CD4 depletion and immune deficiency in the vast, vast majority of cases had occurred before iniation of HAART. So unless the effects of HAART can travel back in time it cannot have caused the depletion of CD4 cells and AIDS.

  11. Linoln, rather than make ad homs against Chris Noble (who has merely alerted you to the conclusions of the Lancet paper) you would do better by rationally responding to the points made. Or perhaps you prefer to stick to quoting misinterpreted study conclusions that you have cherry-picked for the express purpose of promoting your denialist agenda.
    If you want some other data on survival, why not see look at this study which shows a median survival of 35 years with treatment?

  12. lincoln sorry I was lazy but I decided to look it up since you’d just send me to some science fiction sight like healtoronto. here’s something more recent than your upmc study that doesn’t say what you say it says anyway http://www.natap.org/2005/CROI/croi_36.htm
    23,411 patients on HAART followed for four years. 1248 deaths (5.3%). 30% of deaths from AIDS and strong correlation with CD4 count. 14% of deaths from liver disease. Most liver deaths 79% were from viral hepatitis. Less than three percent of deaths were from non-hepatitis liver disease and that includes alcohol effects.
    What are we down to lincs close to 0%?

  13. The thing about deaths from things such as liver disease (which can sometimes be related to drug toxicity) is that they are not that much more common as an overall cause of death in absolute terms than they were 10 or 15 years ago.

    What has changed is that now they are relatively more common, and therefore account for a significant proportion of overall deaths. So if 15 years ago, for example, there was an mortality of 18 per 100 person years in AIDS patients, (because most were dying of AIDS) but 3 had died from liver disease (a sixth), today with the dramatic drop in AIDS mortality because of the drugs, there might only be 6 deaths/100py (of which 3 might still be liver related). This is 50%!

    (cue shock and horror and major denialist wailing about this representing a major leap in drug toxicity – when as you say, most liver deaths are due to concommitant hepatitis anyway)

  14. Another study to look at that has Amy Justice as an author is alcohol abuse in HIV+ veterans almost a third of them are chronic abusers and guess what that much alcohol does to your liver.
    Then there are the IDUs guess what injecting drug use does to the liver.
    Seems those “toxic” ARVs might not be so bad in fact NOT TAKING HAART correlates nicely with higher risk of Hepatitis C. That’s from P Braitstein et al AIDS 2006 and yes lincoln your friend Amy Justice is a coauthor maybe you don’t like her so much anymore?

  15. Hey Wic. You are correct that alcohol abuse is very high in the supposed group affected by this issue. You would also be correct to point out that the vast majority of AIDS cases in the US and Europe are also drug addicts.

    Obviously you are not too bright of a bulb, or you yourself would have figured out that the entire issue of AIDS was correctly hypothesized to be an issue of toxic abuse of the body, and not an issue of a virus.

    But as you are most likely either a paid off shill of either drug companies or HIV research, these are not issues you wish to face or admit to.

    In my opinion, people such as yourself, who are neither gay, nor black, nor threatened by the HIV paradigm have absolutely no right whatsoever to spread your own toxic beliefs to the effected public. Your attitude smacks of either being paid off, or being a closet case gay, or making a living off of HIV for you to continue to spout your trash to those of us that live in the midst of this.

    To the more intelligent and quick among us, we can clearly see that external and internalized homophobia and racism is at the very core of the AIDS paradigm. Which one are you Wic? A closet homophobe or racist? A paid off shill making your living off it? Or a deeply closeted gay man that uses fear of AIDS to stay in the closet. Or are you just an egotistical fascist who ended up on what will be the wrong side of the belief and now your very ego is threatened by perhaps having to rethink your beliefs. Come out of your closet Mr. Wic, and come clean with us as to who you are and what your vested or closeted interest in pushing your propaganda actually is, if you are at all capable of any honesty.

  16. In my opinion, people such as yourself, who are neither gay, nor black, nor threatened by the HIV paradigm have absolutely no right whatsoever to spread your own toxic beliefs to the effected public.

    But Duesberg, Rasnick, the Perth Group etc. do?


    To the more intelligent and quick among us, we can clearly see that external and internalized homophobia and racism is at the very core of the AIDS paradigm. Which one are you Wic? A closet homophobe or racist? A paid off shill making your living off it? Or a deeply closeted gay man that uses fear of AIDS to stay in the closet. Or are you just an egotistical fascist who ended up on what will be the wrong side of the belief and now your very ego is threatened by perhaps having to rethink your beliefs.

    Is this meant to be a parody?

    To most people it looks like you are inventing reasons for ignoring the evidence that is presented to you.

  17. Golly Gee, Chris! My statement seems to have pushed your buttons too, there Mr. Software Animation Programmer and espouser of all wisdom on HIV and AIDS! Which one are you, while we are asking? I would guess a deeply closeted gay man who uses fear of AIDS to stay in the closet, or perhaps just an egotistical computer troll that wants to come off as being someone important. Gee Chris, why did you allow all of those people to call you Dr. Noble, and not correct them? Why did you never answer people when they asked you what you did for a living or what your connection to the HIV issue was? Tell us Chris, why you allowed others to believe you were an HIV specialist, but suddenly come clean yesterday in admitting that all of the trash you have posted is nothing but the uneducated opinion of some backwoods Australian computer animation hack!

    No wonder Val Turner and Eleni would not give you the time opf day! You obviously have no sincere interest in getting sincere answers to your questions or in finding truth. Your only interest has obviously been to argue with those whom hold different beliefs than you do.

    What a poseur, what a fraud, what an egotistical jerk you seem to be Chris. How dare you volunteer to be a know it all to those who have been diagnosed HIV that have followed these threads on this, NAR, BMJ, and other sites. How dare you allow yourself to be presented as an HIV expert or doctor to these people, Mr. Poseur of all HIV and AIDS wisdom?

    Mr. Computer animator and wannabe expert on HIV and virology! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHhhhhhhAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    If you weren’t so pathetic Chris, it really would be funny!

  18. Hey Lincoln,

    Do you know how you come across?

    As an ignorant fool who parrots arguments he doesn’t understand.

    Your profound inability to properly use who/whom as subject/object of a sentence only compounds this impression.

  19. Helo Roy. How does the following article from today’s “The Australian” newspaper come across? Now even the defenders of HIV are doubting HIV causes AIDS!

    Witness opposes jail for HIV cases
    Jeremy Roberts
    The Australian, 22 February 2007, p7.

    COURTS should not jail men for sexually transmitting HIV to partners, according to a private email by a prosecution expert who testified this month against a man convicted of exposing three women to HIV.

    Emeritus professor Peter McDonald sent the email to scientists in the US on Saturday, three days after he told an Adelaide court he “had no doubt” HIV caused AIDS.

    Defence lawyers were sent the email and showed it to Supreme Court judge John Sulan in a hastily arranged hearing on Tuesday. Justice Sulan has called Professor McDonald back to be cross-examined on the document next Wednesday.

    Professor McDonald was pivotal in marshalling more than six highly regarded HIV scientists and clinicians to give evidence. He is an expert on infectious diseases and for 15 years up to 2002 chaired the national committee that provided funding for HIV research.

    The witnesses appeared in the appeal of Andre Chad Parenzee, 36, who was convicted last year of endangering the lives of three women with whom he had unprotected sex despite knowing he was HIV-positive.

    The prosecution was rebutting members of the HIV sceptic Perth Group, who claimed HIV had never been adequately identified in the laboratory and could not be said to cause AIDS.

    In the email, Professor McDonald says Parenzee’s jailing was “inappropriate”. He also admits to doubts over the link between HIV and the onset of AIDS.

    However, he told The Australian his email did not contradict his testimony. There was “some conjecture” among scientists about the mechanism by which HIV leads to AIDS, he said, but this “in no way destroys the notion that HIV causes (immune system) cell reduction and causes AIDS”.

    HHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

    You great defenders of HIV just crack me up!!!

  20. lincoln,
    I have consistently told anyone and everyone that I do not work in a HIV related field. This hasn’t stopped numerous people from accusing me of being a pharma-shill.

    If you really want to be consistent then I, unlike Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, do have a PhD. I would never encourage anyone to call me Dr Noble but it is technically correct.

  21. Dear Mr. Chris J Noble, P(iled) H(igher)& D(eeper). Thank you so much for clarifying that daddy paid for your schooling to make sure the family has some bragging rights.

    I notice you never bothered to correct anyone who believed you were an HIV or medical doctor! You, even with your PHD, are still, a backwoods of australia computer hack, and how dare you allow people who have been diagnosed as HIV positive to be misled into believing your bullcrap opinions were from an MD? You hack and poseur and fraud!

  22. Now even the defenders of HIV are doubting HIV causes AIDS!

    Stop playing silly word games. This is not what Professor McDonald said.

    The article itself is vague and deceptive.

    He also admits to doubts over the link between HIV and the onset of AIDS.

    Why do “rethinkers” rely on quote-mining and misrepresentation?

  23. Why do “rethinkers” rely on quote-mining and misrepresentation?

    Were it not for quote mining and misrepresentation they would not be able to maintain even a veneer of rationality.

  24. An exact copy of the email douchebag!

    It was brief and to the point! There is nothing quote mined about his exact words:

    “Overall I think I share with you some scepticism about the jump from scientific observation to a deduction that HIV transmission and pathogenesis is set in stone”

    From: Peter McDonald
    Sent: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:46:17 +1030
    To: Kary Mullis
    Cc: Robyn Richardson, Attorney General’s Department of South Australia
    David Crowe
    Christine Maggiore
    Subject: HIV/AIDS/legal proceeding
    Many thanks for taking the time to respond to my request.

    Your views were helpful in terms of confirming the validity of PCR in which you were being quoted as “having no confidence in the technology”.

    Overall I think I share with you some scepticism about the jump from scientific observation to a deduction that HIV transmission and pathogenesis is set in stone and becomes a legitimate basis for criminal prosecution.

    I personally do not believe that it is appropriate to lock people in jail for sexual transmission of HIV – but that is the law!

    I thank you for your assistance and would be happy to keep a dialogue.

    Kindest regards from down under

    Peter

    Hey Dr. Fraud with the Piled High and Deep!

    Are you incapable of understanding the professors own and exact words????

  25. And please notice Dr. Hack, that the item you claim I had quote mined were the EXACT WORDS OF THE AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER WRITER, and NOT MINE, Dr. Douche.

  26. It comes across as further evidence for your inability to read with comprehension, to do your own research, and that you simply parrot things you find elsewhere rather than doing any thinking for yourself.

    If Dr. McDonald does not believe that people who transmit HIV sexually should be prosecuted, that is one thing. The question before the courts, however, is somewhat different: whether someone who knowingly transmits HIV by lying to his partner about his HIV+ status is guilty of a crime. Under the Australian law it’s clear that he is guilty of a crime. Whether Dr. McDonald agrees with this law or not (his email does not make clear) is wholly irrelevant.

    I think you’ll be disappointed when he’s called back on the stand.

    Also, the email exchange between Karry Mullis and McDonald comes across as indicating that everyone agrees that defense witness and Perth group denialist Valendar Turner, if left in a fully equipped molecular biology lab, could not discriminate between his ass and a hole in the ground any better than you can discriminate between the subject or the object of a sentence.

  27. And just what is your interest in all of this Roy? Have you been diagnosed HIV? Are you a gay man? Are you black?

    Is someone near and dear to you diagnosed as HIV? Do you hang out with people diagnosed as HIV?

    Are you a paid and pretty pet lap dog of the pharma or research branches.

    Do you have some knowledge about the truth behind the issue that I don’t have access to?

    Or are you just another internet troll who likes to be self important?

  28. And thank you Roy, for clarifying what the issue before Superior Court Judge John Sulan actually is. No doubt you think the judge to be incapable of deciding this for himself. I am sure he will be eternally grateful for your telling him what the purpose of his court is to be.

    I think you’ll be disappointed when this appeal has ended.

  29. And just what is your interest in all of this Roy?

    I like to see the truth prevail, especially in matters of science.

    Is someone near and dear to you diagnosed as HIV? Do you hang out with people diagnosed as HIV?

    Several of my friends have died from AIDS, several more are living with it.

    Are you a paid and pretty pet lap dog of the pharma or research branches.

    Unfortunately I’m not qualified to be a “pretty” anything.

    Do you have some knowledge about the truth behind the issue that I don’t have access to?

    Well,… I am able to understand what I read.

    Or are you just another internet troll who likes to be self important?

    Nope, you seem to be the only one of those whom(sic) has graced Tara’s blog with his presence this evening.

  30. Roy, you said: “Several of my friends have died from AIDS, several more are living with it”.

    Isn’t that special! My ex lover died from AZT. My ex partner died from AZT. Several of my friends have died from AZT. Many of my friends and many of the people who come to my HEAL San Diego meetings are suffering from the side effects of the drugs they have been taking. Effects such as liver problems, neuropathy, lipodystrophy, brain tumors. I have taken people into my home who were almost destroyed by taking AIDS drugs and nursed them back to health. I consult with mothers who are threatened by the court with the removal of their children if they refuse to give AIDS drugs to their children. Perhaps you would like to debate the HIV issues with me in one of Tara’s forums!

    Personally Roy, I think you are a liar and a coward!

  31. Well, as usual, when lincoln realises that he is losing the debate, he moves from misinterpretation and misrepresentation of data and the words of others, sprinkled with ad hominem attacks to a a blend much richer in bile and ad homs.

    Chris’s area of expertise is less important than his understanding of science behind HIV/AIDS.

    Hell, I don’t have ovaries, breasts, and I don’t smoke, but that doesn’t keep me from researching ovarian, breast and lung cancer, does it?

    When someone points out that a denialist is wrong and untrained, it is different from saying that someone is wrong because they are untrained.

  32. And I think that you Lincoln are committed to a belief that you cannot rationally evaluate. Like Celia Farber in an earlier thread, you try to use the emotional appeal of your personal experience to overwhelm those who disagree with your beliefs. This is an emotional fallacy (look it up). It’s not an argument.

    If I try to present the evidence for the effectiveness of AZT and other ARV’s you will tell me about Diarrhea and vomiting… If I talk statistics you’ll talk sores… If I talk about increased life expectancies you’ll talk about tombstones and funerals…

    So where does that leave us?

    Discussing the various colors of vomit and the way the smell never gets out of your nose?

    Perhaps you would like to debate the HIV issues with me in one of Tara’s forums!

    What would be the point? My suffering and the suffering of my loved ones is more important than your and your loved one’s suffering?

    That’s a very sad game of emotional one-upsmanship your looking to play. I’m afraid I’ll have to decline.

  33. And what is your interest in all of this Robster. You have spouted your garbage defence of HIV causing aids for about 6 months now?

    Are you personally effected by this? Are you Gay, or are you a closet case Robster? Just what is it that you know more than those of us who have been directly affected?

    Is someone close to your heart diagnosed as HIV? Do you even know anyone diagnosed as HIV or AIDS? Do you know anyone taking HIV drugs or suffering from the side effects Robster?

    Just why is it that you feel you are qualified to spout your crap as if you had some direct knowledge or experience in any of this?

    Are you another egotistical computer troll spouting off about something you know very little about? I have yet to see any critical thinking in any of your posts. You have not asked anyone a single question unless it was meant in some smart ass way?

    Do you suffer from some emotionalal disturbances that you have not yet dealt with Robster?

    Just what do you have to offer some of the HIV positive people that have read these threads searching for knowledge and truth?

    Do you know some ultimate truth about HIV and AIDS that the rest of us don’t have access to?

    Robster, Is there some reason that you are incapable of critical and unbiased thinking beyond wishing to get some attention?

  34. Mr. Hinkley. You said: “So where does that leave us”?

    Where it leaves us, Roy, is knowing that you are another troll that has nothing to add to the discussion. Someone who likes to pretend to be knowledgeable and knowing. It shows you to be a phoney and a fraud and a fake and a liar.

    But most of all, Roy, again, it shows you to be incapable of critical and unbiased thinking. Of being another egotistical jerk-off know-it-all who has no direct experience whatsoever on either side of the issues.

  35. Yes Lincoln, of course.

    And all of that has exactly what bearing on how a retrovirus called HIV destroys the human immune system and kills people?

  36. What’s the matter Roy? I must presume you also did not get enough attention as a child unless it was negative attention. Is this the case. Someone who seeks to provoke a negative response is attention seeking. Do you not even know yourself well enough at this point to see this trait quite clearly?

    Please share with us the trauma of your child abandonment issues so we can get to the bottom of what ails you.

  37. Look at the top of the page Lincoln. Look at what Tara has written in this and the last thread concerning HIV. Look at your participation in this and other blogs.

    Then, think about who exactly it is who is courting negative attention by being here.

    Then maybe you should get some help with the issues you so clearly, and understandably, are dealing with.

    Best Wishes

    RH

  38. “And I think that you Lincoln are committed to a belief that you cannot rationally evaluate. Like Celia Farber in an earlier thread, you try to use the emotional appeal of your personal experience to overwhelm those who disagree with your beliefs. This is an emotional fallacy (look it up). It’s not an argument.”

    If you dare take a leap you’ll easily see that your own argument is of value either way you see the debate. Everyone harbors the “emotional defense”.Emotions run high everywhere. Take a side but abandon the argument because it serves all sides.

    “If I try to present the evidence for the effectiveness of AZT and other ARV’s you will tell me about Diarrhea and vomiting… If I talk statistics you’ll talk sores… If I talk about increased life expectancies you’ll talk about tombstones and funerals…
    So where does that leave us?”

    In disagreement. Don’t panic, it happens everyday. You’ll quickly realizer that only YOU are in control…if you want to be…

    “Discussing the various colors of vomit and the way the smell never gets out of your nose? What would be the point? My suffering and the suffering of my loved ones is more important than your and your loved one’s suffering?”

    Its called “expressing grievences 101”, “my vomitting is more green than yours…”

    “That’s a very sad game of emotional one-upsmanship your looking to play. I’m afraid I’ll have to decline.”

    Bend over then…

    “And all of that has exactly what bearing on how a retrovirus called HIV destroys the human immune system and kills people?”

    Everything, because that is a slogan not supported by scientific finding but purely supported by socially accepted “factoids”. Ask anyone about how HIV destroys the immune system…listen and weep.

  39. [Everything, because that is a slogan not supported by scientific finding but purely supported by socially accepted “factoids”. Ask anyone about how HIV destroys the immune system…listen and weep.]

    And your side is supported by what exactly? Lunatic ravings?

  40. AP news story today

    Studies: Circumcision reduces HIV risk

    “This is an extraordinary development,” said Dr. Kevin de Cock, director of
    the World Health Organization’s AIDS department.

    I understand Dr. de Cock does all his circumcisions in an office.

    I wonder if he shares the office with proctologist, Dr. Elliott de Finger.

  41. Hey Shalini. You are obviously another tres mucho bright bulb.

    You said in reference to me: “Who knows, he might even be the closet gay”.

    Did you ever consider I might be an “OUT OF THE CLOSET” GAY MAN????>

    Do you have some personal problem with that?

  42. [Do you have some personal problem with that? ]

    Nope. Remember, you were the one who said the following:
    “proven ineffective at keeping a person alive or healthy, or proven to cause deadly side effects, or proven toxic to the mostly gay and black patients taking these drugs?

    I was just wondering where your blatant homophobia (and racism) came from. It could be that you’re actually ashamed of your own issues. It happens.

    Unless you’re willing to subtantiate your opinions with solid science, I don’t think I’ll bother to change my opinion of you.

  43. Hey Shalini! Certainly you are bright enough and capable enough of typing AIDS DRUG SIDE EFFECTS into any web search to find a few thousand ORTHODOX and MAINSTREAM information pages to verify my statement:

    “proven ineffective at keeping a person alive or healthy, or proven to cause deadly side effects, or proven toxic to the mostly gay and black patients taking these drugs?

    But just in case you are not intelligent enough or not interested enough to do so, here are just a handful of descriptions from

    http://www.aidsmeds.com/lessons/DrugChart.htm

    ZERIT:
    Special warnings:* Buildup of acid in the blood (has been fatal in pregnant women when combined with Videx/Videx EC); fatty liver; damage to the pancreas (when combined with Videx/Videx EC). Numbness, tingling, or pain in the hands or feet (peripheral neuropathy); lipodystrophy; muscular weakness (rare); increased cholesterol and triglycerides.

    * “Special warnings” reflects side effects reviewed in the “Black Box Warnings” that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required manufacturers to list in the package inserts for some HIV drugs. These are the most dangerous side effects that healthcare providers and people living with HIV should be aware of. However, drugs without Black Box Warnings can still have serious side effects.

    Aptivus:
    Special warnings:* bleeding in the brain; hepatitis (extra care needed for HIV-positive people with hepatitis B or hepatitis C). Rash, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia.

    CRIXIVAN:
    Kidney stones, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, increased glucose (sugar), lipodystrophy, increased bilirubin (not harmful), increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia. Others: headache, weakness, blurred vision, dizziness, rash, metallic taste, low platelets, hair loss, anemia.

    INVIRASE:
    Nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, headache, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia

    KALETRA:
    Nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, weakness, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia

    LEXIVA:
    Skin rash, nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, headache, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia

    NORVIR:
    Special warning:* Taking Norvir with certain allergy medications, sedatives, heart medications, and migraine medications can increase the risk of their side effects.

    Nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, numbness or tingling around the mouth and in the limbs (paresthesias), increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, hepatitis, weakness, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia

    PREZISTA:
    Nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, headache, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, inflammation of the nose and throat, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia

    REYATAZ:
    Increased bilirubin (not harmful), abnormal electrocardiogram results, increased glucose (sugar), lipodystrophy, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia

  44. Hey Shalini!

    If you or anyone else think these drugs are so wonderful, maybe you should take a few fistfulls of them for yourself. I certainly have many people who would be glad to give their AIDS drugs to someone such as yourself now that they do not take them!

  45. Hey Shalini! LUCKY YOU!

    A dear friend of mine just volunteered to send you his unused injections of FUZEON:

    Skin reactions where Fuzeon is injected can include itching, swelling, redness, pain or tenderness, hardened skin, or bumps; increased risk of bacterial pneumonia; serious allergic reaction.

  46. Perhaps you should check out this study:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17227932&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus
    on the survival rates in the late highly active antiretroviral therapy era. I did not say that those drugs were ‘so wonderful’, and I don’t recall ever mentionning that antiretroviral drugs are free from side-effects. You are the one here that cherry-picks whatever you can find about the drugs to prop up your rants.

    Bear in mind that you still haven’t responded to the main point of:
    “And all of that has exactly what bearing on how a retrovirus called HIV destroys the human immune system and kills people?”

  47. lincoln, nobody is denying that ARV drugs have serious and potentially fatal side-effects.

    Everything you provide is taken directly from “orthodox” studies.

    None of this in any way contradicts the evidence that HIV causes AIDS and that HAART can extend the life of people infected with HIV.

    The paper you cited from previously
    HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and North America in the first decade of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis.
    does nothing at all to support your assertion that these drugs have been “proven ineffective at keeping a person alive or healthy. Suspect that you haven’t read the paper although given your reading abilities it is not impossible.

    I have already highlighted one finding of the study that the median CD4 count at iniation of HAART was 202 cells/mm^3 in the 2002-2003 period. This totally refutes the “rethinker” claim that it is HAART itself that causes the CD4 depletion.

  48. Table 4 in the study that Shalini cited nicely refutes some of the claims that lincoln and other “rethinkers” have made regarding deaths from non-HIV related causes in patients taking HAART.


    Survival of persons with and without HIV infection in Denmark, 1995-2005.

    For the cohort in the 1995-1996 pre HAART era 19% of deaths were non-HIV related compared to 37% in the 2000-2005 late HAART era.

    This would be interpretted by “rethinkers” to mean that HAART is killing patients or that HAART is ineffective.

    However, when you look at the absolute mortality rate (non HIV related) per 1000 person years it has actually fallen by more than a factor of two from 23.1 to 9.4.

    In the same time the mortality rate from HIV-related causes fell by a factor of ten from 71.2 to 7.0.

    Deaths from all causes have fallen. However mortality from HIV realted cuases has fallen fast and hence non-HIV causes now account for a greater realtive (not absolute) number of deaths.

  49. Someone upthread quoted the Rodriquez paper re the correlation between viral load and CD4 cell depletion.

    Here’s the editorial in JAMA by Dr. Keith Henry:

    “These findings provide support to those who favor non-virological mechanisms as predominant causes of CD4 cell loss.”

    What “non-virological” mechanisms is this learned physician talking about?

    If HIV is not the predominant cause of CD4 cell loss, then, by definition, HIV is not a sufficient cause of AIDS.

  50. What “non-virological” mechanisms is this learned physician talking about?

    The Rodriguez paper actually discusses this.

    The level of immune activation is known to be a dominant factor that determines the rate of progression to AIDS.

    Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV.

  51. “As far as I can tell, and by application of your compartmentalisation logic, this guy is quite squarely an “orthodox” crackpot!”
    “ERV already beat me to it, but exactly–his use of an unproven herbal concoction rather than proven drugs puts him in league with y’all, pat. He may not deny that HIV causes AIDS (as far as I know), but you certainly have a spectrum of denial, from “HIV doesn’t exist” to “AIDS is caused by antiretroviral and other drugs.” That it can be “cured” in 30 days by a few herbs certainly doesn’t put him on the side of science.”

    the versatility of “Schubladendenken”…there is no end to it. I’m glad you’ve mastered it; it makes for a carefree living, don’t it?

    Proven drugs? You’re kidding right? HIV/AIDS, 25 years, ZERO saved. Got it?

  52. Dr. Noble, I saw you wrote that mortality from ‘HIV-related causes’ has gone down. I was wondering, if you had some thougts about the recent drop in ‘HIV-related’ foot pain?

    “The study, conducted at San Francisco General Hospital from 2003 to 2005 and published Monday in the journal Neurology, involved 50 patients suffering from HIV-related foot pain known as peripheral neuropathy.

    Thirteen patients who received marijuana told doctors their pain eased by at least a third after smoking pot, while only six of those smoking placebos said likewise. The marijuana smokers reported an average pain reduction of 34 percent, double the drop reported by the placebo smokers as measured with a widely accepted pain scale.

    “These results provide evidence that there is measurable medical benefit to smoking cannabis for these patients,” said Dr. Donald Abrams, the University of California, San Francisco professor who led the study.”

    The Bush administration is against pot smoking for medicinal purposes. How about you, Chris; do you think it would be worth it to see if pot smoking could reduce ‘HIV-related’ liver failure?

  53. And what is your interest in all of this Robster. You have spouted your garbage defence of HIV causing aids for about 6 months now?

    I’m a scientist. I am interested in good science and evidence based medicine.

    Are you Gay, or are you a closet case Robster?

    No. But I am a strong supporter of the LGBT community. Why, exactly, would this make my statements more or less accurate? I have evidence on my side. My sexual preference is of no importance to the evidence, or vice versa.

    Is someone close to your heart diagnosed as HIV?

    Close to me? No. Friends, aquantances. Yes. But that doesn’t change the evidence.

    Do you even know anyone diagnosed as HIV or AIDS? Do you know anyone taking HIV drugs or suffering from the side effects Robster?

    Yes. Doesn’t change the evidence.

    Just why is it that you feel you are qualified to spout your crap as if you had some direct knowledge or experience in any of this?

    Because I have examined… yes, the evidence. Direct knowledge is not needed to read and interpret articles.

    Are you another egotistical computer troll spouting off about something you know very little about? I have yet to see any critical thinking in any of your posts. You have not asked anyone a single question unless it was meant in some smart ass way?

    Actually, I have, but feel free to ad hominem some more.

    Memo
    To: Pot
    From: Kettle
    Re: Black

    Do you suffer from some emotionalal disturbances that you have not yet dealt with Robster?

    Nope. I am happily medicated. And it doesn’t change the evidence.

    Just what do you have to offer some of the HIV positive people that have read these threads searching for knowledge and truth?

    Science. Oh, and evidence.

    Do you know some ultimate truth about HIV and AIDS that the rest of us don’t have access to?M/i< Yes. It is to be found at http://www.pubmed.gov

    Robster, Is there some reason that you are incapable of critical and unbiased thinking beyond wishing to get some attention?

    See above memo.

  54. Dicktor Noble: You just made another UNPROVEN UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM, as if it were true? Have you no self control, or are you still so completely desperate for negative attention? You really should discuss this with a therapist, or at least tell your father how his negative and unloving treatment of you has screwed up your brain.

    “Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV. ”

    Perhaps you will share a study of even a handful of HIV postives that don’t take illicit or hiv drugs and have proper nutrition, to prove your obviously flawed statement? The multitude of long term non progressors and people who have trashed their aids drugs says you are a still a liar, a faker, a poseur, and a fraud!

  55. Hey Shalini. Do you have some proven evidence of what you claimed above? Perhaps you will show us proof in any study of HIV doing anything destructive in any cell of the body. Don’t you think you should have proof before you believe, let alone espouse your claim:

    “And all of that has exactly what bearing on how a retrovirus called HIV destroys the human immune system and kills people?”

    Perhaps Dr. Dork will show us a computer cartoon animation and try to convince us that it is real life!

  56. [Hey Shalini. Do you have some proven evidence of what you claimed above?]

    As Robster mentioned previously, it is to be found at http://www.pubmed.gov.

    [Perhaps Dr. Dork will show us a computer cartoon animation and try to convince us that it is real life! ]

    As usual, lincoln resorts to unrelated ad hominems when he fails to answer rational, sensible questions. Is he really that stupid or simply wilfully ignorant?

  57. Just a couple of years ago, leading HIV/AIDS researcher, Dr. Zvi Grossman, said that HIV pathogenesis was a “conundrum.” When it stops being a conundrum, someone call me. For now, I’ll wait until Dr. Grossman — certainly no rethinker, but is a very respectable scientist, tells me otherwise. Should people really take chemotherapies in order to defeat a virus for which pathogenesis is currently a “conundrum?” I don’t think I would.

  58. And by the way — there is also “proof” that Vioxx is safe and effective at http://www.pubmed.com. I mean, really! Referring to PubMed? There are a lot of mistakes and corrections within the voluminous library of PubMed. How about a more specific citation?

  59. One thing to keep in mind, Tara, when you belittle “rethinkers” you are belittling many, many HIV+ individuals. Folks who have been through the treatment gamut, ARVs and all, like myself. Now, if you (God forbid) developed cervical cancer, and decided to try a treatment that was not FDA approved and that many scientists disagreed with, I wouldn’t belittle you. In fact, I’d be supportive of your attempts to preserve your health — that’s called giving someone human dignity. There isn’t a lot of that going on around here. Can I suggest something, Tara? From now on, take exception if you’d like with the scientists you don’t agree with, but make sure not to belittle the patients. Deal?

  60. Of course, if you or anyone else developed cervical cancer and lost a significant amount of weight — you’d have “AIDS” if you were HIV+ and “ICL” if you were HIV-. Strange, isn’t it, how cervical cancer, just fine on its own, has become an AIDS-defining illness. I thought cervical cancer was related to another virus entirely. Am I wrong?

  61. lincoln calls people fascists if they can pronounce the word epidemiology he is ignoring the real fascists in the denialist movement and i’m not joking since i think neo-nazis and white supremacists would go in that category.

    Here you will find an article on HIV denial by of a fellow traveler of lincoln and mark
    http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=168
    This little hatesite has a slogan “No Jews. Just Right.” A guy comments on the article and says that of course no one would debate lincoln’s friend the math professor “What this chick may not grasp is that jews don’t debate, it’s beneath them. Oh- and they have no leg to stand on.” that’s your denial friends lincoln mark and pat.

    to use lincolns logic since lincoln hasnt disavowed these people specifically he must be one of them.

    of course I think he’s not but that’s where an argument goes when you degrade by saying someone’s a fascist or a “closet gay” or not black or what the clarevoyaint lincs thinks i am.

  62. mark go strut your ignorance somewhere else.
    “if you or anyone else developed cervical cancer and lost a significant amount of weight — you’d have “AIDS” if you were HIV+ and “ICL” if you were HIV-.”
    why didn’t you look it up before you made a jennet’s hindquarters outta yourself?
    in your example you would have cervical cancer and be slim if you didn’t have HIV infection not ICL at all. On CDC criteria for ICL you need CD4+ count <300 per mm3 or <20% of the total T cells. you need that at least twice without any HIV infection ever and you can't have any other immunodeficiency or immunetherapy.

    and this is so beyond anything:
    "BTW Tara, when do you go up for tenure? And what is the process of outside reviewers submitting documents to your file?"
    Why don't you submit a document that says hi i'm mark an ignorant a**. no one's belittling hiv+ people just ignorant malicious busybodies like you mark.

  63. Hi Mark!

    Here’s the thing. If you believe that HIV is infectious, as I expect many of those who post on Tara’s blog do, then an individual who chooses snake oil over treatments demonstrated to reduce viral loads (i.e. ARVs) is not only putting his or her own life at risk but is also increasing his or her chances of spreading the infection to sexual partners or, in the case of women of child bearing years, to future children.

  64. So– If you arent a scientist, then you ‘arent allowed’ to speak about HIV. But if you are a scientist, youre a ‘shill’. Okay. Kinda like how HIV doesnt exist, but it was artificially created in a lab to kill ‘black’ people, but HIV is harmless, but you can cure HIV infection with bananas and garlic, but booze and poppers give you AIDS, but AIDS doesnt exist either.

    And why does ‘tenure’ get brought up on every damn HIV post Tara makes? Boogedy boogedy, Mark. *rolleyes*

  65. The many varieties of AIDS cranks and conspiracy theorists:

    – HIV denialists
    – fake cure peddlers
    – “AIDS was created by scientists” theorists
    – “AIDS cure is being suppressed” theorists

    There is another group that is not as bad as the above, but obnoxious in their own way:

    – male circumcision opponents who deny that circumcision reduces HIV risk

  66. Dale,

    If you change your diet from bananas to chemotherapy because of tests that are not licensed for diagnostic purposes and that detect bits of RNA said to belong to a retrovirus which has never been proven to be pathogenic, you’re the suicidal one.

  67. I’m not any kind of a scientist. I came waddling in here from the weird wild web from over at … The Pump Handle, I think. But as someone who spent many, many months getting blood tests back in the early days of the epidemic, I’m always interested in this topic.

    In any debate, tone and argumentation should be important. I notice that those who occupy the HIV-doesn’t-cause-AIDS niche seem extremely angry and largely incoherent. And who could blame them if they feel frustrated? But they get intensely unpleasant and personal almost from the get-go.

    lincoln, particularly, has added nothing to the discourse and in fact I skipped the trollish comments because lincoln a) seems incapable of putting his case, b) can’t seem to maintain respect for people who can’t or won’t see what he can’t or won’t explain.

    The HIV-causes-AIDS posts, for the most part, seem reasonable and coherent–within my limited knowledge of the jargon–and take pains to respect dissent even in the face of the outright slanders of lincoln.

    When they do get a little heated, it’s usually in response to pretty vicious attacks and possibly frustration at trying to follow the loopy lincoln logic.

    I admit to coming from the point of view that a) HIV causes AIDS and b) fruit juice and vitamins, or some African herbal concoction seem unlikely to cure it (otherwise wouldn’t gay bars be safe–Mai Tais contain fruit juice, don’t they?).

    But lincoln’s interesting tactic of accusing anyone who stands against him of being a “closet” homo or hidden AIDS case, his racist tone, and his repeated personal insults are particularly vile.

    And Doctor Smith should thank him for it: By arguing as they do, lincoln and his associates are putting the opposite case almost as well as its own adherents are.

    @lincoln: I cannot empirically evaluate all the evidence of any proposition put before me. I must instead rely on trusted sources and the reasoned opinions of experts.

    Here you have had an opportunity to reason, to address the field and argue for your position. But since your arguments seem entirely unreasoned, I must assume your opinions and ideas are just the same.

    If you want to spew, may I suggest you get your own damn blog?

  68. Pope,

    The licensing on HIV tests is no different from the licensing on pregnancy tests – they are not to be used as the sole means of diagnosing HIV infection or pregnancy respectively because all tests are prone to some degree of error.

    As far as the pathogenicity of the virus goes … I’m pragmatic. Studies show 80% or more of those who are identified as HIV positive will develop immunodeficiency while an even greater majority of those who are HIV negative won’t – to me that says the virus is a strong candidate for causing AIDS. Add to that the observation that HAART reduces viral loads and improves symptoms in the majority of HIV infected individuals and the evidence that HIV causes AIDS becomes even stronger. But show me a hypothesis that better explains all the data and makes testable predictions for improved treatments or cures. If experimental evidence supports that hypothesis, I’ll happily change my position.

  69. So Metro, which AIDS disease(s) is it you don’t believe can benefit from Maitais or African jungle juice? Is it,

    Candidiasis of the esophagus, bronchi, trachea, or lungs
    Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
    Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary
    Cryptosporidiosis, chronic intestinal
    Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease
    Cytomegalovirus retinitis
    Encephalopathy, HIV-related (AIDS dementia complex)
    Herpes simplex virus (HSV), chronic ulcer(s)
    Herpes simplex bronchitis, pneumonitis, or esophagitis
    Histoplasmosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
    Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal
    Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS)
    Lymphoma: non-Hodgkin’s (NHL), primary brain/CNS
    Mycobacterium avium/kansasii complex (MAC)
    Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB), extrapulmonary
    Mycobacterium, other species, disseminated or extrapulmonary
    Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) (now called P. jiroveci)
    Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML)
    Salmonella septicemia, recurrent
    Toxoplasmosis of the brain
    Wasting syndrome

    Added in the 1993 revision:

    Invasive cervical cancer
    Pneumonia (other than PCP), recurrent
    Pulmonary tuberculosis
    CD4 cell count below 200 cells/mm3?

  70. Haha, Dale I’m sure you’d change your point of view in a blink of an eye if I showed you that for example the ‘chemical theory of AIDS’ makes even better predictions. But you seem to be getting a little ahead of yourself there. First you were talking about viral load, now you’re talking about HIV. I just don’t know what you’re referring to, and neither does a shipload of so-called HIV experts down under in Adelaide at the moment.

    But leaving that aside, you say 80% of those who test positive on… what exactly? one Elisa? two Elisas? clinical symptoms? Western blot? one band? two bands? three bands? four bands? strong or weak? PCR? which primers, the ones that look for variable or conserved regions of the ‘HIV genome’? African strains? Asian strains? San Franciscan strains? the very lethal strains, or the less lethal strains? the liberal strains or the republican strains? Those strains found in the left arm or those found in the right arm?

    Anyway, you say 80% go on to develop immunodeficiency? But that’s not how I remember my Durban declaration. What happened to the other 20%? Are they genetic mutants? Are they lacking a receptor molecule? Or did they just forget to take their daily chemo? What is wrong with those people exactly, please tell me?

  71. “lincoln calls people fascists if they can pronounce the word epidemiology he is ignoring the real fascists in the denialist movement and i’m not joking since i think neo-nazis and white supremacists would go in that category.

    Here you will find an article on HIV denial by of a fellow traveler of lincoln and mark
    http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=168
    This little hatesite has a slogan “No Jews. Just Right.” A guy comments on the article and says that of course no one would debate lincoln’s friend the math professor “What this chick may not grasp is that jews don’t debate, it’s beneath them. Oh- and they have no leg to stand on.” that’s your denial friends lincoln mark and pat.”

    This is the mother of all Shubladen. If I find a nazi who shares your views on all this can I also put you in a nazi box? That site is disgusting and you’re disgustingly dishonest.

  72. Hey Dale, You said:

    “But show me a hypothesis that better explains all the data and makes testable predictions for improved treatments or cures. If experimental evidence supports that hypothesis, I’ll happily change my position”.

    Well Dale, check this one out and please tell us what you think of it:

    What if HIV was simply a natural signal of cellular death (apoptosis)?

    http://aras.ab.ca/articles/scientific/Umber-apoptosis.html

  73. Chris Noble wrote:
    “The level of immune activation is known to be a dominant factor that determines the rate of progression to AIDS.
    Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV.”

    This quote does not necessarily support the HIV theory of causation. Try substituting Severe Candidiasis or Tuberculosis or any other of the serious “AIDS-defining illnesses” for HIV in the above, and you’ll see the they work just as well. In fact, I’d say that Severe Candidiasis works even better than HIV, since it is found in virtually 100% of AIDS patients.

    Kevin

  74. “If HIV is not the predominant cause of CD4 cell loss, then, by definition, HIV is not a sufficient cause of AIDS.” — Barry A

    Well said, Barry.
    Roy Hinkley has unwittingly asked the question that does follow necessarily from the wisdom expressed by your quote:

    “And all of that has exactly what bearing on how a retrovirus called HIV destroys the human immune system and kills people?”

    Thanks, Roy. We’d all like to know exactly how this retrovirus kills, but so far that process has not been sufficiently explained or even sufficiently demonstrated.

    Kevin

  75. Again, lincoln, that isn’t a scientific journal, includes no experiments, only a handful of what-ifs instead of data, and blatant misinterpretation of data. In fact the author seems confused as to the difference between a vesicle and a viral particle (more denial that the virus even exists), or what the different tests actually look for.

    The only testable prediction that one can even pull from this essay is that giving HIV+ people antioxidents would prevent their progression. And yet, such attempts have failed to work better than HAART. A combination of HAART and an improved diet is a patient’s best chance to prevent disease progression,

  76. according to pat “This is the mother of all Shubladen. If I find a nazi who shares your views on all this can I also put you in a nazi box? That site is disgusting and you’re disgustingly dishonest.”
    what the hell is shubladen? sounds like a nazi word. didn’t put nobody in the nazi box. just showed that there are nazi denialists.

  77. calling lincoln.
    I sent the D:A:D study of 23,411 HIV+ people taking ART. Less than 3% of the deaths in this cohort were due to liver complications that weren’t viral hepatitis.
    Are you retracting that HAART causes most AIDS deaths or what?

  78. There’s thousands of papers that discuss how HIV kills cells, perhaps Robster could explain why he finds this particular one to be superior, how it contradicts the claims in the Umber article Lincoln linked, and what makes it superior as a theory to Jean Umber’s – which by the way didn’t claim to be backed up by the experimental resources comparable to those backing the ‘conventional’ theories. So if we are to play by those rules we’ll end up with a disussion that’s determined the same way as a presidential race. No chance for a third party.

  79. Hello Kevin,

    Very sound analysis — amidst the screeching from both sides above.

    You noted a person in response to me who wrote:

    Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV.”

    This does not sound right. The claim is now that immune activation causes immune deficiency?

    Are folks claiming that AIDS is an auto-immune disease in addition to the 25 old diseases listed by Pope above?

    I return to my simple formulation: If non-virological mechanisms are the predominant cause of CD4 cell depletion, than HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS.

    Does anyone disagree? If so, why?

  80. Barry, I think the term is “hyperactivation” of the immune system causing premature cell death, increased cell turnover, wearing down the immunesystem by attrition from years of chronic infection etc. Plus HIV prefers to attack precisely the CD4 cells that are produced in great numbers by a hyperactivated immune system. Or so the story goes.

  81. I return to my simple formulation: If non-virological mechanisms are the predominant cause of CD4 cell depletion, than HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS.
    Does anyone disagree? If so, why?

    Hello, Barry. I certainly don’t disagree with that statement. A reasonable reply is such a rarity here that I wanted to give you some kind of answer, even though I’ve gotta be out the door soon. I’ll try to be concise.

    I do think that AIDS is an auto-immune disease, with a multi-factoral cause, though drug use seems to be a necessary component. However, you are right, that is not how it is popularly understand and to change the story at this point is damning for the status quo, for it removes HIV as the necessary causal component–a status it has never earned in the first place. Thus, how thoroughly transparent, now that they want to categorize the method of pathogenesis as indirect. Would any other organism be given so many chances to emerge as pathogenic? Only if it was equally profitable, I imagine.

    My own take on “immune activation” and it’s relation to what is actually occurring with “AIDS” is based on my own health experience and on my correspondence with dozens of others who have also suffered AIDS-defining illnesses. Mind you, some were indeed test-positive, but I corresponded with many HIV test-negative individuals who suffered similar illnesses and who, like me, had difficulty getting appropriate care. Anyway, I’ve previously noted that Mayo Clinic studies show a strong link between “immune activation” and chronic sinusitis. In fact, 96% of chronic sinusitis is now believed to be caused by an immune response to fungi, though popular treatment remains unchanged, i.e. antibiotics and more antibiotics. As I explained in another thread, this unusual immune activation is not caused by HIV but by the colonization of other areas of the body by fungi, just like in the sinuses, which absolutely makes more sense in light of the Mayo Clinic findings. It’s usually candida albicans. I assert that what we now call “AIDS” is really severe candidiasis, which can be very difficult to eradicate. In short, the constant infection with the candida organism, particularly once it’s achieved rhizomes, is severely immuno-suppressive. If proper treatment is not given, eventually other pathogens will kill the weakenedhost. Finding the proper treatment for each case of severe candidiasis is difficult and deserve more research attention. However, it most certainly does not involve AZT nor the administration of any other immuno-suppressive agent.

    So much for brevity…

    Kevin

  82. “what the hell is shubladen? sounds like a nazi word. didn’t put nobody in the nazi box. just showed that there are nazi denialists.” -Wic

    And for what purpose exactly? Are you a random trivia generator?
    Wic, obviously you are blending realities and fantasies. I hope you are the only one who does not know the difference between german and “nazi” but since you are a klutz I’ll give you this:

    German (also called “High German) is an Indo-European language that is based on a “High German” dialect which is spoken by approx. 120 million people world-wide. It is the official languages of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, and is also widely used as an international language for scholarship and science. (dictionary*)
    (interesting fact: German accounts for the most written translations into and from a language – Guinness Book of Records).

    “Nazi” is a colloquial abbreviation and stands for Nationalsozialismus (National Socialism). It is in effect a fascist Ideology which was promoted by a lowly Austrian corporal by the name of Adolf Hitler and is ideology not specific to germanic peoples. Nazis today are found throughout the world and fascist ideology transcend gender, race and religion. The largest concentration of Nazis per capita is currently found in US (and I mean “Nazis”, not fascists in general)
    “Schubladendenken” is a GERMAN word and translates literally as “Drawer-thinking”. The english language equivalent is “compartmentalization” (which you would have read had you actually been following this thread). It is the logic of lumping people into categories so as to simplify the task of pre-judging people or ideas based on simple common denominators at the expense of the much more complex but revealing method of judging each person and idea individually on its own merits. The fallacy of your compartmentalization is that it ingores real and relevant differences and has for effect the smearing of character by random association with completely unrelated and repulsive concepts, whether it is intentional or not. It is a prefered logic of the poor, lazy, radical and/or dishonest thinkers. You bring me and others into Nazi association buy pointing out that there are Nazi “HIV-rethinkers” and I despise you for it. What makes me a “rethinker” anyway? Because I am of the opinion that the meds suck? Which makes me wonder about the rest of this racially and morally compartmentalized money-laundering circus? If I pointed to the Nazis that trusted the HIV/AIDS “establishment” my point would be exactly what? To discredit you by association! I will not do that for I have no reason to believe you are a Nazi but I do believe you have shown your intelligence to be “self-limiting” through your use of “Schubladendenken”.

    Also, by making such stupid remarks and associations you are making a mockery of the scandelous and murderous nature of fascism. So I ask you, whatever “figment-of-your-imagination-side” you think you are on, to refrain from doing so in the future; there are over 55 million dead men, women and children whose memory are begging for it. Bedankt.

    *dic·tion·ar·y [dik-shuh-ner-ee] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
    -noun, plural -ar·ies.
    1. a book containing a selection of the words of a language, usually arranged alphabetically, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language; lexicon; glossary: a dictionary of English; a Japanese-English dictionary. (dictionary.com)

  83. Chris Noble wrote:
    “The level of immune activation is known to be a dominant factor that determines the rate of progression to AIDS.
    Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV.”

    This quote does not necessarily support the HIV theory of causation. Try substituting Severe Candidiasis or Tuberculosis or any other of the serious “AIDS-defining illnesses” for HIV in the above, and you’ll see the they work just as well. In fact, I’d say that Severe Candidiasis works even better than HIV, since it is found in virtually 100% of AIDS patients.

    Kevin

    Google ‘siglecs’. *sigh*

  84. Manto Tshabalala Msiman, Health Minister of South Africa, is presently very ill and in ICU.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/world/africa/23africa.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

    If Manto dies from the stresses currently upon her, I think it will be one more death that has been contributed to greatly by the AIDS orthodoxy whipping up the furor of her own people of South Africa into a frenzy against her, orchestrated by many leading AIDS apologists, including people such as John P. Moore at http://www.aidstruth.org, Greg Gonsalves, Marc Wainberg, Richard Jefferies, with the support of pharmaceutical companys funding of groups such as The Treatment Action Campaign, Zachie Achmat, and others, and even those among her own people who have raised arms against her in the press and radio of South Africa, and who have not supported her and have tried to destroy her in her struggle to protect and bring health and well being to the people of South Africa.

    Since the Toronto Aids Conference, she has been in a constantly attacked and has been in a situation of extreme emotional distress. This has been intensely contributed to by her inability to save her people from toxic AIDS drugs, and an inability to lift her people up to health and well being and nutritionally adequate diets and clean drinking water to drink, and sanitation, without the backing of many of her own people, and the people of the world.

    The only support our country has offered is to send toxic AIDS drugs, which will only exacerbate and overwhelm the already overtaxed health system of South Africa.

    She is in my prayers, for a full recovery.

    I invite you and hope you will join with me in holding Manto Tshabalala Msimang up in prayer, to acceptance of life as it is, to regaining her peace of mind, and regaining her health and her well being, and regaining her energetic and overflowing optimism for a better and healthier future for all.

  85. The use of hate words such as “DENIALIST” are used to breed hatred, as in holocaust denier. It is equivalent to whites using the word “N&^%$R” to denigrate a black man, or “K&^E” or “dirty jew” for someone of the Jewish faith, or “towel head” for a Muslim, or “f*&&*t” to denigrate a homosexual.

    Words such as this have but one purpose: to bring about hatred.

    And they are used quite successfully to manipulate the minds of the uneducated and trusting masses.

  86. Okay, so let’s say that Tara, due to diurnal rhythms and perhaps some random cold virus, returned a CD4 count of 194, which research in your beloved PubMed says can indeed happen, AND had invasive cervical cancer, and also developed systemic candida — voila! It’s ICL! Unless of course she also tested HIV+. Then it’s AIDS. How does that make sense exactly? Can someone explain?

    Can anyone (i.e., how about it Tara) defend the addition of invasive cervical cancer to the diagnosis of AIDS? Again, isn’t invasive cervical cancer related to a different virus?

  87. And no more AdHoms in response please. If you can’t answer the question, just admit it, how about? Besides, all the AdHoms in the world aren’t going to bother me — so I suppose if you folks need to make them, go ahead.

    There was never any justification for adding invasive cervical cancer to the list of AIDS-defining illnesses — at least, no scientific justification. But hey — if you think you’ve got one, let’s hear it. Otherwise — it looks like your favorite diagnosis is broken and there’s nothing to be done to fix it.

    Oh and Dale — couldn’t one believe that HIV is indeed infectious, but also harmless? After all, it hasn’t harmed me one bit, so why would I believe it was harmful? After 10 years, no AIDS. What’s a guy to do?

  88. And one more thing on tenure files — they are always open to letters from outside commentators, except for that short period when the file is actively under review. So unless Tara is currently actively under review, any letters received by the Dean of her college are placed automatically in her file — she does have the right to rebut such letters if they displease her, but she can’t keep them out. That’s just how tenure works. Kinda sucks, huh?

  89. Not that I’m suggesting anyone here should submit a letter to Tara’s file — that would be pointless — too easy to rebut. But if a certain Nobel Laureate whom Tara has, shall we say, given a less than kind review to here on these pages, were to write a letter — well, that might be a different story.

  90. Dont be stupid, Mark. Everyone in research knows of Mullis’s stance on HIV and no one gives a shit except Deniers. Why? Because even though hes a ‘Nobel Laureate’ he still cant muster up an abstract worth of data to support his world views. Too busy being abducted by aliens, evidently.

    Creationists with degrees, Deniers with degrees, no one submits journals. *yawn*

  91. Mark,

    If HIV hasn’t harmed you one bit after ten years, I’m happy for you. You’re lucky. According to CDC data and the literature, many people aren’t as lucky. As to why cervical cancer would be added to a list of AIDS defining diseases when it is associated with another virus, the rationale is the same as for Kaposi’s or certain types of lymphoma which are also associated with viruses other than HIV. Because the probability of developing certain virus associated cancers is significantly higher in HIV infected individuals than in non infected individuals.

    Could HIV be infectious but harmless? Based on the literature, I would say no. Not when the vast majority of HIV positive individuals eventually develop immunodeficiency. Could HIV be rendered harmless in some way that didn’t involve ARVs? Possibly. There’s certainly evidence that rare individuals have immune systems that can keep the virus under control. But that’s not currently very helpful to the majority whose immune systems can’t.

  92. Since I’m so stupid, and I imagine the converse is true of you (H)Erv, why not do some sleuthing and figure out which Nobel Laureate I was thinking of, why don’t you? Oh ye of little faith (and of seemingly too little knowledge of Nobel Laureates)!

  93. How about now? Good, then.

    So we all agree that it’s bullshit that invasive cervical cancer is an “AIDS-defining illness.”

    Score one for the “truthidents!” (Sounds more accurate than dissidents, doesn’t it)?

  94. Actually Mark I responded to your query as to why cervical cancer along with a few other virus associated cancers (i.e. Kaposi’s and some lymphomas) might be defined as AIDS defining illnesses. Unfortunately the comment appears to have been trapped in Tara’s spam filter. So I’ll repeat myself.

    Cancers that appear at significantly higher frequency in HIV positive individuals than they do in HIV negative individuals are classified as AIDS defining. My reading of the literature suggests that not everyone agrees that cervical cancer should be included in that list as the difference in frequency in positive and negative individuals is not nearly as great as it is for Kaposi’s or some others.

  95. very nice of you pat to make fun of my spelling. you’re not such a bright bulb yourself. when i misspelled more twice, you later said i “repeated it twice” which would mean i wrote it three times. and i didn’t. good to see you’re not claiming to be reasonable anymore though and admitting you’re a hardcore denialist.

  96. “Because even though hes a ‘Nobel Laureate’ he still cant muster up an abstract worth of data to support his world views. Too busy being abducted by aliens, evidently.”

    Apparently nobody can pull up any papers for anything. Some say none exist and others say the information is overwhealming but in the meantime we all stare and the largest mound of paper and it tells us absolutely nothing beyond a few theories.

    On his site you can find this little disclaimer: “I suggest that you not be shooting at the messenger; I am just reporting what I have observed.”

  97. “very nice of you pat to make fun of my spelling. you’re not such a bright bulb yourself. when i misspelled more twice, you later said i “repeated it twice” which would mean i wrote it three times. and i didn’t. good to see you’re not claiming to be reasonable anymore though and admitting you’re a hardcore denialist.”

    So it was a typo and not an attempt at humouring my name 😉
    “…a typo repeated twice or…” Wic, you ask for it because you’re a hardcore miserable hick with a world view a la O’Reilly. Did you get the part of the Schubladendenken? Do you understand what is a german word and what philosophy Natinalsozialismus actually is? Are you going to apologize to the dead?

  98. same for you mark. hardcore denial!
    Denial isn’t a hate word. ask yourself do you deny that HIV causes AIDS and if the answer is yes you’re a denialist. When you do science you’re a scientist. when you live on a commune you’re a communist. they’re not hate words just describing peoples outlook.

    mark you can’t even understand what you think fence boy. so why do you think you understand cervical cancer?

    Cervical cancer is caused by HPV. HIV+ has higher rate of HPV coinfection. correlation between cancer or neooplasia and HIV+. inverse between how bad the cancer is and immune function. (there’s one connection mark)

    HIV Tat protein enhances HPV expression this was already published in 1993 by M.L.Tornasello. J.Nyagol et al showed Tat pushes cells to divide to and so enhances cancer last June in “Cancer biol ther” There are two more mark.
    As HIV+ people live longer and longer on haart other cancers probably become associated with AIDS too we’ll see. For the same reasons like Tat and cell cycle.

  99. “when you live on a commune you’re a communist”

    Stop the fodder Wic. If I live on a commune can I also be a pedestrian? Or a commuter? Or a capitalist trying to expand my world view? -Shubladendenken in action here

  100. pat says “Are you going to apologize to the dead?” and i sure as hell won’t i didn’t kill anyone hitler and his millions of adoring german speaking followers did.
    how bout an apology from your denialist idiots who killed thousands of south africans by convincing mbeki to give them lemon juice instead of medicine. you know there names and you worship them just like the germans worshiped hitler.

  101. “pat says “Are you going to apologize to the dead?” and i sure as hell won’t i didn’t kill anyone hitler and his millions of adoring german speaking followers did.
    how bout an apology from your denialist idiots who killed thousands of south africans by convincing mbeki to give them lemon juice instead of medicine. you know there names and you worship them just like the germans worshiped hitler.” – Wic

    Please stay, you’re scoring points for the independent thinkers here and crapping your pants at the same time. You’re a disgrace.

  102. Whatever pat.
    the great independent thinker Celia Farber has discovered the schocking truth of hiv and aids.

    it’s not AIDS kills people or even antiretroviral drug toxicity.

    it’s voodoo! if you don’t believe me look over on NARnia.
    she says scientists killed EJ Maggiore by voodoo and now their killing a government minister in south africa!

    some racist homophobe closet gay fascist scientists must be sitting at the top of Orthanc tower on NIH campus doing voodoo ceremonies to kill off millions of people. that would make a nice movie maybe Celia could find a more successful career in screen writing.

  103. “it’s voodoo! if you don’t believe me look over on NARnia.”

    You’re not descerning enough to actually understand what she means by that. You’re probably thinking of dolls and needles aren’t you?

  104. OMG you are thinking dolls and needles!

    “some racist homophobe closet gay fascist scientists must be sitting at the top of Orthanc tower on NIH campus doing voodoo ceremonies to kill off millions of people. that would make a nice movie maybe Celia could find a more successful career in screen writing.”

  105. Have you ever been so medicated that you went from taking medicine because you’re sick to “feeling” crippled because of them? It is a phsycological threshold, Wic. You do know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is. You are made to think of yourself as sick because the definition of your disease allows no escape, i.e. low T cell counts (arbitrarily set and with little understood significance) but no phisical symptoms the patient can feel-60% of Aids cases. It begins in the head and ends in the grave.

  106. So, here are the lame duck answers to the cervical cancer question — makes one understand why there are “truthidents” out there:

    Cancers that appear at significantly higher frequency in HIV positive individuals than they do in HIV negative individuals are classified as AIDS defining. My reading of the literature suggests that not everyone agrees that cervical cancer should be included in that list as the difference in frequency in positive and negative individuals is not nearly as great as it is for Kaposi’s or some others.

    Posted by: Dale | February 24, 2007 12:43 PM

    mark you can’t even understand what you think fence boy. so why do you think you understand cervical cancer?

    Cervical cancer is caused by HPV. HIV+ has higher rate of HPV coinfection. correlation between cancer or neooplasia and HIV+. inverse between how bad the cancer is and immune function. (there’s one connection mark)

    HIV Tat protein enhances HPV expression this was already published in 1993 by M.L.Tornasello. J.Nyagol et al showed Tat pushes cells to divide to and so enhances cancer last June in “Cancer biol ther” There are two more mark.
    As HIV+ people live longer and longer on haart other cancers probably become associated with AIDS too we’ll see. For the same reasons like Tat and cell cycle.

    Posted by: Wic | February 24, 2007 01:04 PM

    Word up, Dale. Controversial to say the least. And Wic, darling, no more fence sitting here, sorry to tell you! You must have missed my big Truthident Cottillion. Sorry, the invite must have gotten lost in the mail — but let’s review your reasoning — “as HIV+ people live longer…” Are you, Wic, admitting that HIV is not a death sentence? And Wic, darling, don’t the indicidence of most cancers INCREASE AS ALL PEOPLE LIVE LONGER? Duh. And it’s hardly surprising, at least to me, that some similar proteins are expressed by some similar viral entities.

    In other words, your arguments for including cervical cancer as an AIDS-defining illness simply suck. Sorry! If we follow your line of reasoning, as HIV+ people live longer — well, then shouldn’t coronary artery disease and arthritis be defined as AIDS-defining as well?

    Your lack of think-through is rather astounding. Can I inquire as to what your qualifications are? You’ve made some very poor arguments here, indeed, calling into question the rationality of everything else you’ve written here. Seriously sad, Wic. Seriously sad.

  107. And can we assume, Tara, that you too find the inclusion of invasive cervical cancer as an AIDS-defining illness as, Dale says, “controversial?” Let’s hope so! I can’t see you arguing what Wic has argued; you’re generally more reliable than that.

  108. And most importantly, let’s not forget what including cervical cancer did for the number of AIDS cases in the U.S. — OMG, a miracle. The number of cases in WOMEN just skyrocketed! Wow. Who would have expected that. Watch out, ladies. Bad pap smear and you may be on your way to an AIDS diagnosis faster than I can type this comment! Guess us guys are lucky that we don’t have a cervix.

  109. The number of cases in WOMEN just skyrocketed!

    Hardly Mark. According to Klevens et al. who analyzed CDC data in the first year of the expanded definition of AIDS. RESULTS: Of the 16,794 women 13 years old or older and reported with AIDS in 1993, 217 (1.3%) had invasive cervical cancer and 9113 (54.3%) had other opportunistic illnesses; the remaining 7464 (44.4%) had no opportunistic illnesses and were reported based on immunologic criteria.

    I’d hardly call 217 out of 16,794 a ‘skyrocketing’ increase.

  110. I wrote:“Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV.”

    lincoln responded with: Dicktor Noble: You just made another UNPROVEN UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM, as if it were true? Have you no self control, or are you still so completely desperate for negative attention? You really should discuss this with a therapist, or at least tell your father how his negative and unloving treatment of you has screwed up your brain.

    I also indicated that this is discussed in the Rodriguez paper that every “rethinker” enjoys citing without actually reading or understanding.

    Dicktor Noble: You just made another UNPROVEN UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM, as if it were true? Have you no self control, or are you still so completely desperate for negative attention? You really should discuss this with a therapist, or at least tell your father how his negative and unloving treatment of you has screwed up your brain.

    Quoting from Rodriguez et al: What factors may account for the residual variability in CD4 cell decay rate? HIV infection is associated with heightened T-cell activation and cellular turnover,18,37 and expression of immune activation markers is associated with both clinical disease progression38 and rate of CD4 cell depletion.39 Cellular immune activation is commonly measured through enumeration of the proportion of cells that express markers such as CD38 and HLA-DR by flow cytometry, although this test is not routinely performed in clinical practice.

    18. Hazenberg MD, Hamann D, Schuitemaker H, Miedema F. T cell depletion in HIV-1 infection: how CD4 T cells go out of stock. Nat Immunol. 2000;1: 285-289.

    37. McCune JM. The dynamics of CD4 T-cell depletion in HIV disease. Nature. 2001;410:974-979.

    38. Giorgi JV, Liu Z, Hultin LE, Cumberland WG, Hennessey K, Detels R. Elevated levels of CD38 CD8 T cells in HIV infection add to the prognostic value of low CD4 T cell levels: results of 6 years of follow-up: the Los Angeles Center, Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1993;6:904-912.

    39. Bofill M, Mocroft A, Lipman M, et al. Increased numbers of primed activated CD8 CD38 CD45RO n cells predict the decline of CD4 T cells in HIV-1infected patients. AIDS. 1996;10:827-834.

    Of course these articles are written by megalomaniac racist closet gay homophobes with financial ties to pharmaceutical companies so you can safely ignore them.

  111. Of course these articles are written by megalomaniac racist closet gay homophobes with financial ties to pharmaceutical companies so you can safely ignore them.

    Actually, you are wrong. They were, as everyone knows, written under the direction of the Office of Gentile Poisoning in the International Jewish Conspiracy. That is why we can ignore them, just like we ignore the technical professionals who say 9/11 conspiracy paranoia is a load of shit. You should learn the intricacies of conspiracism before devling into such nonsense.

  112. Almost Tyler– if you had something in there about the Illuminati, Masons, and a grassy knoll, you would have had it. Oh yeah, and what Stephen said about Voldemort. HIV is a great way to kill Muggles. ‘Black’ Muggles.

  113. When you do science you’re a scientist. when you live on a commune you’re a communist.

    Wow! What a lead-in you’ve provided, Wic-i-boy. You’re moronic motor-mouth makes you an easy mark. Thanks. Without further ado let’s look at some of the brilliant comments that some of the “scientists” from this site have contributed:

    *”If I try to present the evidence for the effectiveness of AZT and other ARV’s you will tell me about Diarrhea and vomiting… So where does that leave us? Discussing the various colors of vomit and the way the smell never gets out of your nose?”
    *”That it can be “cured” in 30 days by a few herbs certainly doesn’t put him on the side of science.”
    *”You forgot to mention Iran’s recent contribution to AIDS quackery.”
    *”why not see look at this study which shows a median survival of 35 years with treatment?”
    *”lincoln sorry I was lazy but I decided to look it up since you’d just send me to some science fiction sight like healtoronto.”
    *”I know what causes AIDS! It’s obviously another of Lord Voldemort’s plots!”
    *”Chris’s area of expertise is less important than his understanding of science behind HIV/AIDS.”
    *”And your side is supported by what exactly? Lunatic ravings?”
    ____________________________________________
    Were all of this blog’s leading propogandists able to locate their individual contributions? Some of you may be listed twice and that is not by mistake, for it solidifies your role as a more accomplished propogandist. I’ll leave it up to reader’s try to make sense out of each quote, but it is obvious that none of you are capable of debating the finer points of this issue without resorting to name-calling. I would, however, like to ask the following question to all the propagandists here: How many AIDS patients have realized the 35 year life expectancy given that “AIDS” has only been around, at most 25-27 years, give or take a year and how many of those that do suppose were taking AZT monotherapy, back in the day?

    George Santayana wrote a terrific, short essay entitled, “There Is No First Principle Of Criticism”. I certainly recommend it to all the propagandists on this site, all those masquerading as “scientists”, but anyone interested in understanding the impure intersection of modern science and human health might find it worthwhile. When science is believed to be beyond criticism, it is no longer science, it is dogma. Regardless, I highly recommend the essay to any of the sycophants who contributed any of the nonsense noted above.

    With that said, Tara does deserve praise for providing this blog as an opportunity for criticism; whether she likes it or not, the “gallery” at this “scientific” blog is ridiculously unscientific. Not to mention, Tara, herself, is unwilling to civilly engage those of us with whom she disagrees. At least she allows that character flaw to shine through unencumbered, most notably apparent in her incessant use of propagandized titles for all dissident-related top posts.

    Kevin

  114. Can the “rethinkers” that don’t think that the Gambian president belongs to their side explain the difference between him and various other “rethinkers” that claim to be able to cure AIDS (and cancer, heart disease, chakra misalignments etc).

    Matthias Rath cites studies supposedly demonstrating that vitamin C inhibits HIV in vitro as support for his quack panaceas. This has not stopped him from being wlecome under the HIV “rethinker” big tent. Rasnick was working for him for some time.

  115. Barry wrote: I return to my simple formulation: If non-virological mechanisms are the predominant cause of CD4 cell depletion, than HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS.

    Only in the trivial sense in which influenzavirus is not sufficient to cause influenza.

    There are host factors in every infectious disease this does not in any way mean that the pathogens do not cause the disease.

    There are host factors that determine the rate of CD4 depletion. Some people progress faster. Some progress slower. On average people with high viral loads progress faster than those with low viral loads. There are exceptions. Some people with high viral loads progress slowly and some people with low viral loads progress rapidly. The vast majority of people with HIV infection do progress to AIDS.

  116. Strange that he can cure AIDS with simple methods. Seems like his method is not good enough to diagnose people? 🙂

    I am sure these are the sort of figures we need in a way. If American doctors can bribe this guy and have him administer the medicine, very soon whatever stigma is attached to medicine will be gone. so there is a plus, if he can used effectively.

  117. Chris just told us a classic! He said the most memorable words I have ever heard:

    “Some people progress faster. Some progress slower”.

    My oh my Chris. You are almost as bright as Peter Duesberg, who said: “There are no slow viruses, only slow virologists”.

    Right on Chris! Go to the mirror right this moment and repeat your own words:

    “Some people progress faster. Some progress slower”.

    “Some people progress faster. Some progress slower”.

    “Some people progress faster. Some progress slower”.

    “Some people progress faster. Some progress slower”.

    “Some people progress faster. Some progress slower”.

  118. Although it might be most accurate to say:

    A FEW PEOPLE PROGRESS FASTER, MOST PROGRESS SLOWER!

    Which one are you, Chris? Which one would you like to be?

  119. Some of you may be listed twice and that is not by mistake, for it solidifies your role as a more accomplished propogandist. I’ll leave it up to reader’s try to make sense out of each quote, but it is obvious that none of you are capable of debating the finer points of this issue without resorting to name-calling.

    Are you one of those people who doesn’t understand irony?

  120. My oh my Chris. You are almost as bright as Peter Duesberg, who said: “There are no slow viruses, only slow virologists”.

    HOLY CRAP! What an insight! I now know for sure that differential capabilities of immune systems that influenced by multiple factors Mb>HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON THE PROGRESSION OF VIRUSES! None!

    Here let me say it a bunch of times, because that makes it true and funny in some way that is alien to everyone but me!!!

    “Differential capabilities of immune systems have no impact on virus progression.”

    “Differential capabilities of immune systems have no impact on virus progression.”

    “Differential capabilities of immune systems have no impact on virus progression.”

    “Differential capabilities of immune systems have no impact on virus progression.”

    BOOYAH! That’s it for the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy, we can all go home now.

  121. Are you one of those people who doesn’t understand irony? — Tyler DiPietro

    Are you one of those people of only aspires in lieu of anything substantive to contribute to the discussion?

    In case you are in denial, the following quote suggests that you are indeed a blow-hard:

    HOLY CRAP! What an insight! I now know for sure that differential capabilities of immune systems that influenced by multiple factors Mb>HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON THE PROGRESSION OF VIRUSES! None!

    Ironically yours,

    Kevin

  122. lincoln, thanks for the comments.

    I was interested in knowing whether you think that someone that is not homosexual, doesn’t take drugs, is not HIV+ and does not personally know anyone who died of AIDS is to be taken seriously regarding HIV and AIDS.

  123. Here let me say it a bunch of times, because that makes it true and funny in some way that is alien to everyone but me!!!

    “Differential capabilities of immune systems have no impact on virus progression.”

    It’s not alien to me, Lincoln. Our friend (Tyler) has unwittingly spoken the truth. It’s funny how that is always happening to AIDS apologists. It must be related to the numerous and inescapable contradictions inherent to their theory.

    Kevin

  124. Chris, I think that would depend on a few things, such as:

    One, their sincerity.
    Two, their ability to comprehend.
    Three, their willingness to learn.
    Four, their ability to be flexible and honestly and sincerely consider both sides of an issue before reacting.
    Five, their level of consciousness.
    Six, their level of integrity.
    Seven, their motives.

  125. Chris.

    I would say from personal observation, that those who seem to go the farthest in any issue, not just the one that we seem to be stuck on, are the ones who continue to question all, and even continue to themselves and question their own beliefs.

    The men who have done this throughout history have always been the innovators and discoverers of the most impacting of inventions and discoveries. That is not to say they have always been right in their own discoveries or inventions, it is just to say that these are the men who end up overturning what all others simply accepted as truth and never bothered to question.

    As Peter Duesberg himself says at the top of his own website: http://www.duesberg.com :

    “The important thing is to not
    stop questioning.”
    Albert Einstein

    This bodes well for my likelihood to consider Duesberg to more likely be on a correct track, not just because I agree with Einstein’s statement, but because it has also often been said that “one is known by their heros”. What this means, is that it is very easy to quickly understand much of where someone is at on the list I wrote above, by simply asking them who their heros are. As Einstein is held up by Peter as one of his own personal heros, this says much about Peter Duesberg himself.

    May I ask who your own heros are?

  126. There are host factors in every infectious disease this does not in any way mean that the pathogens do not cause the disease.

    You are exceptionally dense, Chris. Sometimes host factors alone are responsible for disease. Before you can attribute an illness to a pathogen, you must first prove the method of disease causation. On that note, the pathogenesis of HIV has not been established and your appeals to the new “programmed cell death” explanation are laughably unfounded, as Barry A pointed out earlier in this thread. I’m sure the story will change yet again, in a few years.

    Any other suspected pathogen would have been abandoned after the first series of explanatory failures. As for “host factors”, several concommittant host factors appear to be present in all AIDS cases, and HIV is not reliably present; yet, candidiasis and drug use are ever present in AIDS. Your biased analysis is doomed to imcompleteness, Chris. When will you wake up from your own state of denial?

    Kevin

  127. I will tell you some of my own:

    Jesus
    Budha
    Ghandi
    Ben Franklin
    Thomas Jefferson
    George Washington
    Abraham Lincoln
    Albert Einstein
    Carl Jeung
    Alexander the Great
    and to a lesser extent, Howard Hughes.

  128. Before you can attribute an illness to a pathogen, you must first prove the method of disease causation.

    Where did you get this idea from? It certainly would have been news to Robert Koch.

    As a matter of historical record the causes of infectious diseases have been established before the details of the pathogenesis. The pathogenesis of most infectious diseases is still being actively researched.

    One example is TB.


    Mycobacterium tuberculosis pathogenesis and molecular determinants of virulence.

    The argument that because we don’t completely understand the pathogenesis of HIV we therefore know nothing is just a silly rhetorical trick.

  129. And:

    Plato
    Socrates
    Pharoa Ahktenatun
    Bill W. (started Alcoholics Anonymous)

    and that is enough, although I have not listed all of my own heros. Some are everyday people just like yourself, who in a moment of humility stepped up in various situations and in moments of humility and courage, allowed their best to shine through.

  130. Dr. Noble,

    It may or may not be correct that “the argument that because we don’t completely understand the pathogenesis of HIV we therefore know nothing is just a silly rhetorical trick.” (Chris Noble)

    But per usual you have not presented any rethinker argument in that statement. The rethinker argument is that when we constantly have to bend, twist and change the facts, using old chewing gum to make the theories of HIV pathogenesis hang together, then, according to the rules of real science, it’s time to start rethinking old ideas. And that’s not silly at all.

    You want an example of a truly silly rhetorical trick, Dr. Noble?

    “Barry wrote: I return to my simple formulation: If non-virological mechanisms are the predominant cause of CD4 cell depletion, than HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS.”

    Chris Noble answers:

    “Only in the trivial sense in which influenzavirus is not sufficient to cause influenza.
    There are host factors in every infectious disease this does not in any way mean that the pathogens do not cause the disease.”

    So first we learn that Dr. noble thinks it a triviality that influenza virus is not the predominant cause in influenza. I’m pleased to see this new holistic approach to disease causation from the distinguished PhD of computer games. Now I’m sure Dr. Noble would like to commend people like Matthias Rath for focusing on the admittedly PREDOMINANT disease factors, such as nutritional deficiencies, in any disease prevention and cure.

    Then he’ll explain to us by what “silly rhetorical trick” all other microbes and toxins involved in what we call “AIDS” get termed “host factors” while only the putative HIV is awarded the fine title “pathogen”.

    Following that he’s quite ready to explain by which silly trick, scientific or rhetorical, “association”, as in

    “HIV infection is associated with heightened T-cell activation and cellular turnover,18,37 and expression of immune activation markers is associated with both clinical disease progression38 and rate of CD4 cell depletion” (Rodriguez et al.),

    becomes causation as in,

    “Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV” (Chris Noble)

    Need we remind our slowly regressing expert in associative reasoning that by his preferred scientific logic yellow fingers is part of the pathogenesis of lung cancer?

  131. Cervical cancer. Shouldn’t be there. Everyone knows it is only there to show an increase in the rate of AIDS diagnoses in women. No compelling alternative argument has been presented. Case closed. But this really shoudl cause people to pause and think about exactly what an “AIDS” diagnosis is anymore. Remember the good old days, when it was only 5 very rare diseases? Now it’s 25-29, depending on who you talk to. That’s not what a good epidemiological surveillance tool should result in, should it Tara?

  132. And could someone find me the reference where Dr. Zvi Grossman endorses apoptosis or any other pathogenic mechanisms as the likely mechanism in HIV/AIDS? Far as I can recall, last he said, and I’d hate to contradict as guy as smart and nice as Dr. Grossman, HIV pathogenesis, after 25 years of research, remains — to use his exact word, a “conundrum.” That’s the bottom line, really. When he comes out and singingly endorses any of the way too many failed pathogenesis hypotheses out there, I’ll listen. But so far, he doens’t find any of them compelling, and neither should anyone else. After all, Dr. Grossman is The Man when it comes to HIV pathogenesis.

  133. And to Wic — I guess I am in denial. After all, my docs said I should be dead by now, or at least sick. But hey — they can’t be always right! So I guess my overall excellent health prompted this denial — which really, translated, only means — gee, I haven’t died, the tests they do on my blood don’t change, I’ve not gotten sick — MAYBE their hypothesis isn’t quite right. That’s denial, in my case. More like just looking at the truth in my own situation.

  134. As a matter of historical record the causes of infectious diseases have been established before the details of the pathogenesis. The pathogenesis of most infectious diseases is still being actively researched.

    What a bunch of booshat, Chris. You’re trying to confuse the issue by conflating the terminology, which is typical of your approach. Pathogenesis is most simply defined as, “the production and the development of disease.” I have no problem with the study of diseases of “unknown causes”, but you can’t have it both ways, Chris. The specious science behind HIV collectively morphs into an almost unrecognizable new theory every few years, and any improvements in care always come with a toxic price tag. Science, performed this way, has succumbed so completely to societal demands that it is essentially worthless. In modern medicine, it is too often assumed that the cause of any disease is known before the pathogenesis is well understood. Otherwise, how would the drug companies be able to justify their premature profiteering?For examples of this phenomenon, one does not have to dig very deep. Most notable is how the majority of human health concerns magically turn out to be health issues the have an individual pharmaceutical component. The subsequent drug therapy is most often considered necessary and sufficient as the first line of defense in virtually all new medical conditions, well before the pathogenesis of any particular disease is proven to be understood. A few favorite examples are: “chemical imbalance” requiring treatment with mind-altering drugs, “high cholesterol” requiring treatment with dangerous statin drugs, and “Restless Leg Syndrome”. Of course, each of these examples pales when compared to HIV — the most heinous medical blunder to emerge from these new standards of “scientific inquiry.”

    In the past, when scientific inquiry was not scripted to fit a corporate wishlist, complicated processes such as disease pathogenesis were explored without prejudice until a causal mechanism either emerged or until one was discovered. Contrast that scenario with HIV, where it was pronounced as “the virus that causes AIDS” with the utmost certainty, by a scientist who applied that same day for a patent to test for the condition; all of this occurred well before its pathogenesis was understood and the ever changing description of AIDS proves that fact undeniably. What’s particularly sad is that it is still considered to hold value as a hypothesis, even after over 20 years of failed predictions. The pathogenesis of HIV is regrettably being actively researched to exlusion of all other inquiry, but that certainly does not mean that research practices are justified.

    Kevin

  135. I asked:

    I return to my simple formulation: If non-virological mechanisms are the predominant cause of CD4 cell depletion, then HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS.”

    Chris Noble answered:

    “Only in the trivial sense in which influenzavirus is not sufficient to cause influenza.

    Thank you for your response. There are 2 facts that wreck your comparison of HIV to the influenza virus: First, the flu doesn’t have a 10 year latency period. You get it within 30 days of exposure or never.

    Second, the flu is easily transmissble — it isn’t strangely limited to sexual relations or needle-sharing or breast feeding. It doesn’t target gay males or hemophiliacs. People don’t worry about getting the flu from blood transfusions.

    If HIV were like the flu, you wouldn’t have to make up all these virological exceptions.

    Bottom line: The weakness of your response suggests that HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS.

    The next question becomes: Is HIV necessary to cause AIDS?

  136. As a matter of historical record the causes of infectious diseases have been established before the details of the pathogenesis. The pathogenesis of most infectious diseases is still being actively researched.

    What a bunch of booshat, Chris. You’re trying to confuse the issue by conflating the terminology, which is typical of your approach. Pathogenesis is most simply defined as, “the production and the development of disease.” In modern medicine, it is too often assumed that the cause of any disease is known before the pathogenesis is well understood. Otherwise, how would the drug companies be able to justify their premature profiteering? The specious science behind HIV collectively morphs into a completely new animal every 5-7 years, and any improvements in care always come with a toxic price tag. Science, performed this way, has succumbed so completely to societal demands that it is essentially worthless. For examples of this phenomenon, one does not have to dig very deep. Most notable is how the majority of human health concerns magically turn out to be health issues the have an individual pharmaceutical component. The subsequent drug therapy is most often considered necessary and sufficient as the first line of defense in virtually all new medical conditions, well before the pathogenesis of any particular disease is proven to be understood. A few favorite examples are: “chemical imbalance” requiring treatment with unproven SRRI drugs, “high cholesterol” requiring treatment with dangerous statin drugs, and “Restless Leg Syndrome”, yet another poorly described syndrome. Of course, each of these examples pales when compared to HIV–the most heinous medical blunder in the history of humankind.

    In the past, when scientific inquiry was not scripted to fit a corporate wishlist, complicated processes such as disease pathogenesis were explored without prejudice until a causal mechanism either emerged or until one was discovered. Contrast that scenario with HIV, where it was pronounced as “the virus that causes AIDS” with the utmost certainty, by a scientist who applied that same day for a patent to test for the condition; all of this occurred well before its pathogenesis was understood and the ever changing description of AIDS proves that fact undeniably. What’s particularly sad is that it is still considered to hold value as a hypothesis, even after over 20 years of failed predictions. The pathogenesis of HIV is regrettably being actively researched but that certainly does not mean that such research is justified.

    Kevin

    The spam filter apparently did not like my links, but anyone can google either of the conditions above plus a word like “scam”; you’ll find out that there a large number of people realizing that modern medical research is indeed often, a greedy scam.

  137. Kevin,

    Good points.

    I always thought “pathogenesis” of viruses was pretty easily understood. The virus is a parasite, which means it cannot replicate without cellular machinery.

    1. So, the virus must infect a cell.

    2. The virus must replicate abundantly.

    3. The consequence of abundant replication results in the “lysis” of the cell.

    4. Upon lysis, the viruses are unleashed to infect more cells.

    5. More lysis occurs.

    6. After sufficient amount of cell death, you get sick.

    When and why did all this change into a convoluted, politicized, ad hoc scientific theory that changes course every 5 or so years.

    If small amount of virus (low titer), then insufficent amount of cell death.

    If insufficient amount of cell death, then no disease.

    Apoptosis is simply an ad hoc excuse.

  138. Barry writes:I always thought “pathogenesis” of viruses was pretty easily understood.

    You thought wrong.

    Instead of reading oversimplified strawman versions of science from “rethinkers” read some actual science.

    Global host immune response: pathogenesis and transcriptional profiling of type A influenza viruses expressing the hemagglutinin and neuraminidase genes from the 1918 pandemic virus.

    Apoptosis is simply an ad hoc excuse.

    Viruses and apoptosis.

  139. And could someone find me the reference where Dr. Zvi Grossman endorses apoptosis or any other pathogenic mechanisms as the likely mechanism in HIV/AIDS?

    The review article from which the “conundrum” citation is cherry picked contains a good discussion of what is known about the role of immune activation in HIV pathogenesis.


    Pathogenesis of HIV infection: what the virus spares is as important as what it destroys.

    The “rethinker” spin on this paper to “we know nothing” is pure rhetoric.

  140. Guess that I’m in denial too, because I have a viral load greater than 100,000, CD4’s are at 86, have been off the meds a year now and I’m healthy as a horse!

  141. Noreen, I hope you stay healthy.

    I also hope that if you do become ill with opportunistic AIDS relaated conditions that you evaluate all of your options.

  142. lincoln writes:
    Helo Roy. How does the following article from today’s “The Australian” newspaper come across? Now even the defenders of HIV are doubting HIV causes AIDS!

    Witness opposes jail for HIV cases
    Jeremy Roberts
    The Australian, 22 February 2007, p7.

    That’s funny. I just had a look at the 22 February 2007 Australian and this article does not appear on page 7.

    Why is it that I can’t find this article on the Australian website?

    Why are you saying that it appeared on page 7 when it isn’t there?

  143. Barry, you clearly have no idea how viruses cause disease. The model of direct cell toxicity applies to some viruses, but not others. Many viruses employ a mix of methods.
    Are you going to deny a viral aetiology for all these other illnesses as well? Can we look forward to the establishment of denialist movements for all these viruses too?
    How about “EBVMythExposed”, “CMV-rethinkers”, “Dengue-dissidents”, “Society for the reappraisal of chronic Hepatits”, etc? (And I thought Lanka was stupid…)
    We can’t help it if you and a few other like-minded sheep don’t don’t understand how viruses work.

  144. Thanks for any concerns Chris but if I ever get ill, I will do what always used to be done in medicine, that is treat the symptoms at hand and use medicines only when absolutely necessary. You see, by proper health habits, diet, etc. I have managed to rebuilt my health naturally and I feel better know than previous to my HIV/AIDS diagnosis. So I know that it can be done, irregardless of what both sides may argue back and forth in theory as for myself, I have lived it from all points of view and like the saying goes, if it works use it.

  145. Thanks for any concerns Chris but if I ever get ill, I will do what always used to be done in medicine, that is treat the symptoms at hand and use medicines only when absolutely necessary. You see, by proper health habits, diet, etc. I have managed to rebuilt my health naturally and I feel better know than previous to my HIV/AIDS diagnosis. So I know that it can be done, irregardless of what both sides may argue back and forth in theory as for myself, I have lived it from all points of view and like the saying goes, if it works use it.

  146. Pope, sorry I didn’t get back to you till now. Its midterms now, which is busy enough with just giving exams, but taking them, too. bleah.

    Short explanation of the above article is to say that it is a recent review, including the current, best theory regarding apoptosis in HIV+ individuals. Said theory is explained with citations of the evidence supporting it.

    After Wednesday, I should be able to give a more complete review.

  147. “Instead of reading oversimplified strawman versions of science from “rethinkers” read some actual science.”
    “>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16520776&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum”> (Chris Noble)

    Dr. Noble, instead of continuing your bad habit of throwing around more or less accessible, more or less relevant references, why don’t you explain your position using illustrating quotes like every other honest debater? Or is it the case in your opinion that the rules for civil discussion are blowing in the same wind as those of virus isolation and purification?

    “We can’t help it if you and a few other like-minded sheep don’t don’t understand how viruses work.” (DT)

    Well DT, why don’t you then explain to us exactly how viruses basically work, since then maybe we’ll be in a better position to understand why the scientists don’t understand how the, by all accounts genetically run off the mill, yet highly unusual, HIV ‘works’?

    We’d like your thoughts on various phenomena such as molecular mimicry; is that a major part of how viruses work? Exactly how does the chronically hyper-activating antigen manage to evade and exploit the immune-reponses in HIV disease? Is THAT a normal part of how viruses work?

    Don’t forget a thorough explanation of why Dengue fever seems to have progressed from a ‘mild non-fatal disease’ to a potentially lethal one after WWII, whose fatalities are confined almost exclusively to Southeast Asia. You will include of course the phenomenon of antibody-dependent enhancement as it applies to the aetiology of Dengue fever -and perhaps an EM photo of Hepatitis C for those of us who’re almost as stupid as Stefan Lanka. All so that we’ll be in a better position to understand your learned lectures on HIV.

  148. Pope, my comments were directed at Barry, not you. I am sure he is perfectly capable of responding without your attempts to side track the issue with a few choice terms you have gleaned of the internet in an attempt to fool everyone how clued up you are on viruses.

    I did not offer to give you all a talk on how viruses work, and do not intend to (I’ve been there before, done that). On the other hand, there is plenty of information both on Tara’s site and linked to in previous posts to give you all a good grounding.

    There seems to be an assumption by denialists that HIV should only be pathogenic by direct cytotoxicity, just as it is always assumed that HIV somehow breaks the (totally mythical, denialist-inspired) “rules” of virology. This is a common excuse given for dismissing HIV as a cause of progressive immunodeficiency.

    There is no standard “run of the mill” way all viruses cause disease (your talk of this reveals your true grasp of the subject at hand). Just because what is “normal” for retroviruses happens to be different from what is “normal” for polio, that does not mean it is “wrong”.

  149. DT,

    Your inability to read what not only others but yourself write in standard prose, substandard in your own case, I think shows the basis for you calling others stupid – which wasn’t directed to Barry alone, but Lanka and “other like-minded sheep”.

    I called HIV a standard virus GENETICALLY, then I talked about BASIC ways in which viruses cause disease. If there are no basic or even standard ways in which viruses are presumed to cause disease, what is it exactly Barry and others are ignorant about? Is it the fact that anything goes, any new ad hoc hypothesis is as valid and established as any other? Tell me are you a postmodernist DT?

    But ok, we’ll narrow it down as you wish: what is “normal” for retroviruses and why?. You can begin by telling me exactly how many of them are known to cause diseases in humans as opposed to farm animals or inbred chicken. I won’t give you any multiple choice hints, since you say you’re not comfortable with googled terms. If you’re completely lost, tell me and I’ll throw you some pubmed links, seeing this is the standard way of showing one’s erudition here, apart from name calling obviously.
    As a veterinarian or whatever calling Lanka stupid I think it’s you who needs to show us just how clued up you are on viruses, retro or not.

  150. Pope,

    Pathogens, including viruses, caused diseases long before human beings were aware of their existence. Likely there are still many pathogens out there that contribute to disease of which medical science is still completely unaware. So how many retroviruses had been shown to cause human disease before HIV-1 and HIV-2 were discovered is irrelevant. The relevant questions are whether there are biologically plausible mechanisms by which a retrovirus could cause a disease and whether there are other examples in any species of similar retroviruses causing diseases. Since the answers to those questions are yes; there are no a priori reasons why HIV can’t cause AIDS.

  151. Pope, we refer to papers as a means to demonstrate that there is evidence for our statements. It isn’t a matter of being erudite, but having support. You can go to any link, read the article, learn about the subject directly. From there, you can accept the article as valid or not. In science, that is an honest debate.

    When somebody says that HIV has never been isolated, you can correct that person by referring them to an article discussing it. When someone says that there is no known reason why some people have different rates of progression, you explain that they are wrong, and point them in the direction of the appropriate research.

    When and why did all this change into a convoluted, politicized, ad hoc scientific theory that changes course every 5 or so years.

    Scientific theory changes with evidence. Your list of steps is no longer the only route that we know of, and there are various permutations on that specific means of cell killing. Also, it isn’t ad hoc, because it is based on evidence. Sometimes science is complex, I don’t know if I would call it convoluted, but definitely complex.

    Within my own field, we are constantly discussing how once simple molecular pathways have become much more complex over the last few years. It is the nature of progress.

  152. Dale,

    As I see it, it is not the lack of ‘biologically plausible mechanisms’ that is the problem; rather it is the seemingless endless supply of those mechanisms that is worrisome.

    If you think animal ‘precedents’ are relevant, let me rephrase: how many retroviruses cause disease in animals via the same mechanisms proposed in the case of HIV, and the same epidemiology as proposed in HIV; that is, no bell shape and no immunity.

  153. Robster,

    Within any field I’ve encountered so far, true progress means simplifying, clarifying that which is complex and convoluted. I see no such progress in HIV science.

  154. …what was that comment about substandard prose?

    Pope: As a veterinarian or whatever calling Lanka stupid I think it’s you who needs to show us just how clued up you are on viruses, retro or not.
    Why on earth would you think I am a veterinarian? (In fact I know precious little about animal retroviruses, my only form of contact has been with HIV in a purely professional capacity). Whatever, as you say.
    But I do know enough virology to call Lanka’s ideas stupid. Do you agree with his bizarre concepts on virology? Or do you also think his ideas are stupid?

  155. Pope,

    Why should more than one biologically plausible mechanism of causing disease be worrisome, as long as there is solid experimental evidence to back each one up?

    As far as HIV not demonstrating a bell shaped incidence curve indicative of the development of population immunity, I expect that is largely due to two factors – medical intervention and lack of time. If doctors were to stop trying to halt perinatal transmission or treat HIV infection in adults in all likelihood, given a hundred years or so, the surviving human population would develop immunity.

  156. “Within any field I’ve encountered so far, true progress means simplifying, clarifying that which is complex and convoluted. I see no such progress in HIV science.”

    So let’s recap shall we…
    On the one side we have the concept of a transmissable virus which can cause progressive immunodeficiency. This results in a variety of clinical manifestations dependent upon which infections the individual is exposed to or which latent infections are reactivated. One theory, one virus, one disease. I call that pretty simple.

    On the other hand, we have the concepts of a syndrome which has been attributed to all of the following: 1. Overuse of antibiotics, 2. Candida infection, 3. Lack of vitamins and other nutrients, 4. Use of poppers, 5. Use of injectable drugs such as heroin, 6. Chemical toxicity from zidovudine, 7. degenerate lifestyle, 8. receptive anal sex, 9. Malaria, 10. Tuberculosis, 11. Receipt of Factor VIII, 12. Having a blood transfusion, etc etc…
    Factor in the near total lack of credible evidence for any of these along with the failure of correcting any of these factors to consistently alter the natural history of disease.

    Science is perfectly happy with the idea of simplifying matters. It is the denialists who hypothesise ever-more outlandish scenarios to explain away the disintegration of their own theories on the matter.

  157. Dale,

    I didn’t say “more than one biologically plausible mechanism “, I said there’s always a rich supply at hand to salvage the pet theory. If you can always bring in ‘host factors’ and ‘co-factors’, even admit that those factors singly or put together may be ‘predominant’ factors in disease, it becomes rather difficult to falsify the HIV theory by this route.
    For example an experiment that shows little correlation betwen viral load and disease progression just confirms that co- or host factors may play a larger role than hitherto thought. Idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia is not a proof of ‘HIV free AIDS’, it’s evidence a low CD4 T cell count, doesn’t cause a positive antibody test in the absence of HIV etc.

    DT,

    nice try but not so. We have old established diseases with established causes. Then Gallo and the rest added an extra cause, HIV, and all of a sudden we have a ‘syndrome’ consisting of an ever changing number of diseases and conditions, an ever increasing number of co- and host factors and ever increasing amount of never before seen characteristics, odd behaviour, and ‘indirect’ causation attributed to one little run off the mill retrovirus.

    You’ll have to be a bit more specific about which bizarre ideas of Lanka you’re referring to before I can answer that. I agree with most of his bizarre ideas about HIV, especially the idea that retrovirologists seem to set rather low standards for themselves these days.

  158. DT, true to his propagandist role on this blog, offers:

    So let’s recap shall we…

    I have a better idea…let’s recap Dale and DT’s recent attempts to shift the burden of proof, shall we?

    First, you are a moron, DT, if you think that “Science” isn’t also perfectly happy providing simplified explanations that do not always include pathogens as the cause of disease. It’s corrupt scientists and the drug companies paying them that are unhappy with that scenario.

    _____________________________________________

    On the other hand, we have the concepts of a syndrome which has been attributed to all of the following: 1. Overuse of antibiotics, 2. Candida infection, 3. Lack of vitamins and other nutrients, 4. Use of poppers, 5. Use of injectable drugs such as heroin, 6. Chemical toxicity from zidovudine, 7. degenerate lifestyle, 8. receptive anal sex, 9. Malaria, 10. Tuberculosis, 11. Receipt of Factor VIII, 12. Having a blood transfusion, etc…Factor in the near total lack of credible evidence for any of these along with the failure of correcting any of these factors to consistently alter the natural history of disease.

    The very definition of a “syndrome” might lead reasonable, unencumbered scientists to explore the possibility that there are multiple, contributing factors to syndromes, particularly when there are multiple symptoms of seemingly disparate origins, as is the case with AIDS patients. After all, the symptoms of AIDS patients in Africa are certainly not equivalent to those of AIDS patients in the West. Perhaps, there wouldn’t be a “lack of credible evidence” if the factors you list were studied without bias. As an HIV test-negative patient, my health history included 6 of the factors you list, and my doctors were at a loss as to waht treatment to try next. Knowing what I know now, that does not surprise me. The very fact that I achieved substantially greater health only after discarding their treatments and those that you espouse, DT, further proves the worth of studying the factors you’ve listed. As Noreen and many other patients can attest too, my experience is not an anomaly, no matter how hard you and Dale wish it so. By the estimation of anyone with sufficient comprehension skills, your posts suggests that you are the one who lacks credibility.

    ______________________________________________

    Why should more than one biologically plausible mechanism of causing disease be worrisome, as long as there is solid experimental evidence to back each one up?

    It’s the last part Dale that you seem to struggle with, the “solid experimental evidence” part. It doesn’t exist. Outside of the lab, anyway. I can’t say it any better than Pope, so here’s is the very valid complaint for you again, Dale: it is the seemingless endless supply of those mechanisms that is worrisome. If you weren’t part of the problem, perhaps, you might agree that accountability is an issue that naturally arises when one explanatory mechanism is jettisoned for another one, as has been the case with HIV on numerous occasions. Such accountability is a hallmark of real science.

    Also, it isn’t ad hoc, because it is based on evidence.

    Earth to Robster: it’s the very evidence to which appeal that is being questioned, so your circular statement is hardly a worthy rebuttal.

    ___________________________________________

    Pathogens, including viruses, caused diseases long before human beings were aware of their existence. Likely there are still many pathogens out there that contribute to disease of which medical science is still completely unaware.

    Wow, this post by Dale actually starts out promising, but then it degenerates into this:

    So how many retroviruses had been shown to cause human disease before HIV-1 and HIV-2 were discovered is irrelevant.

    Once again, Dale, your biases are clouding your abilities or perhaps there really are dimwits among us? What you are attempting to assert is that discovery is still a viable part of scientific inquiry. Oh, how I wish it were so, but I think I’ve already argued effectively that where human health is concerned, “scientific” discoveries need to be thoroughly scrutinized before being popularly accepted. HIV has only recently began to be thoroughly scrutinized, and more and more people are recognizing that it is a failed hypothesis. Perhaps, there are other pathogenic retroviruses amongst us, but it will take real scientific inquiry to prove their pathogenesis, too.

    Just to bring the thread back on track for a moment…

    This post was never on track, DT, not by anyone who values real scientific debate. Tara only posted her original comment to slander dissidents. The post has since gotten “on track” quite nicely, though, don’t you think?

    In fact, I’d say that the following quote from Pope sums things up quite perfectly:

    Robster,

    Within any field I’ve encountered so far, true progress means simplifying, clarifying that which is complex and convoluted. I see no such progress in HIV science.

    Kevin

  159. Kevin,

    From my perspective, I would say that your biases are clouding your reasoning. Where human health is concerned it is important to identify infectious agents as quickly as possible to try to prevent their rapid spread through populations. The vast majority of HIV positive individuals identified to date develop progressive immunodeficiency. That is a strong correlation that very few deny. Correlation does not prove causation but combined with the molecular biology and cell culture studies demonstrating the properties of the virus and in the absense of another model that explains both AIDS and the strong correlation between HIV and AIDS, HIV-causes-AIDS is the hypothesis that best supports the data.

    Your personal experience, as an HIV negative individual who has suffered from an “AIDS-defining illness” is irrelevant to whether HIV causes AIDS. “AIDS defining illnesses” are not restricted to those with HIV but their incidence among HIV positive individuals is far higher than among HIV negative individuals.

  160. Dale, if you say that most HIV persons, which is about 40,000 per/year (new cases)leads into immune deficiency or AIDS, then why are the actual AIDS statistics so very low, around 14,000 per year and secondly if this is infectious, then why isn’t this being highly reflected in the 13-24 year olds, the most sexually active group of the population?

  161. exscuse me if I answer Noreen but there were like 50,000 cases of AIDS per year before good combination therapies and protease inhibitors were introduced in early 90s. then the numbers dropped like a toilet seat from a space station. toxic drugs my big fat posterior.

  162. Your personal experience, as an HIV negative individual who has suffered from an “AIDS-defining illness” is irrelevant to whether HIV causes AIDS.

    Not if the cause of my health problems is the same cause of the health problems experienced by HIV+ individuals. I was frequently prescribed broad-spectrum antibiotics for chronic sinusitis and suffered progressively declining health because of it, just like AIDS patients, culminating in PCP and severe candididasis; yet, the treating physicians at a leading research hospital, no less, wanted to contiue giving me even more potent antibiotics for the sinusitis. After recovering from the pneumonia, I decided to try a different path and Viola!, my health began to improve. My experience and that of any other HIV-negative AIDS-case is absolutely relevant! Any medical practitioner interested in the truth would never say that a patient presenting with the same symptoms as those suffered otherwise only by those considered “afflicted”, any such researcher would hardly find this scenario irrelevant, unless he wanted to maintain belief, at all costs.

    The real correlation in all of this is drug use, both prescribed and recreational; it causes and/or exacerbates severe immune dysfunction in patients, and HIV status is the true irrelevant correlation. However, unlike the HIV theory, this explanation is not excessively defensive; thus, the idea that there are other co-factors at play is not only acceptable, but likely.

    Kevin

  163. if this is infectious, then why isn’t this being highly reflected in the 13-24 year olds, the most sexually active group of the population?

    Excellent question, Noreen.

    (Oh, and Wic-i-boy, your answer is hardly sufficient since very few 13-24 year olds are on ARVs.)

  164. Kevin,

    The problem with your theory is that the majority of people who take lots of drugs (recreational and or prescription) do not develop immunodeficiency. HIV is a better predictor of developing immunodeficiency than drug use.

    noreen, AIDS diagnoses are lower than HIV diagnoses because the average latency from HIV infection to full blown AIDS is many years. That being the case it isn’t too surprising that there aren’t a lot of AIDS diagnoses among 13 – 24 year olds. Those who acquired HIV at birth are generally diagnosed before entering their teens and those who might acquire HIV in their late teens to early 20s are likely still in the latency period.

  165. Even if there is a latency period, the 45 year old have the highest cases, at least in the male population. I would beg to differ with you too about all the lives being saved by HAART,when over 300,000 were killed from AZT but you won’t see that or any other disease for that matter listed on the death certificate, just AIDS related…what any easy out. The number one and the second cause of death by AIDS patients is liver failure and heart attacks related to the anti-viral use. To cover their asses, I am waiting for these two diseases to be added to the list, which makes about as much sense as cervical cancer. Anything to try to inflate the AIDS statistics.

  166. The problem with your theory is that the majority of people who take lots of drugs (recreational and or prescription) do not develop immunodeficiency.

    But what about those that do? I never said that every drug user develops AIDS. That type of hyperbole isn’t necessary. I realize it’s hard to be objective when your belief is so strong. I once believed in the tooth fairy. Anyway, it is indeed a relatively small percentage of “drug users” who are so severely affected, but that also correlates well with the data since AIDS cases are a relatively small number compared to the population at-large, or even compared to those that have merely tested HIV-positive. Furthermore, many people are developing symptoms of immune problems of various degrees. Allergies, multiple-sclerosis, lupus and even toe fungus are just a few examples of immune-related diseases that are on the rise. Your proving my point for me, Dale, which is to be expected since my explanation fits the data far better than the HIV theory. Any other “damning” comments, Dale?

    Kevin

  167. Kevin,

    According to the literature, the majority of HIV seropositive individuals become immunodeficient (i.e. develop AIDS) within 20 years of becoming seropositive. The majority being 80% or greater. The majority of drug users do not become immunodeficient. Perhaps among those who do become immunodeficient, drug use did cause or contribute to their immune problems. But because it is such a small fraction of all drug users, drug use has no value in predicting who will become immunodeficient before they actually do. HIV seropositivity does have predictive value. Not in predicting immune problems in general but in predicting immune problems that lead to increased susceptibility to opportunistic infections or certain virus associated cancers. Not all immune disorders (i.e. allergies or lupus or MS) lead to increased susceptibility to opportunistic infections, Kaposi’s or NHL.

  168. exscuse me if I answer Noreen but there were like 50,000 cases of AIDS (Dale)

    50,000, I see, so that is the steady number over the last… how many years?

  169. Dale, the spinster offers this:

    But because it is such a small fraction of all drug users, drug use has no value in predicting who will become immunodeficient before they actually do.

    Let’s substitute “HIV positive” in place of “drug use”:

    But because it is such a small fraction of all HIV positives (who get sick), HIV positive has no value in predicting who will become immunodeficient before they actually do.

    _____________________________________________

    From the CDC’s website:

    “At the end of 2003, an estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 persons in the United States were living with HIV/AIDS.”

    “In 2005, the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS in the United States and dependent areas was 45,669.”

    So, roughly 4% of HIV positive individuals are diagnosed as AIDS cases in a given year. No wonder you need a “flexible” latency period to explain the onset of AIDS. It gives you ample time to poison and scare enough seropositive individuals into severe illness.

    I assert that that 4% could more accurately be explained by other factors, including drug use and mal-utrition. You’re certainly welcome to continue living in a dream world where HIV has unquestionable “predictive value”, but don’t expect everyone else to join you.

    Kevin

  170. And now I’m sure, Dale being the good sport that he is, will define for us what he means by “immunodeficient”, so we can all communicate.

    He will also reveal how his last comment refutes Denialists Duesberg, Perth, Lanka, who have all agreed that an HIV positive test is a good marker of eventual progression to “immunodeficiency”, just as yellow fingers is a good marker of eventual progression to lung cancer or any of the various ‘smoker ailments’.

  171. Pope,

    The USA is a large country and different states have been collecting data for different periods of time. Look at the data for New York state for example. 49 AIDS cases prior to 1981, 491 in 1982, 4880 in 1987, 10037 in 1992, 5089 in 1998 & 3800 in 2004. Nothing ‘steady’ about those numbers.

  172. Dale,

    I apologize, it was Wic who wrote about the 50,000 AIDS cases per year. I’m glad to see you don’t agree with him though (o;

  173. Doing the math, we have the equivalent deaths from the effects of cigarette in a TWO-WEEK period that equals the whole year of AIDS cases and all who develop AIDS do not die. Therefore, AIDS in the U.S. is not an epidemic.

    Consider this, when I was first diagnosed with AIDS, my viral load was >100,000, CD4’s at 78 and I was sick and dying. Now, my viral load is >100,000 CD4’s at 86 and I am extremely healthy. What changed, I still have HIV. There must be more at play here than HIV and even Gallo and the Montaigne(hope I spelled that right)stated years later that there must be co-factors involved. That certainly would make more sense as many HIV+ positives have lived healthy lives for many years and have not developed AIDS, although they do not take the meds. Read some of their stories at living without HIV drugs.

  174. DT writes:

    Barry, you clearly have no idea how viruses cause disease. The model of direct cell toxicity applies to some viruses, but not others. Many viruses employ a mix of methods.

    A mix of methods?!!? Are you joking? HIV has 9000 base pairs — the human cell has 3 Billion. HIV has, what, 3 genes total?

    It’s one of the least complex items in the Universe. It’s barely considered alive, since, unlike bacteria, it can’t even replicate on its own.

    Please name one disease caused by a virus that doesn’t infect a cell and replicate. I’d love to hear it. Clinical relevance, is what we’re looking for, DT. Not imaginary cases of avian bird flu or ebola.

    Apoptosis is the ad hoc, all-purpose, explanatory mechanism that virus hunters invoke, when they can’t attribute ordinary pathogenesis to the harmless viruses they rigorously study in a lab.

    Funny how none of Gallo’s or Montagnier’s original papers mention “apoptosis.”

    Kevin and Noreen Martin are much more lucid on this discussion than the typical AIDS apologist. Keep going!

  175. A mix of methods?!!? Are you joking? HIV has 9000 base pairs — the human cell has 3 Billion. HIV has, what, 3 genes total?

    Have you been reading Duesberg again? HIV has 9 genes.
    Some of the accessory genes have been demonstarted to play a strong role in the pathogenesis of HIV.

    You are also forgetting that host factors play a dominant role in viral pathogenesis. Look up dengue hemorrhagic fever.

    Funny how none of Gallo’s or Montagnier’s original papers mention “apoptosis.”

    Funny how Robert Koch’s original papers didn’t mention apoptosis. It is one thing to determine that a pathogen causes a disease and another to determine the exact molecular mechanisms involved in the disease process.

    All of the arguments that you bring up can equally well be used to deny the existence of disease caused by other viruses or bacteria.

    This suggests that a) your entire knowledge is based on what you read on “rethinker” websites and b) you are not really interested in the science.

  176. Here’s another couple of references for Barry.


    The dengue group of viruses and its family relationships.


    Of cascades and perfect storms: the immunopathogenesis of dengue haemorrhagic fever-dengue shock syndrome (DHF/DSS).

    Albert Sabin isolated dengue virus in 1948 and yet we have papers in 2007 that detail the pathogenesis of the virus.

    Sabin didn’t mention T-cell activation, proinflammatory cytokines such as interferon gamma and tumor necrosis factor.

    Obviously dengue virus doesn’t cause dengue fever and all of this talk about T-cell activation and cytokines is just ad hoc excuses.

  177. Chris, if you are interested in science, why do you not question all the HIV and AIDS persons who are living healthy lives without the drugs. How does this add up in your scientific brain? What are we, a bunch of miracles walking around?

  178. “HIV has 9 genes. Some of the accessory genes have been demonstarted to play a strong role in the pathogenesis of HIV.” (Chris Noble)

    Yeah really? The genes of a virus playing a role in the effects it purportedly causes? extraordinary! Like what role exactly?

    And didn’t you get the hint from DT, all these googled references to Dengue virus are just attempts at side-tracking; they don’t show you’re “up on viruses” at all.

    But someone as up as Dr. Noble surely would be able to explain how all of his “talk about T-cell activation and cytokines” is supposed to relate. Are the two perchance the same phenomenon Dr. Noble?

    And now you’ve mentioned it, do you think “cytokine storm” is part of the pathogenesis of AIDS?

    Any other similarities you wish to point to between HIV and Dengue fever, Dr. Noble?

    Can you also explain why Dengue fever pre- and post WWII is not the same in terms of lethal potential in Southeast Asia, and why age and reinfection is crucial? Then perhaps we’ll be in a position to determine if the various excuses are ad hoc or not. Or du you defer to Pubmed for that as well Dr. Noble?

  179. pope, my point is absolutely clear.

    Barry and Kevin made a couple of false claims.

    a) Viruses produce disease by direct cell lysis and nothing else
    b) It is not possible to determine whether a pathogen causes a disease unless the pathogenesis is understood

    Both of these arguments were made with the express purpose of somehow disproving the causal role of HIV in AIDS and with a complete ignorance of the subject.

    All of this could be much simpler if “rethinkers” actually went to the library and did some background reading before they repeat rhetoric they have read on “rethinker” websites.

    Now rather than admit to any mistakes or lack of understanding on their part you just move onto yet more specious arguments.

  180. HIV has 9 genes

    9 genes? What a genetic repetoire.

    Is there a living organism in the universe with less genes?

    The whole basis of retrovirology was that retroviruses didn’t kill cells. They simply integrated their paltry genome into cells forever. Gallo, Temin and Baltimore all thought that this, possibly, was the best explanation of cancer — ie, altering the genome of cells, propagating them, but not killing them.

    When it turned out that retroviruses probably didn’t cause cancer in humans, these same people were left with viruses that didn’t cause any disease whatsoever. So, they hijacked AIDS.

    Ever wonder how the Human-T-Cell Leukemia virus, first purported to cause leukemia, then purported to cause AIDS?

    It likely causes neither.

  181. There seems to be some confusion as to how HIV+ cases are counted in the US. They are counted by repeated positive tests, not by AIDS defining diseases. Also, in the US, AIDS is defined either by HIV+ status and a CD4+ count of less than 200 per microliter blood or HIV+ plus at least one AIDS defining diseases.

    Presence of one of these diseases in absence of a positive HIV status is not AIDS, and any doctor who makes this kind of mistake should have been put in front of the disciplinary board or equivalent.

    Kevin,

    Within any field I’ve encountered so far, true progress means simplifying, clarifying that which is complex and convoluted. I see no such progress in HIV science.

    Are genetics, molecular biology, quantum mechanics, etc, more or less complex than when they started out?

    I think you are using complexity as an excuse for your ascientific bias.
    ——————-
    Barry,

    Funny how none of Gallo’s or Montagnier’s original papers mention “apoptosis.”

    Funny how they were just initial papers describing a virus and its connection to AIDS. Finding a virus and describing its mechanism of action are not simulatneous occurances. We don’t know the exact mechanisms for the pathogenesis of TB, but that doesn’t mean that we haven’t known that it is caused by M. tuberculosis since 1882.

    Please name one disease caused by a virus that doesn’t infect a cell and replicate. I’d love to hear it.

    Your previous statement mentioned lysis (lytic cycle). Not all viruses lyse their host cell. Some others do so after an extended period of time. Herpes viruses can remain latent in ganglia nerve cells for an extended period before activation (lysogenic cycle). Such viruses can remain dormant through repeated mitotic cycles. Retroviruses do this as well, with other cell types. Instead of lysing the cell, some viruses bud off from the host cell, a process that eventually kills the cell.
    ———————–
    Pope,

    You may be confusing prevalence (total number of cases at a certain time) and incidence (new cases over a certain period of time).
    ————————-
    Noreen,

    Therefore, AIDS in the U.S. is not an epidemic.

    This does not fit the actual scientific definition, which “a rate that exceeds the expected or base level.” By this definition, 10 cases of whooping cough in a city with 100,000 citizens would be called an epidemic. At some point, the levels will stabilize and the term will change to endemic.

    Best wishes.

  182. Noreen,
    There have been a number of studies researching people infected with HIV who do not appear to progress to AIDS.
    These are very important because they can tell us what host factors play a dominant role in HIV pathogenesis. This can lead to better, less toxic treatments and provide clues for vaccine strategies. What part of the immune system allows some people to effectively suppress the virus or not get infected in the first place?
    In addition the more we know about the factors that determine CD4 depletion rates the better doctors can judge when to initiate ARV treatment if at all.

    I would encourage anyone that is HIV positive, healthy and not on treatment to investigate taking part in these trials.

    That being said the fact that there are some people that have been infected with HIV for long periods of time does not mean that HIV does not cause AIDS anymore than people chronically infected with Hep B and no obvious disease does not prove that Hep B does not cause liver disease.

    Unfortunately, many people who lived with HIV without treatment for many years do go on to develop AIDS and die. I sincerely hope that this doesn’t happen to you.

  183. The whole basis of retrovirology was that retroviruses didn’t kill cells.

    You are still getting all of your knowledge or pseudoknowledge from “rethinker” websites.

    EIAV, CAEV and VMV were all known to cause disease before HIV was discovered.

    And no I am not saying that the pathogenesis of these viruses are identical to HIV.

  184. Chris,

    Clinical relevance, my friend.

    How many people did EIAV, CAEV and VMV kill in America? Less than people killed by lightning strikes?

    From what I can gather on this thread is that AIDS apologists focus on the exceptions, not the rules — merely to defend the indefensible.

    BTW, much of my info is newly acquired from this short provocative book by Dr. Rebecca Culshaw, which was given to me by a renegade oncologist, friend of mine.

  185. Barry and Kevin made a couple of false claims.


    a) Viruses produce disease by direct cell lysis and nothing else
    b) It is not possible to determine whether a pathogen causes a disease unless the pathogenesis is understood

    Both of these arguments were made with the express purpose of somehow disproving the causal role of HIV in AIDS and with a complete ignorance of the subject.

    Chris, you really should refrain from purposefully misquoting people.

    First, I never made the claim you’ve labeled a). That was Barry A, singularly. However, I will now go on record to say that I think his point is a damn good one. As for your fitness to levy the charge of ignorance, well…if you weren’t so dependent upon an HIV framework for structuring your thoughts on the matter, you might make the relatively easy realization that criticism of HIV based on its failure to prove lysis is throughly justified and even a natural part of the discussion. After all, there was a time (more than a decade, I believe) when the lysis explanation of HIV was used to justify treatment and research direction. When HIV science completely changed its causal mechanism, that change deserved professional scrutiny. As such, lots of scientists, but by no means the majority, failed to find the new story compelling. I happen to agree with the minority opinion. Do you see why that criticism is an important dinstinction and a natural part of the equation? If not, well…you should have one of your smarter friends read and explain to you, 2 short Santayana’s essays, number one entitled, “There Is No First Principle of Criticism” and two, “Doubt and Dogma.”

    As for your misrepresentation of my comments on pathogenesis, your objection is dubious, and, unfortunately, I don’t have time to explain why at the moment, but I guarantee that my contributions on the matter were not mined from any websites — no offense to them; there are quite a few good, rethinker sites out there. Unlike you, I’ve actually given the matter thought, and we’ve all seen the results of HIV science in action for a long time now. We’ve also seen virtually all current public institutions become severely corrupted by greed and the requisite deceptions. The beaurocracy of modern medicine has allowed it to suffer uprecedented corruption. Now that the media is laughably biased, many smart people are finally waking up to how corrupt and ineffectual our public institutions have become, as consumption becomes its only goal.

    My view is certainly not “ascience”, as Robster inflames. I just want adherence to basic standards of science to become commonplace again. Epistemic considerations are vitally important to any science, particularly when those practicing it wish to guide human health; otherwise, major tragedies are not only possible, but indeed, likely.

    Kevin

  186. Barry,

    Dr. Culshaw’s book is an absolutely excellent introduction to everything that’s wrong with HIV science, but those who claim ‘Denialists’ never perform research or experiments could go here to see just how badly the vaunted HIV antibody tests perform, so badly in fact that it was impossible to even carry out the intended experiment.
    ybyl today

  187. Kevin, I did not say or imply that each of you made both claims.

    Barry made claim a) and you made claim b).


    Before you can attribute an illness to a pathogen, you must first prove the method of disease causation.

    I am sorry but I have read this argument ad nauseam on “rethinker” websites. Perhaps you came up with it by yourself.

    Whether you invented it or are just parroting it, it is still completely and utterly false and demonstrates a profound ignorance of science and history.

    Robert Koch most certainly did not understand the method of disease causation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis before he attributed the illness tuberculosis to it.

    Just do a literature search and you will find active research into the pathogenesis of many pathogens long, long after it has been determined that they cause disease.

  188. How many people did EIAV, CAEV and VMV kill in America? Less than people killed by lightning strikes?

    Seeing as they cause disease in horses, goats and sheep – not many.

    But so what. You have claimed that a) retroviruses do not kill cells and b) viruses cause disease solely by cell lysis.

    EIAV, CAEV and VMV cause disease by a number of different methods including cell lysis. So you score 0 out of 2 so far.

    Your arguments are of the “HIV disobeys the rules of science” form. Unfortunately for you these particular rules never existed.

    BTW, much of my info is newly acquired from this short provocative book by Dr. Rebecca Culshaw, which was given to me by a renegade oncologist, friend of mine.

    Who would have guessed?

    Why do you accept what you read in this book as fact? Why don’t you go to a library and open up a book on virology and check some of these ‘facts’ before boldly repeating them here?

    Rebecca Culshaw has apparently collected every dubious factoid on HIV that she could find and put it in her book. Blindly regurgitating these factoids does not make you a skeptic.

  189. Hello Chris. You said:

    “Why are you saying that it appeared on page 7 when it isn’t there”?

    I hope you read scientific studies with more attention than you pay to reading a newspaper.

    The Australian, Edition 6 – NSW Country
    THU 22 FEB 2007, Page 007

    Witness opposes jail for HIV cases

  190. Chris,

    Again, I repeat, clinical relevance: Retroviruses that cause disease in horse, goats and sheeps, aren’t relevant to any person, patient, doctor or normal human being.

    The mere fact that you continually use clinically irrelevant comparisons is highly telling. One of your confederates upthread compared HIV to Herpes.

    How many people die of Herpes?

    But, I was sloppy, so I will stand corrected and amend my remarks:

    The whole basis of retrovirology was that retroviruses didn’t kill [human] cells. They simply integrated their paltry genome into [human] cells forever. Gallo, Temin and Baltimore all thought that this, possibly, was the best explanation of cancer — ie, altering the genome of [human]cells, propagating them, but not killing them.

    When it turned out that retroviruses probably didn’t cause cancer in humans, these same people were left with viruses that didn’t cause any disease whatsoever [in humans]. So, they hijacked AIDS.

    How’s that?

    The Culshaw book, by the way, can be found here. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in this issue.

    Culshaw wrote a paper here that will give you a taste of a good, sober scholarship and critical analysis.

    Myself, I was blown away by it.

  191. Hey DT, thanks for sharing the newspaper clip of Gambia’s president, who believes he can cure HIV in 3 days.

    I don’t know what takes him 3 days to cure it! I can cure it in 3 seconds.

    Simply stop believing in it! 3 seconds later and poof! Its gone.

    Of course this does not mean the person will or will not test positive on flakey antibody tests that are proven to go off on 70 plus conditions. It also does not mean they will have regained health if they had some certain illness.

    But it does mean that their candida will be called candida, and their herpes will be called herpes, and their KS will be called effects of amyl nitrate sniffing, and their pneumonia will be called pneumonia, instead of being called AIDS.

    Quite simple, we should have thought of this long ago!

    I can see the headlines now: Cure For AIDS DISCOVERED! Simply stop believing in it.

    Another messy paradigm of silliness sliced to bits by Occams Razor!

  192. Pope,

    Thank you for the link.

    I add you to Kevin and Noreen Martin to the list of reasonable people above.

    By the way, How did you learn about this crazy issue, that seems to have eluded millions of people?

  193. Hey Daledork. You said:

    “HIV seropositive individuals become immunodeficient (i.e. develop AIDS) within 20 years of becoming seropositive”

    Wowsers! What percentage of HIV negative people develop what would be considered AIDS defining diseases in a 20 year period, such as yeast infections or herpes outbreaks, or pneumonia, or any of the other 26 common and uncommon diseases?

    And these HIV negatives, of which a substantial percentage will have some of these illnesses, for the most part are not into behaviors such as drug abuse, alcohol addiction, or contending with a family who hates them for being gay!

    Wowsers Dale, maybe everybody has AIDS at some point in their life!

    Wowsers!

    Hey Dale, have you ever had any of the AIDS defining diseases?

    Be honest Dale, and tell us about all of your genital herpes infections too!

  194. You too, Chris and wic and DT and Robster! Come clean with us and tell us when you last had an AIDS defining illness.

    Be sure to share your t cell counts with us. Do you get your CD4 counts done every 3 months? Don’t you think you should so you can watch them go up or down depending on how much you stress out over us “denialists”?

  195. Well, I certainly hope all you faithful believers in the Religion of HIV/AIDS don’t end up coming down with AIDS illnesses when the judge releases his report in the next couple of weeks!

    I would hate to think your genital herpes was flaring up again. Makes it hard to type, concentrate, and scratch your noogies at the same time.

  196. Lincoln, perhaps you should look up Occam’s razor before you invoke it…

    Barry, if you are attempting to take my reference to the pathogenesis of herpes out of context… well, I’m not surprised. I was attempting to explain that not all viruses follow the lytic cycle of reproduction for their entire reproductive strategy. HIV falls into this group. This makes it a reasonable statement.

    Could you define clinical relevence? Or is this another Perth strawman?

    Animal models of disease should be included.

    BTW, herpes encephalitis is an uncommon, but serious, killer of newborns. Varicella pneumonia is a common (1 in 400 adults infected) complication of the herpesvirus that causes chickenpox and shingles. As varicella/zoster virus related mortality goes, this is the most common killer in adults.

  197. lincoln, you said:

    “Well, I certainly hope all you faithful believers in the Religion of HIV/AIDS don’t end up coming down with AIDS illnesses when the judge releases his report in the next couple of weeks”!

    Lincoln, you know damn well that you are lying!

    lincoln answers: “Well, um, yes, I did say that. Alright, I confess. I was lying. I hope they do come down with AIDS defining illnesses when the judge determines the case! At least we have lots of unwanted and proven AIDS drugs that we can send to them”!

  198. Lincoln, again. AIDS defining illnesses don’t mean someone has AIDS. Just that individuals with AIDS have a higher incidence of these illnesses. And for the record…

    I have put “N” in front of such illnesses that I have not had, and a “Y” in front of those that I have had.

    N * Candidiasis of bronchi, trachea, or lungs
    N * Candidiasis esophageal
    N/A * Cervical cancer (invasive)
    N * Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
    N * Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary
    N * Cryptosporidiosis, chronic intestinal for longer than 1 month
    N * Cytomegalovirus disease (other than liver, spleen or lymph nodes
    N * Encephalopathy (HIV-related)
    N * Herpes simplex: chronic ulcer(s) (for more than 1 month); or bronchitis, pneumonitis, or esophagitis
    N * Histoplasmosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
    N * Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal (for more than 1 month)
    N * Kaposi’s sarcoma
    N * Lymphoma Burkitt’s, immunoblastic or primary brain
    N * Mycobacterium avium complex
    N * Mycobacterium, other species, disseminated or extrapulmonary
    N * Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (formerly Pneumocystis carinii)
    N * Pneumonia (recurrent)
    N * Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
    N * Salmonella septicemia (recurrent)
    N * Toxoplasmosis of the brain
    N * Tuberculosis
    N * Wasting syndrome due to HIV

    Considering that you are taking the list out of context (as usual), I’d be highly surprised if the trend changes in the next two weeks.

  199. Again, I repeat, clinical relevance: Retroviruses that cause disease in horse, goats and sheeps, aren’t relevant to any person, patient, doctor or normal human being.

    You are just moving the goalposts.

    Unless you believe that humans are categorically different from other animals I fail to see why if retroviruses cause diseases in horses, goats and sheep it is in any way surprising that they can also cause disease in humans.

    Will you or will you not admit that you were wrong when you claimed that retroviruses don’t kill cells and that viruses only cause disease by direct cell lysis.

    Culshaw wrote a paper here that will give you a taste of a good, sober scholarship and critical analysis.

    Have you actually verified what she wrote? Your past performance indicates – no.

  200. Well, don’t worry Robster, you have 20 years to keep yourself from getting herpes or having pneumonia to be able to prove that my statement does not apply to you as well.

    Be sure to report to us your next outbreak or case of pneumonia.

    By the way, Robster, why are you telling us that you have NEVER HAD ANY OF THESE EVENTS?

    You have never had a herpes outbreak of any type for any duration of time?

    You also have never had pneumonia?

    You want to swear to that? Because, I believe you to be lying!

  201. lincoln said:
    [I hope they do come down with AIDS defining illnesses when the judge determines the case! At least we have lots of unwanted and proven AIDS drugs that we can send to them”!]

    There he goes again. Lincoln, when are you finally going to come up with something substantial to contribute to the discussion? My guess is never.

  202. Robster, You said:

    “Just that individuals with AIDS have a higher incidence of these illnesses”.

    What the individuals diagnosed with HIV have a higher incidence of, is stress due to the diagnosis!

    HEY ROBSTER! Does high amount of stress have an effect on the immune system? YES OR F’ing NO?

  203. I hope you read scientific studies with more attention than you pay to reading a newspaper.
    The Australian, Edition 6 – NSW Country
    THU 22 FEB 2007, Page 007

    I can scan the page and send it to you if you want. It is not there.

    Apparently, people in country NSW can read this.

    I did not realise that there was more than one edition of our national paper.

    Just to make you happy I will admit to being wrong. The article was apparently in one edition of the Australian. Not one that was available in any captital city including Adelaide.

  204. Hey Robster!

    Would a diagnosis of HIV produce more stress in a patient’s emotional well being than someone who is diagnosed HIV negative?

    YES OR F’ing NO?

  205. As usual, lincoln, you are out of context.

    I had pneumonia a few years ago, but it was not recurrent, and therefore, was not an AIDS defining illness. As herpesvirus family members go, I have had EBV and varicella-zoster, but neither of the herpes “simplex” viruses. And certainly not with the required 1 month timespan for chronic ulcers.

    I highly doubt, based on statistics alone, that I will have any of the listed illnesses to the extent and severity that they would count towards the above list.

    You are trying to cast these illnesses, listed at a specific clinical level of severity, as common. They aren’t, except in immunocompromised individuals.

  206. Chris, Yes indeed, there are various editions of this paper in the various districts of Australia. And you are correct that it was not printed except in one: NSW.

    I have been discussing this with the editors, and lambasting them for semi-censoring this.

    I too, want to know why it was not in all of the editions or in their database retrieval system. The fact that McDonald had sent this email and that it was turned over to the judge is absolutely damning for the prosecution and must be quite frightful for the Department of Health.

    I can only assume it is too embarassing to the Department of Health, whom cried foul to the editors, and are probably pleading with them not to print the results of Judge Sulan’s case if it is found in favor of the defendant. I will attempt to keep everyone posted, providing I can find out any information myself.

  207. Robster, would you be so kind as to answer the two questions I just asked you?

    1) HEY ROBSTER! Does high amount of stress have an effect on the immune system? YES OR F’ing NO?

    2) Would a diagnosis of HIV produce more stress in a patient’s emotional well being than someone who is diagnosed HIV negative?

    YES OR F’ing NO?

  208. Robster, You said:

    “You are trying to cast these illnesses, listed at a specific clinical level of severity, as common. They aren’t, except in immunocompromised individuals”.

    Robster, I have never had pneumonia and I have not had any type of herpes outbreak in about 25 years.

    It sounds to me as if you are immunocompromised, and most certainly immunocompromised compared to me. I do not ever use condoms and my ex lover was HIV positive, as were several of my affairs over the years.

    I recommend you take an HIV test immediately and repeatedly until it comes up positive. I have some unwanted AIDS drugs I can send you from my HEAL members, so they won’t cost you a dime!

  209. First, Chris I already have AIDS and second science isn’t exactly beating at the doors of any non-progressors or persons like myself for any studies because then they would have to admit to the truth, that HIV is not what causes AIDS. If I read the CDC definition correctly, one may be classified with AIDS due to HIV+ test and CD4’s under 200, even without symptoms.

    Barry, what are you qualifications as you seem to have
    a remarkable knowledge on the issues? Yes, that story is about my success with AIDS! I truly believe that anyone can rebuild one’s health with some effort and especially if one does not listen to the gloom and doom predictions of the doctors. I think Bernard Shaw stated it best, They would rather bury a hillside than to cure a patient unethically. To them, allowing nature to heal the body is a great sin, rather, we should all be poisoned to death for the sake of medicine.

  210. For the third time,

    Robster, would you be so kind as to answer the two questions I just asked you?

    1) HEY ROBSTER! Does high amount of stress have an effect on the immune system? YES OR F’ing NO?

    2) Would a diagnosis of HIV produce more stress in a patient’s emotional well being than someone who is diagnosed HIV negative?

    YES OR F’ing NO?

  211. lincoln,
    the article was deceptive in that it said that Professor McDonald had expressed doubts about the connection between HIV and the onset of AIDS.

    This is not true. The only frightening thing is that a journalist would deliberately take Professor McDonald’s comments out of context and portray them as saying something that he clearly didn’t. Apparently Professor McDonald had clarified this with the journalist but he chose to write it anyway.

    The fact that the journalist involved posted the article to a “rethinker” website when the article is not available online elsewhere makes me question his objectivity.

    I am also not convinced that imprisonment is an appropriate punsihment for the crime that Parenzee committed. But that is not relevant to whether HIV exists and causes AIDS.

    It is also clear that this appeal has little to do with Parenzee’s welfare and more to do with the Perth Group getting publicity and exposure. This is exactly what they have been trying to do for several years after completely failing in the scientific arena.

    If anyone deserves to be in jail I would say it is the Perth Group.

  212. Chris,

    our friend Robster seems to be suffering from AIDS defining dementia at the thought of answering my questions. Perhaps you would be so kind as to answer them Dr. Noble.

    1) Does high amounts of stress have an effect on the immune system? YES OR NO?

    2) Would a diagnosis of HIV positive produce more stress in a patient’s emotional well being than someone who is diagnosed HIV negative?

    YES OR NO?

  213. Chris, you said:

    “If anyone deserves to be in jail I would say it is the Perth Group”.

    I must disagree with you Dr. Noble.

    I would say that if anyone deserves to be in jail, it would be someone who allows HIV positives to falsely believe that he is a medical doctor or HIV specialist, without clarifying when such a person is publicly discussing such an issue.

    Wouldn’t you agree?

  214. Noreen wrote:First, Chris I already have AIDS and second science isn’t exactly beating at the doors of any non-progressors or persons like myself for any studies because then they would have to admit to the truth, that HIV is not what causes AIDS. If I read the CDC definition correctly, one may be classified with AIDS due to HIV+ test and CD4’s under 200, even without symptoms.

    Here is one study that is actively recruiting non progressors.
    Welcome to the HIV Elite Controller Study website

    You are wrong to say that researchers are not looking for non-progressors. They are.

    You are right in that you would not qualify as you already have AIDS and a high viral load.

    I would still encourage anyone else that qualifies to participate in this project as it will potentially benefit people infected with HIV in the future.

    If as you claim HIV does not cause AIDS then there should be hundreds of thousands of HIV+ people that should qualify for this project. In that case it would be imperative for everyone of them to make themselves known to these researchers.

  215. Chris, you said:

    “The fact that the journalist involved posted the article to a “rethinker” website.”

    I would say, that the fact that the journalist listened to all of the testimony, and then finds himself leaning toward posting things on “rethinker” websites, says a lot for how the audience interpreted the results of the testimonies of the HIV experts!

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    You crack me up Chris.

    By the way, are you a tipper, I mean, do you drink regularly? What about drugs?

    Do you do any drugs, legal or otherwise, including smoke any?

  216. Chris,

    You said: “It is also clear that this appeal has little to do with Parenzee’s welfare and more to do with the Perth Group getting publicity and exposure. This is exactly what they have been trying to do for several years after completely failing in the scientific arena.

    So now you believe that the trial in Australia is some kind of denialist conspiracy? Say What?????? Have you lost your goobers?

    Are you perhaps suffering with AIDS dementia as well? You seem to be unable to answer my two little yes or no questions!

  217. Robster, when you recover from your AIDS defining dementia and, right after you answer my two little questions, would you please explain what you meant when you said:

    “Lincoln, again. AIDS defining illnesses don’t mean someone has AIDS”.

    Your right, but only in part. Any of these AIDS defining illnesses in anyone that was diagnosed as HIV positive, successfully brands that person for the ENTIRETY OF THEIR LIFE, as HAVING AIDS!

    Even if they recovered in a week, they are NEVER REMOVED from the count of people with AIDS.

    So just what the hell did you mean by the nonsensical statement that you have just made, Robster, that AIDS defining diseases do not mean that one has AIDS?

    Oh, excuse me, now I get it, Robster. Now I understand. Aids defining illnesses don’t mean you have AIDS, ONLY if you have NOT been branded and labeled and boxed and packaged and brainwashed and misdiagnosed into believing you have HIV!

    DDddddddddddooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

  218. lincoln,
    it is a matter of public record that a number of “rethinkers” have been pursuing legal avenues to achieve their goals. They have been actively seeking test cases that they can use to promote their “alternative” theories.

    If you want to call this a conspiracy then you are technically correct.

  219. And HEY ROBSTER!

    Guess what that must mean?????

    That must mean that the ONLY TIME that an AIDS defining illness means you have AIDS, is if you have been branded, labeled, boxed, packaged, brainwashed, and misdiagnosed into believing that you actually DO have HIV!!!!

    DDDDDDDddddddddddooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhHHHH

  220. Golly Gee, and Jiminy Crickets there Chris.

    Just 3 weeks ago you said:

    “it just makes me sick. I think it is highly unlikely that the judge will even award the Perthies “expert witness” status. The whole thing is just a massive waste of time and money. I just hope that once they lose the appeal they’ll shut up. I somehow doubt it. My predictions is that “rethinkers” will appeal to conspiracy theories to explain the defeat”.

    And now, Chris, you are the one appealing to conspiracy theories to explain why the trial, which you claimed the judge would not even hear, is going in favor of the rethinkers????

    You do crack me up Chris. Are you HIV defenders ever Right about anything???

    It sure doesn’t look like it does it. And just a couple of months ago you had jumped into Tara’s fray that asked if the Rethinkers were ever right about anything!

    My oh my oh me oh my. The table certainly seems to be turning and spinning upside down to boot!

  221. Hey Chris. Did you notice that you had said: “”it just makes me sick”.

    Actually, I honestly think that you have been “sick” for a very long time. I would encourage you to find some help for your illness, although, with your stubborness and thick headedness, I doubt you will, and I personally, expect that you will most likely get even “sicker” in the future.

    This is unfortunate, Chris, as you really are not going to do the world or your self any favor by doing so. And no matter what kind of an ignorant thick headed and stubborn fool you have been, or that you become in the future, God nonetheless still loves you as much as anyone else on this planet. Even if you are as yet unable to love your own self or love anyone else.

    Although I would hope that you remember that there is always help available if you seek it. Emotional, mental, physical, and even spiritual help is available for all who seek it.

  222. lincoln,
    Is it true that HIV “rethinkers” have been actively looking for a legal case to test their HIV doesn’t exist/cause AIDS argument in a court of law for a number of years?

    Is it true that these HIV “rethinkers” made contact with Parenzee’s defense and convinced them to mount an appeal based on the premise that HIV does not exist?

  223. Chris, surely if you are saying it, it must therefore be true, as whatever Chis Noble says, should always be taken as the word of GOD.

  224. But to answer your question, Chris, I do not know the details of how the case came to be.

    All I know, is that it is the answer to one of my prayers, and I THANK GOD FOR IT, however it came to be!

  225. And, Chris, if you had not been such a jackass to Val Turner and Eleni at the Perth Group, perhaps you could have simply asked them how the trial came to be, as I am quite sure they would have been more than happy to tell you. They are both very decent and honorable people.

  226. Lincoln, as Robster hasn’t responded to these questions of yours, perhaps I can help.

    1) Does high amounts of stress have an effect on the immune system? YES OR NO?

    2) Would a diagnosis of HIV positive produce more stress in a patient’s emotional well being than someone who is diagnosed HIV negative?
    YES OR NO?

    1. High levels of stress do affect the immune system, but in a minor and non-specific way. Studies have shown slight impact on subjects – eg students undergoing exams had higher prevalence of upper respiratory tract infections, for example. In clinical terms the impact is trivial.

    Howewer stress cannot cause a consistent specific depletion of CD4 lymphocytes to low levels. (If you have a shred of evidence to show it does, now is your opportunity to cut the nasty invective and post some data for a change).

    2. A diagnosis of being HIV+ would cause stress, yes.
    But I fail to see why this stress should be more significant than in anyone undergoing other similar stressful events.

    You seem to be proposing this as a mechanism to explain the AIDS epidemic, which is utter nonsense.

    Lets assume for arguments sake that stress did cause severe CD4 lymphopenia (which it does not). Can you show me the millions of cases of AIDS-defining illnesses that have occurred in divorcees, or bereaved relatives? Where is the AIDS epidemic in women recently diagnosed with breast cancer? Can we expect Eleni Papadopoulos to get AIDS because she has faced the strain of a court case?

  227. [And no matter what kind of an ignorant thick headed and stubborn fool you have been, or that you become in the future, God nonetheless still loves you as much as anyone else on this planet. Even if you are as yet unable to love your own self or love anyone else.]

    He’s not only a ‘rethinker’, he seems to be a religious preacher as well.

    Now I get it.

  228. [Again, I repeat, clinical relevance: Retroviruses that cause disease in horse, goats and sheeps, aren’t relevant to any person, patient, doctor or normal human being.]

    I don’t think our ‘rethinker’ will ever admit that he was wrong when he claimed that retroviruses don’t kill cells. Unless he wants to prove otherwise.

  229. DT wrote: High levels of stress do affect the immune system

    You do realise that lincoln will now be claiming that you admitted that stress can cause AIDS.

  230. As a rethinker, we do love that this injustice is coming to trial. We love the fact that Gallo had to testify that only 40% of his original AIDS cases had HIV, 40%! So much for Koch Prosulates where 100% of the virus is required to in all cases. Guess the golden rules of medicine must be obsolete now. How can one harmless virus cause 30 different things when some of these diseases are caused by bacteria and fungus? There is not logical explanation for this unless one wants to go the pleomorphism route, which our modern medicine threw out years ago. It can’t have it both ways. Today our medicine is based on one form, right or wrong.

  231. “Is it true that HIV “rethinkers” have been actively looking for a legal case to test their HIV doesn’t exist/cause AIDS argument in a court of law for a number of years?”
    Is it true that these HIV “rethinkers” made contact with Parenzee’s defense and convinced them to mount an appeal based on the premise that HIV does not exist?” (Chris Noble)

    Dr. Noble, This happens not to be accurate, like almost
    everything you write. But that’s beside the point. What interests me is that you’ve now hinted several times that the Perth Group should go to prison for seeking to make their point of view known publicly.

    So wherein consists the crime?

    With regard to “unobjective” journalists misconstruing What Peter McDonald wrote to Kary Mullis, why don’t you go ahead and give us the correct interpretation of the verbatim quote:

    “Overall I think I share with you [Mullis] some scepticism about the jump from scientific observation to a deduction that HIV transmission and pathogenesis is set in stone and becomes a legitimate basis for criminal prosecution.”

    Notice that McDonald says he SHARES the scepticism regarding HIV transmission and pathogenesis, not with some mainstream sheep who’s not quite sure if the latency period is 10 or 20 years, but with Denialist Mullis who categorically rejects that the “jump” from correlation to causation is warranted in the case of HIV and AIDS.

  232. Chris, how would pursuing “alternative” theories become labeled as conspiracy. We are only seeking the truth, why are you and others afraid of the truth? Do you have any monentary gain by holding your position?

  233. [We are only seeking the truth, why are you and others afraid of the truth? ]

    Isn’t it surprising that the dissidents keep frothing about their so-called ‘truth’ without any evidence to back up their claims?

  234. Well, if I’m not evidence, then I don’t know what is? How have I lived a year without the medicines, my doctors say that it can’t be done! And as far as evidence goes, the mainstream sure is lacking in that department.

    Stress is extremely harmful to the human body, any MD should know that. Stress inteferes with the cortisol levels in the body and affects one’s health. This is why most of the time, they can convince HIV+ to take the meds, these patients are stressed-out with the fear of death hanging over their heads with the missed dosage of one pill. In many cases it works. Now, a new generation of highly-educated, HIV+ are refusing to be intimindated by these tactics and are finding out that in fact, they don’t need the meds or the doctors. I go to them for their sake,not mine, I want them to see how well I am doing and that there are hole in their theories.

  235. With respect Noreen, the fact that you are still well despite having HIV infection is evidence of nothing. You are in a small minority. Your story does not prove HIV doesn’t cause AIDS anymore than my story of being infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis in the past but never having become unwell is somehow is proof that MTB does not cause consumption.

    It is all to easy while lurking in rethinker web sites and blogs to become fooled into thinking you situation is the norm, whereas in fact there are millions worldwide who have experienced the opposite.

  236. DT, I claim AIDS, which I had. HIV, now that’s a whole different ballgame. Have you ever stopped to think why the AIDS statistics are so low in this country and so very high say in Africa? Doesn’t this seem unreasonable for a deadly virus? I have yet for the mainstream to explain why the most active, sexually group of the population doesn’t have the highest cases of AIDS. First, it was a 10 year latency period, now twenty, before long it will a lifetime. For thinking this is the norm, well, I would rather be abnormal and healthy than to be on harmful drugs when I don’t need to be on them.

  237. Have you ever stopped to think why the AIDS statistics are so low in this country and so very high say in Africa?

    Uh, because drugs are readily available in the U.S. and not so much in Africa?

    But hey, if you want to play Russian Roulette with your life, be my guest.

  238. Hi Noreen,

    Barry, what are you qualifications as you seem to have
    a remarkable knowledge on the issues?

    Thank you, but you are far too kind. I do have a PhD in a somewhat related field, but certainly not in biology. Playing the “credentials” game is an utter waste of time –I prefer talking to HIV+ patients (like yourself) who are bold enough to share their experiences.

    I’d also love to hear from any HIV+ folks on this thread who do take the drugs/medication, and believe they have improved their health because of it. I find it ironic that the cheerleaders of the paradigm are quite vociferous in their views (and dismissive of opposing views), yet we rarely hear from anyone who has taken the protease inhibitors, nucleoside analogues and claimed major health benefits.

    My knowledge (on this issue) surely isn’t remarkable. I recently had some free time, where I read Dr. Culshaw’s book, and examined the issue (just a bit). I liked her mathematical, logical mind. She made some good, powerful scientific arguments. Those arguments help explain the years of futility in AIDS science.

    The word “futility” may be a little strong. Precisely, I mean the failure to develop a vaccine, which is how we eradicated polio and small pox, and a host of other viral diseases.

    It just seems to me — connecting the dots — we have a deadly human retrovirus that is harmless to other primates, has a 10-year inactive, symptom-free, latency period, selectively targets gay men, and somehow dismantles powerful white blood cells through an “unknown” mechanism, without ever reaching high-titer.

    Upthread someone noted that Dr. Grossman described it as a “conundrum.” To me, that is an understatement.

  239. FSM above, lincoln. Can’t a guy go to bed? I signed off after my last comment, and haven’t been online (with spare time) until now. Are you really that attention starved? You will have a rough time the next few days with midterms.

    As AIDS is defined, an HIV+ test AND and AIDS defining illness are required (or a CD4+ count lower than 200), which one can look at the list and see that they are not common. Your attempts to cast them as such are blatant misrepresentations of the truth. Whether one believes that they have HIV or not is immaterial to the clinical facts of their case. Beyond that, people got AIDS before the discovery of the virus, so your claim fails to meet the requirement of temporal progression.

    As to stress and the immune system, yes, as DT pointed out, stress can affect the immune system, but not to extent that HIV does. Making such claims puts you in the camp with quacks such as Ryke Geerd Hamer and Scientology.

    ————–

    Noreen,

    The African AIDS epidemic is being caused by a different strain of HIV, with somewhat different epidemiological properties. Also, public health/prevention campaigns have not typically been pursued as actively in many parts of Africa as compared to the US.

    HIV is not a harmless virus. That much is clear. It degrades the immune system, making it possible for opportunistic infections to occur.

    About half of all new HIV cases occur in individuals under 25. Also, if someone starts having sex in their mid teens, AND IF they become infected with HIV, they normally don’t progress to AIDS until they are in their mid 20s. Slower progressors would show up between their late 20s to mid 30s. Sources available here. I know that your claim may make you feel better regarding your denialist stance, but like much of the denialsit beliefs, they aren’t based in reality.

    That you are living healthfully now, despite having AIDS, is not proof that HIV does not cause AIDS. Nor is this is no predictor of your future health. As the case histories of HIV/AIDS patients who stop therapy are described, a symptom free period of time after stopping therapy is not uncommon. I will not, however, dance around the facts. Untreated AIDS patients do progress to serious illness faster than those receiving therapy. Those patients who halt therapy completely progress on average more quickly than those who remain on therapy.

    I do not say this to be mean or spiteful, but to be truthful and honest regarding the science.

    The statistics are not in your favor, and when/if you progress, the denialists will slander you in order to separate your story from their neat, anti-scientific beliefs. It has happened before, and will happen again. They are only interested in you as long as you fit their beliefs. After that…

    I am glad you are having a symptom free life, but your story makes me sad.

    Care to provide a citation regarding Gallo’s patients?

    Best wishes.

  240. Barry,

    The word “futility” may be a little strong. Precisely, I mean the failure to develop a vaccine, which is how we eradicated polio and small pox, and a host of other viral diseases.

    It just seems to me — connecting the dots — we have a deadly human retrovirus that is harmless to other primates, has a 10-year inactive, symptom-free, latency period, selectively targets gay men, and somehow dismantles powerful white blood cells through an “unknown” mechanism, without ever reaching high-titer.

    From the isolation of the polio virus in 1840, it took until 1955 for the Salk vaccine to be developed. This arguement is a strawman. The lack of a vaccine for hep C is not evidence that hep C research is futile.

    That HIV is species specific is not unusual for a virus. The latency period is not common, but also not unheard of. The virus does not target gay individuals, but it has been more commonly found in that demographic. The mechanism for HIV’s hijacking and destruction of CD4+ cells is not completely known, but we are moving forward on the topic. Just because you are (willfully) unaware of the research does not mean that it does not exist.

  241. “The African AIDS epidemic is being caused by a different strain of HIV, with somewhat different epidemiological properties.” (Robster)

    Robster, are their any special African strain properties we should know about? Feel free to elaborate.

    In relation to that, I’m also looking at the list of AIDS defining diseases as you suggested. Are you saying none of these diseases/symptoms, like TB, are common among Africans?

    Do you really need a special properties African strain to explain the extrapolated higher AIDS rate in Africa, or was that another lucid example of, to paraphrase David Ho, “it’s all in the virus stupid”

  242. Believe me, as sick and as close to death that I was, if I was going to succumb to AIDS, it would have happened by now. As you say, the lower the CD4’s are and the greater the viral load at the time of stopping the drugs, supposedly increases the fall that much faster. It hasn’t happened. In fact, I am much healthier even after all that I have been through. I believe that this quite well proves that the human body is remarkable and very capable of healing itself if given the proper ingredients in which to work with and if one has the proper mental attitude about it.

  243. Barry,
    I’d just like to touch again on your virus model. What you have simplistically represented is a model of how viruses replicate, but NOT how they produce disease.

    Of course there will be some lysis of host cells in which the virus replicates. Only rarely is this direct cytotoxicity the predominant mechanism by which the host becomes ill. Virtually all viruses induce damage indirectly by immunopathogenic meachanisms such as triggering cytokine cascades, cytotoxic T cell activation and so on. Often the brunt of the damage is not even just on cells that express viral proteins but on other tissues or cells.

    In fact if you can name half a dozen viruses out of all the human pathogenic viruses we know which cause damage through your direct lysis mechanism I would be surprised.

    Most viruses have evolved fairly unique methods of causing disease and propogating themselves. Why on earth is it so strange that HIV seems to have exploited an unusual evolutionary niche? Ultimately we will see it evolve into a near harmless infection because of a combination of host genetic susceptibility adaptations and a reduction in HIV virulence. This is perhaps already happening, since there are strains of HIV that are less pathogenic than others, and hosts who possess innate immunity to a lesser or greater extent. This has already happened with animal retroviruses like SIV (but introduce them into a new susceptible population like macaques and hey presto you get monkey AIDS -and all without giving them steroids, stress, chemicals, anal semen injections, poppers, heroin, blood transfusions, oxidative stress, etc).
    Do you have an explanation for the pathogenesis of immunodeficiency in macaques?

  244. If I have time between studying, I will find a link to a page regarding the differences between HIV-1 and HIV-2.

    The TB bacteria is endemic in much of Africa, but the incidence of clinical tuberculosis has increased, and death rates have risen in age groups that typically do not develop fullblown tuberculosis.

  245. “A diagnosis of being HIV+ would cause stress, yes.
    But I fail to see why this stress should be more significant than in anyone undergoing other similar stressful events.”

    You mentioned the stress of grieving parents or so and I fail utterly to see how this compares to a death sentence.
    The stress here is the one suffered after having been handed a death sentence thus the drive to add counseling in association with any HIV test. HIV diagnosis is associated with a high incidence of suicide. Doktors who engage in death prophesies and mental health sabotage are, in my opinion, the first in line for a prison sentence. They should be more careful and honest in the case of HIV and simply admitt that they don’t really know, beyond simple extrapolation and speculation based on prejudiced moral pitfalls, how deadly it is. Were they to do this, HIV related mortality would drop even further. But that would have huge financial and political consequences; how do you sell handguns and the Patriot Act to the people unless you make them believe that the world is unsafe?

  246. Pat, statistics and epidemiology are not prejudiced moral pitfalls. The evidence is not prejudiced.

    Blaming AIDS progression on drug abuse, however, is.

    Are you part of the Hamer cult of emotional shock as a cause of disease as well?

    Extreme stress is extreme stress. It causes an increase in cortisol, but not enough to cause the immune dysfunction that HIV does.

    If it did, individuals with severe anxiety disorder would develop AIDS.

    They don’t.

    The hypothesis must be rejected.

  247. Pat, I doubt you would convince a grieving parent that their stress is somehow less prolonged than that of someone being diagnosed with an infection with a (currently) estimated survival of 35 years plus. Where did you get the idea HIV was an automatic death sentence, and why should it be less of a “death” sentence that breast cancer?

    I constantly see happy, psychologically well-adjusted HIV-infected individuals getting on with their lives and not wallowing in anguish over their diagnosis. Some of the “worst” psychologically adapted individuals I have seen are people who have given themselves the “death” sentence of chronic fatigue syndrome. Never kills them though, or gives them PCP or cerebral Toxo though (funny that).

    And no matter how severe the stress, as I have stated, the immunosuppression that it can cause pales into insignificance compared to what HIV can do.

  248. Robster, let a doctor tell you that you have an incurable disease and see how that makes your day. Most, cannot handle the stress and mental aspect of all this and if they accept this to be true mentally, well, it may become self-fulfilling.

    Once, I received and email and the person was confused about the drugs. Contrary to what you may think, I never tell anyone not to take their drugs as that has to be their decision. This particular individual wanted to come off his meds and he told me that the first time he did, he had a panic attack. Believe me, I told him that he probably was not a good candidate to do this. Every one’s make-up is different and if one needs the mental aspect of the drugs, well that fine with me and should stay on them. I cannot chart a course for others nor do I try.

  249. “If I have time between studying, I will find a link to a page regarding the differences between HIV-1 and HIV-2.

    The TB bacteria is endemic in much of Africa, but the incidence of clinical tuberculosis has increased, and death rates have risen in age groups that typically do not develop fullblown tuberculosis.” (Robster)

    HIV 1 and 2 are not two different strains, but two different viruses.

    If it’s any consolation, the name trickery used to fool me as well. It still fools DT, that’s why he calls the effects of SIV on lab monkeys “AIDS”.

    When you’ve got something as vague as immunodeficiency in the presence of a virus of choice (which you make sure to name “immunodeficiency virus”, SIV, FIV, HIV 1-2 etc. ad infinitum if need be), then calls whatever diseases/symptoms that arise ‘AIDS’, voila you’re onto a winner in the form of an unfalsifiable, circular hypothesis, compltete with the usual endless supply of back-ups, so-called animal models in this case.

    Robster, have you ever looked at Africa on the map? Have you ever looked at the problems other than HIV plaguing large parts of that huge and varied continent? Those who have, will know how utterly meaningless your blanket statement in support of “HIV special African strain” caused TB is.

    Allow me to refer you again to

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/

    Apart from the front page article on the Western antibody tests as applied to ‘Africans’ (South Africans in this case), you can scroll down a couple of articles to “The Achmat Indictment, Part II: Genocidal Complicity by the Media” for more. Or enter “Africa” in the search and find even more articles on Africa by Rebecca Culshaw among others.

  250. Robster— Subtype C is the subtype youre thinking of, and yes it has different epidemiological properties from the initially prevalent subtypes. Its actually a really interesting story, evolutionarily speaking, but I dont want to bore the Deniers with science.

    *waves to Deniers* Defeated Voldemort to win 100 points for Hufflepuff yet?

  251. Barnesworld? Thanks, but no thanks. Perhaps you could try out AIDSTruth. But fact is the denialist’s worst nightmare.

    HIV-2 does cause an AIDS-like syndrome, is much more common in Africa, but yes, it was not the virus that I was thinking of.

    Thanks, ERV for pointing out the subtype difference.

    Pope, I think you need to look up “falsifiable.” Just because the denialists can’t prove HIV not to be the cause of AIDS does not make the theory non-falsifiable. The denialist hypotheses were demonstrated to be false, but they can’t get around to accepting it.

    —————

    Noreen, I’m glad you aren’t pushing the no-meds route. That some do this is extremely unethical.

  252. Here’s a recent paper I enjoyed reading.

    It’s by scientists at Cold Spring Harbor — where, I believe, Jim Watson, is chief.

    The journal is Journal of Cell Biology, put out by Rockefeller Institute. Not the best, but squarely in the mainstream of publications.

    So, nobody can question the credentials.

    The article examines whether “fusion” is a potential mechanism for viral induced cancer.

    Whether retroviruses cause human cancer is a subject of discussion. The claim that they do is based on epidemiological data (for a review see Mant et al, 2004), whereas the claim that they do not is based on the argument that the viruses fail the requirements imposed by Koch’s postulates (Duesberg 1987; Blaho and Aronson 1999; Talbot and Crawford, 2004). These postulates, as applied to cancer, argue that a candidate virus must be present in cancer, but not in healthy cells, must be isolated from the cancer cells, must cause oncogenic transformation if introduced into normal cells, and must be present in these cells once they are transformed. Indeed, if these standards apply, the proof that viruses are etiologic agents of human cancer falls short (see Mant et al, 2004). For example, only 1% of people infected with HTLV-1 develop cancer with no apparent correlation between carcinogenesis and the virus integration sites (Hanai et al 2004), whereas another small fraction of the carriers, develop a disease unrelated to cancer.

    The next paragraph has a scholarly discussion on Koch’s Postulates, and whether or not they apply. Feel free to read it.

    My initial take:

    1. Cell “fusion” is a viable hypothesis on how viruses may cause cancer.

    2. Has this mechanism been proposed to explain how HIV works?

    3. The scientific fact that HTLV (Robert Gallo’s initial baby, the progenitor of the “AIDS” virus) causes cancer in only 1% of infected people, means that it doesn’t cause cancer in humans. Sorry. Perhaps the authors were too gracious to state this explicitly, but anyone can read between the lines.

    The evidence is weak that it causes cancer. Naming it a “leukemia” virus is presumptious. Transforming this “cancer” virus into an “AIDS” virus is doubly presumptious.

    Based on this paper alone, I see no problem in taking a second look at whether (not how) retroviruses cause cancer or any other disease in humans.

  253. I have consistently told anyone and everyone that I do not work in a HIV related field. This hasn’t stopped numerous people from accusing me of being a pharma-shill.

    They’re just like alties, these HIV “dissidents” are. They sure do love the “pharma shill” gambit whenever criticized, and they seem to love the Galileo gambit even more, particularly in reference to their heroes like Peter Duesberg.

  254. Robster,

    I’d appreciate if you could help me out with this concept of unfalsifiability. Let’s take a simple example if you don’t mind, so that I can better understand. How would I go about disproving the claim that only HIV causes AIDS (in humans)?

  255. it is a matter of public record that a number of “rethinkers” have been pursuing legal avenues to achieve their goals. They have been actively seeking test cases that they can use to promote their “alternative” theories.

    Hello Chris. I see that you are up to your dimwitted analysis again. Do you ever take a break? Are you being paid?

    When a paradigm shift is “in progress”, the courts, or “legal avenues”, are usually the only public institution capable of providing an unbiased venue, one where independent thought still has currency. When the corruption reaches a tipping point, such legal challenges are to be expected. Once again, it’s a natural part of the process, and this phenomenon has been repeated throughout civilized history. You obviously didn’t complete your homework.

    You really should read “Dogma and Doubt”; I’m not being facetious. It can help you escape the darkness and the insecurity of your perfect dogma. It really is full of wonderful insights into the dogmatic fervor that is so obvious to any objective observer when faced with the specious science supporting HIV. I don’t have a copy handy, but maybe I’ll post something from it later.

    You never answered my previous question…do you or do you not understand why criticism of the HIV theory of causation is justified, particularly given the recent radical explanatory changes in the method of causation?
    If not, please feel free to be as dogmatic in your reply as you feel is sufficient to bolster your confidence and your own fervor for what smarter people realize is a dying paradigm.

    Kevin

  256. When a paradigm shift is “in progress”, the courts, or “legal avenues”, are usually the only public institution capable of providing an unbiased venue, one where independent thought still has currency. When the corruption reaches a tipping point, such legal challenges are to be expected. Once again, it’s a natural part of the process, and this phenomenon has been repeated throughout civilized history. You obviously didn’t complete your homework.

    Can you provide a single example of a scientific revolution occurred not by the presentation of scientific evidence to peers but through the courts?

  257. High levels of stress do affect the immune system, but in a minor and non-specific way.

    2. A diagnosis of being HIV+ would cause stress, yes.But I fail to see why this stress should be more significant than in anyone undergoing other similar stressful events.

    DT, you are nothing if not a fraud.

    Let’s see if I understand you…after saying that “high levels of stress do affect the immune sytem but (only) in a minor and non-specified way”, you then proceed to say that being HIV+ would cause stress, but you fail to see why it would be any more significant than similar stressful events. It should surprise no one that you are careful not to claim that being diagnosed HIV+ is a high level stress event.

    First, what similar stressful events are you imagining. For example, what other “similar event” can you think of that not only condemns the patient to certain death but that also makes the patient a sexual pariah for the rest of his/her life (in the eyes of most, anyway). You’re a disingenious hack, DT! Perhaps, you could provide some data to support that very real reality.

    The stress that comes with an HIV+ diagnosis is unprecedented. Patients are told that they are incurable, that there is no hope for recovery; that the only sanctioned treatment causes severe side effects adds nothing to the equation, right? All that before one even begins to address the shame associated with this “illness”. At least, with cancer, there is hope for a cure, and terminal patients are often treated by peers with newfound respect. Not so, with AIDS, especially in the gay community.

    As for your general comments on stress, you miss the mark there, too. The effects of stress on the body are most likely extremely variable among individuals, and for you to speak so flippantly about it just further cements you as a dogmatic fool.

    Elimination of stress was absolutely essential in my own battle with severe candidiasis and the associated immune dysfunction. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been had I been branded HIV+.

    Kevin

  258. Chris said: “Can you provide a single example of a scientific revolution occurred not by the presentation of scientific evidence to peers but through the courts”?

    Yes indeed we can Chris, it just so happens that we are discussing one right here and now!

  259. Thalidomide:

    In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the drug thalidomide caused an estimated 10,000 birth defects and thousands of fetal deaths worldwide. The affected babies typically suffered from phocomelia, a failure of the limbs to develop. These unfortunate children were cruelly referred to as “flipper babies.” Thalidomide had been prescribed to pregnant women to help reduce morning sickness, but tragically, it turned out to be toxic to developing fetuses.

    Responding to a public outcry regarding drug safety, the U.S. Congress passed the previously unpopular Kefauver-Harris Act in October of 1962, which, among other things, mandated that all drugs undergo preclinical testing to demonstrate their safety and effectiveness. The FDA has interpreted these preclinical standards as a call for mandatory animal testing. This interpretation expressed the will of the bill’s sponsor, Senator Estes Kefauver, but was based on a misunderstanding of the science behind drug testing. The politician mistakenly argued that thalidomide had never been tested on animals and that it was this lack of animal testing that had led to its disastrous clinical use.

  260. The dangers of thalidomide came to be known not because of any court case but because doctors like William McBride presented evidence that the drug was causing birth defects. It was this evidence that convinced his peers and stopped the prescription of the drug to pregnant women.

    In contrast the Perth Group and other “rethinkers” have had ample opportunity to present their evidence and they have completely failed to convince anything other than an inconsequential number of doctors or scientists that their ideas have any validity.

  261. [Well, if I’m not evidence, then I don’t know what is? How have I lived a year without the medicines, my doctors say that it can’t be done! And as far as evidence goes, the mainstream sure is lacking in that department.]

    How does this prove that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS?

  262. Pharmaceutical Litigation, Defective Drugs and Medical Devices
    Each year, thousands of people die from or are seriously injured by prescription and over-the-counter drugs they believe to be safe. Patients trust these defective drugs will not harm them because they have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or been prescribed by doctors or pharmacists they know and trust. But unfortunately, many of these defective drugs are inadequately tested or have insufficient warnings on their labels. Ultimately, they can lead to serious health ailments, from high blood pressure to acute liver failure to permanent disfigurement.

    COX-2 Inhibitors

    Cholesterol Drugs

    Erectile Dysfunction Drugs

    Defective Medical Devices

    Atypical Anti-Psychotics

    ADHD Drugs

    Other Defective Drugs

  263. DT said:

    “Do you have an explanation for the pathogenesis of immunodeficiency in macaques”?

    I have an explanation DT, and we can try it out on you for further verification. Let’s put you into a small cage, and perform daily “Hail Mary” experiments up your anal cavity with SIV and anal microbicides, which by the way does not affect humans, and lets poke you and jab you with needles and other research instruments for several months, and then we will wait to see how long it takes for you to get ill, which should not take long. We will then have supposedly proved that SIV actually IS the cause of your illness, and we will pretend that it is not the effect of the stress that you have been put under, even though you will be the only human to have contracted AIDS thru SIV. And you will be held up as proof that SIV caused your disease, not any other co-factor.

    When would you like to begin, DT, because I would like to see you Hail Mary’ed and anally reamed as soon as possible?

  264. Hey everybody, CHECK IT OUT, DT has just verified for us that stress suppresses the ability of the immune system to recover from illness, and is therefore the cause of AIDS.

    DT SAID, and I quote: “1. High levels of stress do affect the immune system”

    DT SAID, and I quote: “2. A diagnosis of being HIV+ would cause stress”.

    Thank you for explaining the cause of AIDS, there DT. We will now have to adjust all of the science books to attribute the finding that stress causes AIDS to you.

  265. Thank you DT for clarifying stress as one of the leading causes of immune suppression and therefore AIDS.

    Would you please clarify for us another question?

    Does illicit drug abuse affect the immune system in negative ways or not?

    Come on, DT, I dare you to answer the question and a simple yes or no instead of your but but but butts, would be most greatly appreciated.

  266. Hello Chris. I fail to see it as any type of misinterpretation, Chris.

    Just because it does not fit your HIV model does not make my statement a misinterpretation!

    Stress either lowers the ability of an immune system to recover, and is therefore a direct contributor to immunodeficiency, or it is not.

    As everyone, including yourself agree that stress absolutely is a cause of immunodeficiency, it is then absolutely a cause in the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, otherwise known as AIDS.

    Pretty basic fact Chris, that you yourself have also agreed with:

    FACT:

    A SYNDROME OF ACQUIRED STRESS IS A CAUSE OF ACQUIRED IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME, or AIDS!

  267. Hey DT, after you answer my question of whether or not illicit drug addiction contributes to suppression in healing from illness, then, if you would be so kind as to also answer this question:

    DT, Would being disowned by ones family for being gay contribute to a gay man’s stress level?

    Yes or no please.

    DT???? Yes or no please.

  268. “Can you provide a single example of a scientific revolution occurred not by the presentation of scientific evidence to peers but through the courts”

    I’ll start out with a favorite quote from “Dogma and Doubt” since I’m sure you’ll never read it, Chris:

    “Custom does not breed understanding, but takes its place, teaching people to make their way contentedly through the world without knowing what the world is, nor what they think of it, nor what they are. … Criticism arises out of the conflict of dogmas. The more perfect the dogmatism, the more insecure.” — G. Santayana

    I would normally not take issue with insistence on “the presentation of scientific evidence” regarding matters of science; however, HIV is no longer only about the scientific evidence. It is a socio-political monster and your “peers” are no longer just scientists, Chris. This new brand of science lacks sufficient integrity; it derives much of its status and influence from the use questionable soci-political tactics, i.e. television adverts that use uninfected models as spokespersons for HIV meds is not only intentionally misleading, it’s indicative of the rancor behind the HIV monster. Public acceptance has become far more important than any truths derived from adherence to traditional scientific standards. That is why the 1984 press conference will live in infamy. This paradigm shift may be radical. As I’ve previously pointed out, the entire system in which medical research resides is morally bankrupt. This awakening will be a painful experience for all, and HIV will be but one, among many fantasies to bite the dust. Regardless, there are modern examples of court decisions that oppose the scientific consensus. How about Phen-fen or Vioxx? FDA-approved my ass! If anyone wants to see how thoroughly compromised our government is, check out the following website:

    honestdoctor dot org (screw the lousy spam filter on this site)

    However, precedence does exist, otherwise. One can easily use the popular example of the Copernican Revolution to see parallels. As new information surfaced, Ptolemy’s perfect cosmology was shown to hold insufficient explanatory value, and independent thinkers such as Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler were among the first to demonstrate why; yet, the leaders of the Catholic Church supressed all dissent. Does that sound familiar? As new information has surfaced, the HIV theory has been show to lack sufficient explanatory value, too, and those who have pointed out such shortcomings, such as Peter Duesberg, continue to be persecuted and professionally maligned by the leaders of the new church, the Church of HIV.

    Of course, things move much more quickly nowadays. Back then, public opinion was slow to change, but that will not be the case with HIV. Legal challenges like the one in Australia will continue, and public opinion will be affected. When the masses wake up to the fraud that has been carried out against them in the name of corporate profiteering, well, who’s to say what will become of HIV’s “leading” pundits. Perhaps, they’ll be burned alive. I hope it doesn’t reach that point, for all our sakes, but it could if concurrent economic conditions deteriorate sufficiently. The greedy bastards have gone too far this time. With the housing bubble rapidly deflating and China’s economy showing weakness, this could unravel within a few years. By the way, Chris, how’s the housing market in Australia?

    Regardless, you should add Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” to your reading list. It certainly applies to any evaluation of HIV and the coming paradigm shift (Kuhn created the term), but as I’ve pointed out, this revolution will reach far beyond the confines of Science.

    Kevin

  269. Hey DT, after you answer my question of whether or not being disowned by ones family and loved ones for being gay contributes to stress in gay men, and therefore contributes to suppression in healing from illness, then, if you would be so kind as to also answer this question:

    DT, Would feeling helpless and hopeless, or wishing ones own self to be dead, contribute to a gay man’s, or anyone elses stress level, and therefore affect said gay man’s, or anyone elses, health or ability to recover from illness?

    DT, Yes or no please. Would this affect ones health.

    Yes or no please.

    DT???? Yes or no please.

  270. DT, perhaps you would also answer this:

    Would going on a regimen of pills, wherein one is told “These pills must be taken at exact and certain times and must be taken absolutely every day, or one’s virus will mutate to be untreatable”, would this increase a patients stress level DT?

    Yes or no please, DT.

  271. [Well, if I’m not evidence, then I don’t know what is? How have I lived a year without the medicines, my doctors say that it can’t be done! And as far as evidence goes, the mainstream sure is lacking in that department.]

    How does this prove that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS?

    You are always demanding that others have something worthwhile to contribute, Shalini, but you don’t seem to be able to provide any insight beyond catty one-liners.

    Regardless, read the following paragraph very closely for the answer to your question:

    As a paradigm is stretched to its limits, anomalies — failures of the current paradigm to take into account observed phenomena — accumulate. Their significance is judged by the practitioners of the discipline. Some anomalies may be dismissed as errors in observation, others as merely requiring small adjustments to the current paradigm that will be clarified in due course. Some anomalies resolve themselves spontaneously, having increased the available depth of insight along the way. But no matter how great or numerous the anomalies that persist, Kuhn observes, the practicing scientists will not lose faith in the established paradigm for as long as no credible alternative is available; to lose faith in the solubility of the problems would in effect mean ceasing to be a scientist. — from wikipedia entry on “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”

    Kevin

  272. DT, perhaps you would answer just one more question.

    DT, would the requirement of having ones blood work tests run regularly or semimonthly, increase the stress level of a patient whom was told they must continue to do this for the remainder of their life? And would the waiting period wherein the patient awaits the results, increase the stress level of the patient?

    Yes or no please DT, you piece of drug and toxic dope dealing garbage! YES OR NO MR LEGAL DOPE AND TOXIC POISON PEDDLER.

  273. [Well, if I’m not evidence, then I don’t know what is? How have I lived a year without the medicines, my doctors say that it can’t be done! And as far as evidence goes, the mainstream sure is lacking in that department.]

    I said:
    How does this prove that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS?

    Kevin said:
    [You are always demanding that others have something worthwhile to contribute, Shalini, but you don’t seem to be able to provide any insight beyond catty one-liners.

    Regardless, read the following paragraph very closely for the answer to your question:

    As a paradigm is stretched to its limits, anomalies — failures of the current paradigm to take into account observed phenomena — accumulate. Their significance is judged by the practitioners of the discipline. Some anomalies may be dismissed as errors in observation, others as merely requiring small adjustments to the current paradigm that will be clarified in due course. Some anomalies resolve themselves spontaneously, having increased the available depth of insight along the way. But no matter how great or numerous the anomalies that persist, Kuhn observes, the practicing scientists will not lose faith in the established paradigm for as long as no credible alternative is available; to lose faith in the solubility of the problems would in effect mean ceasing to be a scientist. — from wikipedia entry on “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”]

    Again, I’ll repeat that the denialists can never give a straight answer to any of my supposedly simple ‘one liners’. If Kevin is correct in claiming that all my statements are ‘catty one-liners’, he would certainly be able to answer my SIMPLE question directly and accurately, wouldn’t he? The paragraph he quoted has nothing to do with HIV and AIDS.

    After everything, I have still not seen any science from the denialist side.

  274. How the people like Pope, Kevin and Barry must hate it each time Lincoln posts a diatribe. He can do more in one sentence to expose the “rethinkers'” cause as completely bogus than anyone from the orthodox camp can achieve in several paragraphs.

    Oh, and Lincoln, before you ask, yes I agree that having egg on toast in the morning is stressful, and so is having to watch “Lost”.

  275. Shalini,

    The reason why you’re not receiving an answer to your question is because you’re asking the wrong people. It’s not Noreen (or Mark, or a host of others constituting 20% of all HIV+, according to DT’s present count) who have claimed that if they don’t take their drugs regularly they will be dead shortly. It’s their doctors.

    It’s not Noreen or Mark who have said that “antivirals work, therefore HIV=AIDS”, but learned ‘HIV scientists’. If you’re uncomfortable with Noreen’s response: “antivirals are not a necessary component of the equation, therefore HIV not= AIDS”, take it up with those who made up the original equation. It was last proclaimed at the court case in Adelaide, where it was also said that we shouldn’t let all the paradoxes of HIV science throw doubt on HIV=AIDS because paradoxes are the norm in science.

    And on that note I’m eagerly waiting for Robster to educate me regarding my mistaken interpretation of the concept of falsifiability.

  276. “Pat, statistics and epidemiology are not prejudiced moral pitfalls. The evidence is not prejudiced.
    Blaming AIDS progression on drug abuse, however, is.
    Are you part of the Hamer cult of emotional shock as a cause of disease as well?
    Extreme stress is extreme stress. It causes an increase in cortisol, but not enough to cause the immune dysfunction that HIV does.
    If it did, individuals with severe anxiety disorder would develop AIDS.
    They don’t.
    The hypothesis must be rejected.” -Robster

    Can you explain how the Drug Hypothesis is prejudiced because I don’t get it. HIV/AIDS is “aquired” as in “you brought it upon yourself” through “butthole-surfing”, needle sharing or simply because you’re “too black”.

    No, I don’t care much for Hamer although any good doctor will tell you that the first step to recovery is believing in it. Funny how I almost got lumped in there with Hamer- courtesy of Shubladendenken.

    “Extreme stress is extreme stress. It causes an increase in cortisol, but not enough to cause the immune dysfunction that HIV does.
    If it did, individuals with severe anxiety disorder would develop AIDS.
    They don’t.”
    This is non-sense. Not all smoking leads necessarily to lung cancer and HPV doesn’t necessarily cause cervical cancer etc. etc. so why would stress necessarily lead to AIDS?
    Stress alone cannot cause AIDS (which no one is actually claiming) and many very respectable scientists (Montagner among others) would tell you HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS. But you do re-inforce how nasty HIV is compared to other stressors…which leads to more (dis)stress.

    “Pat, I doubt you would convince a grieving parent that their stress is somehow less prolonged than that of someone being diagnosed with an infection with a (currently) estimated survival of 35 years plus. Where did you get the idea HIV was an automatic death sentence, and why should it be less of a “death” sentence that breast cancer?

    OK, you’re arguing out of all your orifices here. First off, a grieving parent’s health is not under threat from an “ugly-sex” virus and they don’t need life-long chemotherapy to treat their grief “infection”. Second, where have you been all these years? HIV/AIDS is to this day INCURABLE and is constantly advertised as DEADLY. But then, oddly enough, you arse argues against your mouth and you ask why it is less of a death sentence then breast cancer. Which way would you like it? Y can’t have both sides of the argument at the same time.

    “I constantly see happy, psychologically well-adjusted HIV-infected individuals getting on with their lives and not wallowing in anguish over their diagnosis. Some of the “worst” psychologically adapted individuals I have seen are people who have given themselves the “death” sentence of chronic fatigue syndrome. Never kills them though, or gives them PCP or cerebral Toxo though (funny that).”

    Here it depends on your understanding of “happy”. Happilly vomitting, soiling their pants and watching their faces morph away?

    “And no matter how severe the stress, as I have stated, the immunosuppression that it can cause pales into insignificance compared to what HIV can do.”

    And here, out of both ends at the same time, you argue against stress as a factor in immuno-supression all-the-while re-inforcing it as a factor by claiming how it all “pales” in comparison to HIV infection.

  277. Stress is just one component of AIDS, there are many others such as drugs, diet, past medical history and treatments, life-style habits, etc. This is why drugs nor a vaccination will not cure AIDS. The cure is so simple and will not rake in the dough that no one is interested in it. The truth has set me free as the good book says and you folks can contiune to argue about AIDS as for me, I have experienced it and know how it makes one feel, physically and emotionally. I know what works and what doesn’t. I have been on and off the drugs and know how to restore health, which is no great secret and others can do it too.

  278. If Kevin is correct in claiming that all my statements are ‘catty one-liners’, he would certainly be able to answer my SIMPLE question directly and accurately, wouldn’t he? The paragraph he quoted has nothing to do with HIV and AIDS.

    Did you even attempt to understand the paragraph I quoted? If you did, you’d see that it has everything to do with HIV and AIDS. I’m trying to teach you that thinking for yourself is not a crime, Shalini. You really can rise above your simpleton status, with a little effort.

    Here’s the simple answer you crave:

    Noreen and others like her are “anamolies.” Long-term non-progressors are “anamolies.” HIV-negative AIDS cases, such as myself, are “anamolies.” Let that sink in Shalini. Ready to continue? Not only are we anamolies but Noreen and I have both recovered our health only after abandoning the treatment protocol that is advocated by the current paradigm. It is very likely that others could recover their health too, if they were properly treated. As Pope as pointed out, the paradigm’s response to this collection of anamolous phenomena has not been adequate. Simply asserting that paradoxes, or anamolies, are the norm in science does nothing to address the import of individual instances of anamolies, and when numerous accounts of individual anamolies appear, well, it seems only reasonable to re-evalute the paradigm that labels them anamolous in the first place.

    I hope this explanation is simple enough for you, Shalini. If not, then perhaps you are as dimwitted as some of your cohorts.

    And on that note I’m eagerly waiting for Robster to educate me regarding my mistaken interpretation of the concept of falsifiability.

    Me, too, Pope.

    Kevin

  279. If stress causes AIDS then how does one explain the significant fraction of AIDS patients (like noreen as I recall) who don’t even know they are HIV positive until they already have AIDS? Also, how does one explain why the HIV positive children of HIV positive mothers develop AIDS when HIV negative children of HIV positive mothers don’t? Stress, drugs, diet etc. may contribute to ill health but the one common factor among AIDS patients is HIV.

  280. DT wrote:

    How the people like Pope, Kevin and Barry must hate it each time Lincoln posts a diatribe.

    Another false statement. I don’t hate it when Lincoln posts a diatribe. I wouldn’t post the way he does. It’s not my style. I’d prefer both sides to calm down and examine the scientific claims without pre-determined conclusions.

    But the tone was set early by the host and her sneering attempt to associate the odd views of an obscure Gambian man with those who genuinely identify scientific problems with the “one virus” paradigm.

    And, you, have set a poor example yourself, if you claim to be purely a seeker of scientific truth.

    Any time the adults want to inhale, relax and take a whack at this “conundrum,” I’m game.

  281. I don’t think that HIV is a common factor but the bogus test is common to all who test positive. As I state in my upcoming book, if one has green eyes and now there is a test available for green eyes, then one will always test positive, if in fact one has green eyes. That would be a given, it doesn’t mean anything else nor does it mean that one is sick and dying because of it. Although, the way that one perceives the HIV test, the viral load and CD4’s is all important. It’s a revolving circle if one buys into these three items. One then gives control of how one feels and one’s life over to unimportant tests. No wonder the AIDS docs have gotten away with this for so long, they are using fear to their advantage and most, but not all patients, let them get away with it.

  282. Dale, there’s the old name trickery confusing you again. Stress doesn’t cause AIDS. Stress causes immunosuppresion, which lead to opportunistic diseases and perhaps death. “AIDS” is something you guys call those diseases if in addition there’s a positive HIV test.

    Nobody said stress is the only cause of severe immunosupression; various other things, like malnutrition and drugs, can also do the trick.

  283. I think Pope is right. The question isn’t, Does stress cause AIDS?

    The question is:

    What effect does stress have on your immune system?

    A secondary queston might be:

    What effect does X have on your immune system?

    [X = poppers or meth or cocaine or Hep B vaccination or anti-biotics or retrovirus or sleep deprivation or malnutrition]

    Of course, you could break down “immune system” to “CD4 cell count”, if you want to be even more specific.

    Does anyone disagree with this *simple* re-formulation of the issue?

  284. Barry, I came into this discussion late in the day. Reading through it I have seen pretty consistent respect shown by both sides for the other.
    With one exception. I don’t really mind if Lincoln wishes to call me a “piece of drug and toxic dope dealing garbage” or expresses his wish to see me “Hail Mary’d and anally reamed” or some of the other terms he has used. I just wish he would attempt to respond to validly-put points rather than spamming the thread with unconnected and incoherent ramblings which are devoid of any scientific merit. Even if you don’t “hate it” – a remark I made with a degree of irony – I am sure you don’t appreciate the impression they give the rethinker cause.

    BTW – Perhaps you would you care to explain the pathogenesis of immunodeficiency in macaques infected with SIV?

  285. Barry, I would agree that all of these things play into determining a person’s immune sytem with the exception of CD4’s as many people, including athletes, have been know to have low CD’4’s. Mine two weeks ago were 86. It doesn’t bother me if they keep on dropping because I have no symptoms and that is what is important. As stated many times, it is the significance that one places on these numbers that is important. Some might have low CD4’s and stress themselves out worry about it, which cannot be helpful to one’s health.

  286. BTW – Perhaps you would you care to explain the pathogenesis of immunodeficiency in macaques infected with SIV? (DT)

    DT,

    We can all agree that Lincoln’s style is erm… his own, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t make valid points in between his hail Marys. So what’s wrong with the explanation he’s just given you of the observed immunodeficiency in “infected” macaques?

  287. Poor little DT.

    I have yet to see any answers from you on the few short simple questions I asked. And all that was required was a simple yes or no to any of them.

    All you have done is avoid the obvious, and run away to cry. I would too if I were you. The truth sometimes hurts, poor baby!

    For all who were unaware, DT is a drug rep for pharmaceutical companies. And a Godless, and seemingly ignorant one at that.

  288. Hi Lincoln,

    DT is a drug rep for pharmaceutical companies

    I don’t want to be a scold or a school-marm, and I do think the host here set the unpleasant tone with her sneering a-scientific post about Gambian silliness, but….

    In order for the discussion to benefit anyone, I do think we all should tone it down a bit, and I would be intellectually dishonest not to mention that some of your remarks probably went over the line, as well.

    Whether or not DT is a pharmaceutical representative should be irrevelant. Whether someone is gay or not should irrelevant.

    I think all commentators should strive deeply to recognize the importance of this scientific issue, leave their biases at the door, and evaluate the scientific evidence for and against any particular claim, without any personal attacks.

    There should be one exception: People who have been diagnosed HIV+ or have ICL should be able to share their personal experiences free from any rancors or attacks. True, this would be considered “anecdotal” evidence, but nonetheless, most of us here share the same objective — that is, to reduce the suffering of people who suffer from the disease called AIDS.

    True, a large majority believes that medications and testing is the best way to achieve this aim, but those in the minority, I believe, deserve a fair shake in making counter-vailing arguments based on evidence.

  289. Hello Barry.

    Point taken, and I do absolutely agree with you that people should take this issue with due seriousness, due respect for others who disagree, and due respect for all of our common humanity. I agree with you that this should be approached as much as is possible for any of us, from a point of non-bias. This requires those who enter these discussions to take note of their own bias, and therefore react accordingly to knowing that ones self is prone to bias.

    However, we ourselves are, and we are dealing with real life human beings. We are all fallible human beings, including the host, and none of us are perfect, nor do we need to be. We simply all need to do our best, and think before reacting from a place of bias or emotionality. And listen before we react and deeply consider what we have just heard, before reacting from a place of bias, judgement, or emotionality.

    Biases should be stated upfront instead of kept hidden. Those who do not wish to state their own bias, should certainly have it exposed by the others. This is the only way to keep integrity, honor, and respect in the discussions.

    Surely if I was a pharma drug rep or researcher, I myself would want to be informed what people think of my products, so I could make decisions regarding these products free of later regrets. Unfortunately, not all humans have yet attained a level of integrity that even allows them to see their own biases, let alone admit them. As such, I do think it important, even crucial, to expose these hidden biases when they appear. Perhaps even the biased can still learn something from this that will benefit them in the future.

    All of humanity is prone to error and correction. All of science and all of religion, and all of human belief is prone to error and correction. This is simply a part of human evolution, and although it can at times be painful to watch people hurting themselves through making mistakes, I for one, simply see this as a part of their own, and hence, all of our own growing and evolutionary process. Life, science included, is a process, not an event, and sometimes that process can seem to be a bit chaotic before it levels out to an even greater height and an even greater truth.

    At this point in human evolution, it seems to me that all of us want integrity in our politicians. We want integrity in our religions. We want integrity in our corporations. We want integrity in our scientists and medical personel and establishments. And, we want integrity from other humans with whom we interact.

    However, it is also a common human frailty, to want integrity in everybody else, without taking an honest assesment of ones own integrity, and seeing to it that ones own self is coming from such a higher level of self integrity.

    As such, all of our selves and our society is currently facing this issue of integrity, as you can see that integrity, and the lack of it, is the fundamental issue of this entire issue of HIV/AIDS, as well as the fundamental issue of this thread.

  290. And Barry, be not afraid, as I am sure you will note by all that I have posted, I am an expert surgeon at slicing out the cancerous cells of irrational emotionality and bias and and lancing the boils of non-integrity, and I have yet to lose a patient in the process, even though the operation may look scary to the unaware.

    And all of our good friends here at Tara’s blogsite will recover from the operation!

  291. Barry, You said:

    “Of course, you could break down “immune system” to “CD4 cell count”, if you want to be even more specific”.

    This could be dangerous to apply this as a yardstick of immune system health. The reason is that CD4 counts being lowered simply seems to be a result of various types, (not necessarily all types) of inflamation. This would explain why many Olympic athletes who work their bodies out to a point of extreme muscular breakdown and inflamation, test as having extremely low CD4 counts.

    There have been various studies over the years that call into question, or call for eliminating CD4 counts as any measure of immune system health, as it can be quite misleading in many circumstances.

  292. From the Abstract:

    Low CD4+ T lymphocyte counts (CD4 counts) are associated with a variety of conditions, including many viral infections, bacterial infections, parasitic infections, sepsis, tuberculosis, coccidioidomycosis, burns, trauma, intravenous injections of foreign proteins, malnutrition, over-exercising, pregnancy, corticosteroid use, normal daily variation, psychological stress, and social isolation. It is also possible that anti-HIV medications can lower CD4 counts when used for long periods, and the short term rise in CD4 counts that is associated with their use may be due to a variety of factors that are unrelated to any anti-HIV activity. Finally, there are a number of people who are completely healthy and who have low CD4 counts for no apparent reason.

    From the Introduction:

    Low CD4 T-cell counts are considered to be a marker of the progression of HIV infection and AIDS, and have been called the ‘hallmark’ of HIV (Balter 1997). Since HIV was first claimed to be the cause of AIDS in 1984, the CD4 count has been widely used to make treatment and diagnostic decisions, but the use of the CD4 count has been controversial, and recommendations regarding how to use them have changed many times over the years (Goldman 2000, Hughes et al. 1998, Choi et al 1993).

    From Me:

    And, ummmm, what was that about HIV killing T Cells again ya’ll???

  293. Hi Lincoln,

    Thank you for your response. Also, interesting article you cited at BMJ by Dr. Irwin. I will digest it and examine some of the cited papers.

    It seems to provide evidence that many different factors can cause CD4 cell depletion, which would indicate that HIV may not be necessary to cause AIDS.

  294. Barry. I don’t even know if we can go so far as to call it “depletion” of the CD4 cells.

    These CD4’s may simply be turned “off” or affected in some other way that they are simply not registering in the counts as CD4 cells.

    Or….Maybe they are just not answering the phone because they are busy attending to other business and do not have time to go for a joyride with the lab techs and know-it-all researchers. Who knows?

  295. I think you will find that many things can upset the immune system. Some of these can do it to such an extent that the end result may be an opportunistic infection such as PCP (patients on potent immunosuppressive drugs or high dose steroids for example). Most of the conditions you refer to that may affect the immune system do not do so in such a profound manner, however, and are not associated with the profoundly and persistently low CD4 counts that are more typical of advanced HIV infection.

    Examples of illnesses such as PCP in someone who is immunosuppressed for some reason but HIV negative is clearly not evidence that HIV cannot cause AIDS (merely evidence that there are other causes of immunosuppression). Studies have consistently shown that when groups of individuals with the same “risk factors” are studied – (eg gay men with similar lifestyles, drug users injecting heroin and using recreational drugs, factor VIII recipients etc) it is only those who are HIV positive who develop profound immunodeficiency and get “AIDS”. This indicates HIV is the crucial factor and is evidence against a multifactorial immune dysfunction hypothesis.

    Another pointer against this is the epidemiological evidence – people have always had the stresses and illnesses you blame for causing immunosuppression and AIDS – but the pandemic of AIDS defining illnesses started only in the early 1980s and its spread mirrors exactly the spread and prevalence of HIV. Look at PCP, which was so unusual that before the 1980s any cases that occurred were usually written up. And yet hundreds of thousands of cases have occurred in HIV positive patients in the US since then.

    More evidence against the “multifactorial” hypothesis comes from he realisation that for many people who are outwardly perfectly healthy, a blood test can still show very low CD4 counts. If low CD4 counts are only the consequence of illness or drugs, how are all the instances explained in HIV positive people who have had none of these? Many studies have also monitored CD4 changes over time in HIV populations – and consistently it is only after many years when the CD4 counts have dropped to very low levels do people become clinically unwell, ie. CD4 decline precedes illness.

    The “BMJ article” you refer to is not a peer reviewed published article in the BMJ. It is another fictional account by Matt Irwin, whose evidence for his claims do not hold up under closer scrutiny. It is easy to generate a list of conditions that can cause a low CD4 count, but when one digs out the actual numbers the clinical significance evaporates. It is not unusual for severe illness to suppress counts below say 300, but how many references give numbers of CD4 counts of less than 50 in someone who is not HIV infected? Answer – none.

  296. Captive macaques only develop Simian AIDS if they are SIV infected. Uninfected captive macaques who have been kept in the same laboratory conditions do not.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=7508724&dopt=Abstract

    Macaques infected with previously determined non-pathogenic clones of SIV (who are kept in identical experimental conditions to your monkeys infected with pathogenic clones) do not develop SAIDS http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/69/7/4198?ijkey=16b2bbf9f3ea680429c422504608582db978bd43&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

    These are reasons to reject Lincoln’s hypothesis of stress and trauma in monkeys from being anally-raped as a valid simian AIDS model. Can someone offer a better one? Or why not just accept that SIV can cause simian AIDS?
    And that HIV can cause human AIDS?
    Why not accept this fact?

  297. Great article Lincoln, now if we could just get the AIDS doctors to read it. I want to steer the boat in another direction, if I may, to the issue of treatment. I will play the devil’s advocate and “assume” that HIV is the culprit. There are so many ways, which are non-lethal to treat HIV or any other virus for that matter.

    Many may not be aware that in 1990 at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, doctors Kaali and Lyman discovered that via bio-electric medicine, they could disinfect bacteria, viruses, fungus and parasites. They in effect killed HIV well over 90% and received a patent. Did this make world-wide headlines, of course not. Did the fact that over 300 cases of AIDS were cured by ozone treatments, which were verified by ELISA, Western Blot and PCR testing make worldwide headlines? Not hardly.

    Or how about last year when BYU developed CSA-54, a compound, which hunts down and kill HIV with the potential to do the same for influenza, smallpox, herpes and the bird flu(if it exists)and lastly where are the headlines for LDN, low dose naltrexone, a wonder drug, which is here now and not only helping AIDS persons but so many with other immune deficiency diseases? The answer to this is simple. These cures are not pushed because there is not tons of money to be made by the drug companies, in other words they don’t want patients cured.

    Take LDN for example, a safe drug with no side effects, which prevents opportunistic diseases. This is a better choice of drugs for AIDS than the current drugs, which are linked to heart attacks, liver failure, nerve problems, disfigurement, anemia, diarrhea and more. Last fall, the Lancet stated that after 22,000 patients and over 10 years, the patients on the anti-virals didn’t live any longer than the patients who did not take them. I see no benefit to them when there is a better drug of choice with well-over, twenty years, safety record, which by the way was initially used on AIDS patients.

    All of the above proves to me that it’s simply a matter of math or better stated money. Why would the drug companies push a drug that is $20.00 per month when they can sell anti-virals for $1,200.00 per month?

  298. DT, you saying that HIV correlates to AIDS in the 1980’s, well so do other things such as drug use, benzene found in sexual lubricants, poppers, etc. To me, these are more destructive to one’s immune system than a retrovirus. And for Matt Irwin not being peer reviewed need we bring up Gallo and his lack of following procedures?

    I fail to see the need for only one cause of AIDS, take cancer for instance, there are numerous causes and co-factors. The only reason HIV is given all the credit is that some gave HIV the spotlight without the proof to back it up, now its a profitable embarrasment to all of us.

  299. On the other hand, noreen, why would the government and HMOs pay millions of dollars a year for ARVs if there were less expensive treatments available that were equally or more effective? None of these things have been shown to work in controlled clinical trials.

  300. A couple of days ago, the subject of Dengue fever was brought into the conversation. Not being up on this issue, I read what Chris referenced in Pub Meb, the last sentence stating, “The continued search to define risk factors in susceptible populations must be combined with the new techniques of molecular virology and innovative approaches in vaccine design to achieve the ulimate objective of developing a safe and effective vaccine…28 Nov. 2006”.

    Going to my resources or the horse’s mouth, Special Issue The Bulletin Of The U.S. Army Medical Department, dated September 1945, I discovered the following:
    Dengue is an acute infectious disease caused by a filtrable virus and transmitted to man by species of Aedes mosquitoes. Its onset occurs with fevers, malaise, headaches, etc. On the 6th or 7th day, there is a secondary fever and sometimes a rash develops. The book went on to say that as early as the second day of the disease, the white blood cell count begins to fall and by the 5th or 6th day, leukopenia may be marked. There is a relative lymphocytosis and a shift to the left of the neutrophils. The blood returns to normal during early convalenscene.

    Also, the mortality rate is extremely low but convalescence may be prolonged. Prevention of dengue primarily was by control of the mosquitoes, protective clothing and insect repellent, pretty much common sense.

  301. Noreen,

    Please don’t fall for the oldest trick in the name trickery book. Of course the spread of HIV and AIDS “mirror” each other perfectly since HIV is part of the definition of AIDS.

    No HIV no AIDS per NIH definition. – And on that note we are still waiting for Robster to come back from his exams and tell us exactly what it is we don’t understand about the concept of falsifiability.

    Apart from that, DT is even worse than Chris Noble who throws pub med at us with no attempt at formulating a coherent argument. DT formulates no coherent argument and in addition he doesn’t supply us with a single reference.

    When something has been ‘consistently shown’ or found to be ‘persistently’ thus, or ‘indicates’ certain things, warrants certain ‘conclusions’, that’s when it’s time to pull out some references and quotations.

    But ok, lets work with what we’re given:

    There was no AIDS before HIV says DT. What does this assertion rest on apart from the already mentioned name trick that made HIV part of the definition of AIDS? Precious little that is not purely nonsensical. DT’s version was this:

    “…it is only those who are HIV positive who develop profound immunodeficiency and get “AIDS”.” (DT)

    In other words, the claim there were ‘no instances of AIDS before HIV’, resolves to the claim there were ‘no instances of “profound immunodeficiency” before HIV…

    Then there’s the PCP argument. According to DT, PCP was almost non-existent before HIV and corresponds perfectly with the spread of HIV. That is of course not true. Conditions like PCP and KS correspond with certain risk groups such as popper users, who hardly existed before the seventies. In the West, TB is prevalent among IV drug users, whereas KS is not really a big hit among factor VIII recipients. The question is where’s the need for HIV to explain these phenomena? It would seem we’re back with that unique to HIV profound immunodeficiency. Even if HIV negative people do get PC occasionally they’re not “profoundly immunodeficient” in that special AIDS way DT tells us; and if they are, it doesn’t disprove that HIV causes AIDS, it only goes to prove that things other than HIV can cause immunosuppresion.

    Why don’t we ask some of our expert witnesses such as Noreen if the doctor in determining if one has AIDS or not usually relies on an HIV test, or if he really suspends judgment until he has clinically determined that one is “profoundly immunodeficient” in a way that is profoundly different from all other known kinds of immunodeficiency?

    Or let me put it differently, if one is HIV+, has cervical cancer but is otherwise not uniquely and profoundly immunodeficient, does one then not yet have clinical AIDS according to official guidelines?

    Or to use another example already mentioned by Noreen and Lincoln, are Olympic athletes “profoundly imunodeficient”? Do they have AIDS? – Still standing by to learn about the concept of falsifiability.

  302. I agree, all of these undiagnosed HIV+’s are living normal lives until they take an HIV test and bingo now their lives are no longer normal and I believe the stress of this diagnosis is certainly detrimental to their well-being. How could it be otherwise? I wonder how many people would develop AIDS if we no longer had an HIV test and drugs and just treated symptoms?

  303. Pope,
    “Olympic athletes” exhibit a transient drop in CD4+ cells following strenuous exercise. They do not show the steady decline over months to years that HIV+ individuals show. The need for HIV to explain PCP or KS or TB is that within the high risk groups that suffer these particular infections/cancer, the incidence is many fold higher in HIV seropositives than it is in seronegatives. HIV is the common factor. Moreover, HIV predicts the development of immunodeficiency while PCP or KS or TB are markers of existing immunodeficiency.

  304. DT,

    The monkey argument is at least backed up. Unfortunately I have access to only the abstracts, which tell very little about the exact conditions the animals were kept under, how well they were matched (apart from age), the exact differences between what they’re inoculated with and how etc.

    I don’t think anybody would argue that certain concoctions are more harmful than others when injected into neonates whose immune systems are not yet functioning. Otherwise we wouldn’t need vaccine trials. Beyond that the link the authors make to HIV/AIDS escapes me.

  305. Dale,

    Does the doctor monitor the CD4 count for months or years before declaring that it’s HIV that causes the decline, or does he rely on the HIV test to tell him?

    If one exhibits a pattern of steadily declining CD4 numbers over months, but is HIV negative, will one become diagnosed with AIDS (in the developed world)?

    If one is HIV positive but shows no pattern of declining CD4 numbers does that override the verdict of the HIV test?

    Nobody’s argued that a positive HIV test is not a good predictor of progression to disease; yellow fingers is a good predictor of lung cancer, extreme stress is a good predictor of immunedeficiency, AZT, especially in high doses, is an excellent predictor of ‘HIV-related’ fatalities.

    The question is thus not if the incidence of HIV in cases of KS, TB etc. is an unreferenced “manifold higher” within the risk groups. The question is whether HIV is needed to explain the causes of death within those risk groups.

  306. Pope: Or to use another example already mentioned by Noreen and Lincoln, are Olympic athletes “profoundly imunodeficient”?
    This oft-mentioned but rarely-read study from the early 80s shows that some long-distance athletes may have lower CD4 counts than the general population. The counts are still within a “normal” range and are rarely below 400.
    Subsequent studies have confirmed that strenuous exercise can sometimes lower CD4 counts, although whether this translates into an effect on immune system function is disputed. Men seem to be more affected than women athletes. There is a higher incidence of minor viral and bacterial infections in long-distance runners. Anecdotally, I had many more colds when I was a long-distance runner myself, at least four or five a year in contrast to my average of between one and two per year since I stopped running competitively eight years ago.
    So yes, some elite athletes are comparatively immunodeficient, but none are “profoundly” so with T-cell counts below 100 or even 200.

  307. On the monkey thing, I happen to work with macaques myself. I will not say where because I don’t want my children followed home from school by freaks. It has happened.
    Every study includes a significant number of control animals. These animals are matched by age, sex, size and weight with the experimental animals. When experimental animals receive an injection of virus, control animals receive an identical volume of the solution containing the virus, just without any virus. The control and experimental animals have separate but identical environments usually in the same larger room. Temperature, humidity, light cycles and other variables are controlled. Tests (blood draws, behavioral tests) done on one group are done on the other group at the same time. Food and water supplies are identical. Interaction with techs and vets is closely monitored. The control and experimental groups may be blinded, that is they’re called A and B with no reference to virus, so no one working with the animals knows at first which group is infected.
    “At first” because depending on the viral strain(s) used as inoculum, the infected animals become very sick very fast with AIDS-defining conditions. The uninfected animals do not get sick with these symptoms. They stay very healthy.
    Give a researcher an unlabeled data set with blood draws from ten infected and ten uninfected monkeys, and s/he will consistently and accurately separate the members of the two groups. Give a pathologist slides from lung or some other infected tissue, and you’ll get the same result.
    There is only one good explanation for why SIV+ and – monkeys have such drastically different health outcomes. And it’s not anal sex or poppers.

  308. Adele, I don’t doubt that the test conditions you describe are the agreed ideal ones. but I’m sure you’ll agree that it takes an expert going over all the records to even begin t determine if everything has been done properly.

    I will not dispute either that that the researchers can identify what they’ve put into the monkeys in blood tests, or that some of the stuff is more lethal than other.

    I concede that not many athletes make it under the 200 cut off range. But even when they, or others, do, it’s the test that defines them as “profoundly immunodeficient” in that AIDS-specific way, not the blood count itself.

    I promise I won’t take it out on your kids if your work involves animal abuse.

  309. That’s nice of you Pope.
    I will not dispute either that that the researchers can identify what they’ve put into the monkeys in blood tests
    I actually just meant panels, not viral loads or antigen tests. You can tell from the CD4 count alone which animals got the SIV.

  310. Dale,

    Does the doctor monitor the CD4 count for months or years before declaring that it’s HIV that causes the decline, or does he rely on he HIV test to tell him?

    Excellent question, Pope.

    I suffered a “steady decline over months to years”, yet the doctors did not see fit to monitor my CD4 counts because my HIV tests were consistently negative. I did, however, have frequent CBCs done and they were often “abnormal” — usually with either extremely high or extremely low white blood cell counts, but the only tests my doctors frequently used were HIV tests. I now realize how that it was not only a thoroughly terrorizing approach, but also a highly unproductive way to go about treating someone who was already severely ill.

    As you pointed out, Pope…“Of course the spread of HIV and AIDS “mirror” each other perfectly since HIV is part of the definition of AIDS.” Had I triggered a positive test, I’m sure that my doctors would have perfunctorily added my name to the AIDS register, with or without a CD4 count. After all, I was suffering from multiple AIDS-defining conditions. Without the advent of anti-retroviral therapy, they were essentially clueless regarding a treatment strategy. One oncologist I saw, suggested I was a false-negative and that I be treated as though I had HIV. No one ever mentioned ICL, and I’m not sure doctors outside of ICL-related clinical trials even know what it is. They are all too brainwashed to see the clinical anamolies of HIV for what they really are. They get most of their HIV treatment information from drug reps, I fear. During “my steady decline”, I was diagnosed with all of the following (though this list is not complete):

    PCP
    Recurrent Bacterial Pnuemonia — 6 times
    Recurrent Salmonella
    Shigella
    Thrush
    Esophageal Canididiasis
    Histioplasmosis
    Persistently Swollen Lymph Nodes

    I am very healthy now, but it hasn’t been an easy road to recovery. It’s taken me almost two years of “careful living”, and the only doctor I’ve seen during that time is a dissident-friendly doctor. I eventually became quite educated to the dissident position on immunosuppression and thus discovered how incompetent most of my doctors really were, and it should be noted that I was receiving treatment by some pretty high-profile physicians at a large research hospital. Anyway, the dissident doctor was very critical of a “drug-for-every-ill” approach to medicine, which was kind of new to me but was what I was looking for at the time, considering that conventional drug therapies seemed to be only making me sicker. That said, he wasn’t irrational about it, which runs counter to the way that most of the apologist on here like to characterize doctors who incorporate alternative medicine into patient care. In fact, he was the first doctor, including all the many specialists who treated me, who would admit that my health was being severely compromised by candidiasis. He insisted that I allow treatment with high-dose Diflucan, even though I initially resisted since my other doctors had scared me into believing it was too risky to use long-term. He stressed that it was necessary and that he would monitor my liver funcitons carefully. Within a week, I felt better than I had felt in a decade. It took a lot longer, of course, for me to get completely well, but I knew from the beginning that I had finally found a knowledgeable physician. My first visit with him was over an hour long, and I was already an educated patient. Inicidentally, he no longer accepts most insurance plans since he believes that the associated red tape compromises treatment options.

    Most doctors are really just glorified drug dealers, which I’m sure pleases DT and his employer, but for the rest of us, it’s detrimental to our health. All of the apologists on this site keep trying to convince themselves that HIV-negative AIDS patients are not important to understanding the clinical treatment of HIV+ patients, but that is most likely due to the supressed realization that there is very little difference in positive and negative, clinically. If DT, Dale, Shalini, and all the others are truely honest and if they can suspend their dogmatic reverence for a moment, placing themselves in my position, looking at the clinical facts, they’d gain insight into the numerous shortcomings of paradigm. It was real eye-opener for me, seeing the incompetence only grow with each visit to every so-called “specialists”.

    Kevin

  311. Pope:
    “AZT, especially in high doses, is an excellent predictor of ‘HIV-related’ fatalities”

    And guess what? Having had chemotherapy is a good predictor for death from lung cancer. So this is merely another fallacious argument.

    “Then there’s the PCP argument. According to DT, PCP was almost non-existent before HIV and corresponds perfectly with the spread of HIV. That is of course not true. Conditions like PCP and KS correspond with certain risk groups such as popper users, who hardly existed before the seventies. “

    Actually it is true. Prior to 1981 there were hardly any cases of PCP recorded in the medical literature. Its epidemiology essentially mirrors that of HIV prevalence.

    The CDC states here that “The beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s shifted the incidence of PCP from a rare disease to a more common pneumonia. Clusters of PCP cases in homosexual men and intravenous drug users were one of the first indications of the HIV epidemic (2). PCP rapidly became the leading AIDS-defining diagnosis in HIV-infected patients. In the initial stages of the epidemic, PCP rates were as high as 20 per 100 person-years for those with CD4+ cell counts below 200 cells/µL (3). PCP was responsible for two thirds of AIDS-defining illnesses, and an estimated 75% of HIV-infected patients would develop PCP during their lifetime (4).

    PCP incidence declined after the introduction of cotrimoxazole as prophylaxis. I wonder why this was, considering some rethinkers feel cotrimoxazole use actually causes AIDS?

    The CDC explain how “The advent of HAART has resulted in further declines in rates of PCP and other opportunistic infections” I wonder why that was too…? Couldn’t possibly be anything to do with the success of HAART, could it? Perish the thought!

    “In the West, TB is prevalent among IV drug users, whereas KS is not really a big hit among factor VIII recipients”

    TB is commoner in certain groups, one of these being drug users. You may need to read up about the medical consequenses of drug use before you make too many unsupported assertions, however. TB is far more prevalent and problematic in drug users with HIV.

    Kaposi sarcoma is due to HHV type 8. Initially is was thought to be related to use of nitrites (poppers) but this hypothesis did not hold up under scientific scrutiny. Popper users who are not HIV infected do not get KS. HIV-infected men who use poppers (and other drugs) do not progress to AIDS faster than those who don’t. KS is prevalent in Africa (where it mirrors a higher HHV8 prevalence). Africans are not known for their use of poppers. Disseminated forms of KS correlate with HIV seropositivity.

    The summary of this paper merits quotation in its entirety:
    “The belief that HIV-1 infection causes AIDs has been questioned, and the suggestion made that to know the correct cause of AIDS the incidence of disease in patients with and without risk behaviours and with and without antibody to HIV-1 must be known. We describe findings in such a cohort. In 715 homosexual men followed for a median of 8.6 years, all 136 AIDS cases occurred in the 365 individuals with pre-existing HIV-1 antibody. Most men negative for HIV-1 antibody reported risk behaviours but none developed any AIDS illnesses. CD4 counts fell in anti-HIV-1-positive men but remained stable in antibody-negative men, whether or not risk behaviours were present. The hypothesis that AIDS in homosexual men is caused not by HIV-1 infection but by drugs and sexual activity is rejected by these data. HIV-1 has an integral role in the pathogenesis of AIDS.”

  312. Kevin,

    I chided a few people upthread for ignoring “clinical relevance,” when they referred to goat retroviruses or determining the immune deficiency of wild macaques –in a lab, of course.

    Your story, however, is as remarkable as Noreen Martin’s above.

    I hope you are doing well.

    Clinically, it appears that you had “AIDS.” I doubt anyone could distinguish you from an AIDS patients.

    But, since the HIV (antibody) test was negative, you didn’t have AIDS. Doesn’t that sound bizarre?

    So, as I understand it, because you didn’t have AIDS, the doctors ignored CD4 cell counts and did not give you anti-retroviral drugs to fight a retrovirus that could not be detected by anti-bodies.

    At least, not giving you anti-virals in the absence of a positive HIV antibody test, seems logical and reasonable.

    It’s a wonder why, though, the doctors were unable to connect that dots — ie, the patient had clinical AIDS, but no HIV. Hmm. What does this say about HIV?

    It’s as if they have converged the cause and the effect: HIV = AIDS. Period, end of story. If no HIV, then no AIDS.

    Thank you for sharing your great personal story, and remain well!

  313. Adele,

    I’m sure the resarchers would be able to distinguish infected form non-infected monkeys in a controlled lab setting in multitude of ways with near 100% certainty throughout. As you say, the monkeys very quickly become sick. That’s one of the things that distinguish them from humans infected with HIV in a non-controlled environment.

    And yet, although everything appears admirably clear cut and unambiguous in your lab, I can only relate to what I read in the first abstract DT linked (the second study is freely available in full I’ve dicovered, but doesn’t mention CD4 counts) from a study that was obviously not performed in your lab.

    Researchers used “viral isolation and SIV p26 antigenemia” to verify that the animals were infected. And it’s probably just as well they didn’t rely on the CD4 count because,

    “Inoculated animals that died within a mean of 31 days (short-term survivors) had significantly lower numbers of CD4+CD29+ (helper/inducer) lymphocytes than did long-term surviving inoculated animals through 3 weeks PI. Numbers of CD4+ lymphocytes were no different when controls were compared to all inoculated animals through 4-5 weeks PI. The two inoculated animals surviving 216 and 423 days PI (long-term survivors) did demonstrate declining CD4+ cells, but only late in disease”

    The two infected “long-term survivors” were thus not to be distinguished early on via their CD4 count.

  314. Kevin, you really had some nasty stuff and I too feel that you had AIDS without HIV. The only good thing is that you didn’t come up HIV+ but you too have proven that if one takes responsibility for one’s health, great improvements and remarkable recoveries may be made. It’s most unfortuante that the breed of doctors coming out of med school now, only know how to dispense pills and if one is honest with them and tell them all of the natural supplements one is taking, they look at you like your are crazy. They just don’t get it.

  315. Does the doctor monitor the CD4 count for months or years before declaring that it’s HIV that causes the decline, or does he rely on the HIV test to tell him?

    I’m not an M.D. but as I understand it, most HIV positive individuals will have more than one CD4 count before being prescribed ARVs.

    If one exhibits a pattern of steadily declining CD4 numbers over months, but is HIV negative, will one become diagnosed with AIDS (in the developed world)?

    No, one won’t. And as a consequence of not being diagnosed with AIDS, one also would be unlikely to be prescribed HAART.

    If one is HIV positive but shows no pattern of declining CD4 numbers does that override the verdict of the HIV test?

    If one is HIV positive but has steady CD4 numbers > 300, one would be labeled HIV+ but would not be an AIDS case. However I expect one’s doctor would want to continue monitoring one’s T cell counts and general health.

    Nobody’s argued that a positive HIV test is not a good predictor of progression to disease; yellow fingers is a good predictor of lung cancer, extreme stress is a good predictor of immunedeficiency, AZT, especially in high doses, is an excellent predictor of ‘HIV-related’ fatalities.

    The difference Pope is that a vey small percentage of those with yellow fingers get lung cancer, and a very small percentage of those with extreme stress develop immune deficiency while a very high percentage of those with HIV develop immune deficiency.

  316. Pope, it does take some time for CD4 cells to decline significantly in infected animals. The amount of time varies due to different viral strains or dual inocula. If you look at a cross-section of the macaque SIV literature, progression to disease takes weeks to years depending again on which virus is used. Just as in the human population there is a strong component of inter-individual variation. In the laboratory setting, we can control environmental factors, and the monkeys are not smoking or drinking or doing drugs. The differences in progression like the long-term nonprogressing monkeys you mention are likely the result of genetic differences. Genomic studies are underway to identify what factors besides risk behavior can contribute to progression.

  317. Open questions:

    Let us assume one fact about Kevin’s symptoms and dianosis (or lack thereof) above: Assume his CD4 cell count was consistently less than 200.

    Given he had (1) low CD4 cell count and (2) several opportunistic infections, but (3) no HIV, what would we conclude?

    1. Perhaps, HIV was present, but not detectable due to test malfunction; or

    2. HIV was absent, and some other factor [Factor X] causes CD4 decline and opportunistic infection. That, in and of itself, means that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS, true?

    Also, it means that Factor X has to be ruled out in all AIDS patients, before determining that HIV is the cause of AIDS in these patients.

    Also, before ruling out Factor X it might not be so wise to take anti-viral medications to target a virus that isn’t causing CD4 cell decline in the patient.

    So, what are the factors that cause preferential CD4 decline, other than HIV?

    Are we certain that HIV kills only CD4 cells (in an unexplained manner) and no other white blood cells? For example, does an HIV+ patient have only low CD4 cells, but normal neutrophils, eosinophils, basophils, monocytes, etc, etc?

  318. It’s most unfortuante that the breed of doctors coming out of med school now, only know how to dispense pills and if one is honest with them and tell them all of the natural supplements one is taking, they look at you like your are crazy. They just don’t get it.

    That’s exactly right, Noreen. I take a total of 11 different supplements daily. I also continue to do yoga and sinus irrigations daily. All of which were very important factors in my recovery. I tried lots of different things and I tried them in isolation when possible to gauge effectiveness. I would have no problem telling future doctors what supplements I take and why I take them, but I’m sure most would be nonplussed. That’s fine, but that doesn’t mean I will ever stop trying to educate them about the ones that I’ve found to be so effective. In all the years and including many different doctors, not one of them ever recommended sinus irrigation as a treatment option for my debilitating chronic sinusitis; yet, aside from eliminating the systemic fungal infection, nothing has had a more profound effect on my quality of life.

    I hope you are doing well.
    Clinically, it appears that you had “AIDS.” I doubt anyone could distinguish you from an AIDS patients.

    Thank you. I really am healthy, now, but I certainly looked the part when I was at my sickest. I had dropped from 160 pounds to 130 pounds in less than a year. Nevertheless, I now weigh more than I ever have, a cool 175 (I’m 6’1″). I truly am as healthy as I think I’ll ever be and now that I know what was wrong with me — systemic candida — I don’t worry about getting opportunistic infections, anymore. I’ve only had one cold in the last couple years, which did not result in the usual bacterial sinus infection, either. I have also had one fungal infection of the skin — very painful but it cleared quickly with an OTC medication.

    It is my belief that most full-blown AIDS patients are primarily suffering from advanced systemic candidiasis, which is very difficult to treat. I also believe that the initial positive response to ARVs is due to their widely reported anti-microbial properties, i.e. they are very effective at clearing the candidiasis initially, but it will come back if other therapies are not included since the side effects of ARVs, both short term and long term, do nothing to resolve the underlying immune dysfunction that allowed the candidiasis in the first place. In addition, popular adjunctive therapies like antibiotics and corti-costeriods often only add to the immune problems and are well-known to exacerbate existing fungal infections. My experience overwhelmingly supports that finding. Thus, the current treatment for both AIDS and the associated opportunistic infections is not only largely ineffective but, more likely, even detrimental to a full recovery. I realize that antibiotics are sometimes necessary (I’ve had pnuemonia numerous times); however, AIDS patients should be aggressively treated for fungal infections whenever the clinical situation allows, and antifungals are absolutely essential for immunocompromised patients who require antibiotic therapy.

    …you too have proven that if one takes responsibility for one’s health, great improvements and remarkable recoveries may be made.

    Exactly, Noreen. After going through all this, I first wanted to forget about everything that I had discovered, both the good and the bad. I had a new lease on life and just wanted a chance to live normally again. It was such a relief not having to worry about what or when my next illness would be, but I couldn’t do it. Other people need to know the truth. They need to be given realhope, especially HIV postives. They need to know that they can regain control of their health and that doctors and drug companies may not always have their best interests in mind. At first, I was consumed by anger after learning that the underlying cause of my illness was treatable, but I realized that that attitude would just make me ill, again. No matter what DT says, stress control is essential to overcoming severe illness, and I do mean essential.

    Anyway…

    Kevin

    I know I’ve posted this link before but for those who haven’t seen it, it’s worth knowing about:

    Candida Patient Database

    Not every candida patient suffers severe illness, but many do and it is a growing health problem that is being ignored.

  319. Kevin, were you not on any anti-fungals for the yeast problem? I had thrush and it took over a month to get it under control even being on them. Have you considered taking LDN? I believe that it has been a life-saver for me as I have avoided colds,flu, and strep throat that other members of the family had.

    Like cancer for instance, there are different phases that one goes through and getting angry is certainly one of them, which leads on to recovery. The “fighters” are the one who survive incurable diseases. I never accepted that cancer, AIDS or any or disease are incurable, it doesn’t enter my mind as I am too involved with living.

  320. 2. HIV was absent, and some other factor [Factor X] causes CD4 decline and opportunistic infection. That, in and of itself, means that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS, true?

    Good post, Barry.

    I think (1) is improbable, assuming a patient is tested as many times as I was. However, I believe that the tests are so non-specific that it might warrant a “who knows?”

    As for (2), I obviously think that Factor X (candidiasis) is responsible for susceptibility to opportunisitic infection and that low CD4 counts may also be present but that such counts are not a necessary, nor sufficient component for susceptibility. I do wish I knew my CD4 counts as my symptoms progressed, but not so much so that I’m now willing to take a bunch of broad-spectrum antibiotics to find out!

    Kevin

  321. Kevin, another question, did you have chronic fatigue. This I had off and on for over 25 years. I never connected the dots to AIDS until I saw a website that had the symptoms of both diseases listed side by side and they are a mirror image. I think Barry is right, many negative influences can lead to AIDS.

  322. Kevin, were you not on any anti-fungals for the yeast problem? I had thrush and it took over a month to get it under control even being on them.

    I was on anti-fungals a couple times but never for long enough to get completely well. The first time I had thrush I was given a mouthwash and Diflucan and got better within a couple weeks. The second time is when it spread to my esophagus, which was extremely uncomfortable. I was once again given Diflucan, but at a higher dose that time and I also used a nystatin powder too. I forget for how long but it was longer than two weeks. My overall health improved after that round, but I didn’t make the connection to systemic candida and neither did my doctors. Those were the only times I was given an anti-fungal by my HMO-doctors. Unfortunately, my chronic sinus problems resulted in me taking antibiotics very frequently. If I didn’t, I would get pneumonia and sometimes I did anyway. So, it was catch-22. The antibiotics would, in turn, cause the yeast problems to re-emerge, more severe every time. I finally became educated enough to break the cycle. When I was prescribed Diflucan by the dissident doctor, it was at twice the dosage and for a total of 16 weeks the first time. I took a few days break, here and there, to give my liver a rest, but the candida would come roaring back every time. I ended up taking the Diflucan for a total of 22 weeks, in all.

    Now, that my health is better, I can use wormwood if I feel any of the candida symptoms returning. It’s pretty effective and far safer.

    Have you considered taking LDN?

    I don’t currently take it, but I have certainly considered it. Where do you get it?

    Kevin

  323. Kevin, another question, did you have chronic fatigue.

    Yes, I could barely hang onto my job. I missed a lot of work.

  324. The low dose naltrexone website lists all of the compounding pharmacies and will list the one closest to you but nowdays, shipment is fast, no matter where you order if from. Believe me, I am probably the most anti-drug person that you will ever meet but yet I tell everyone who has an immune issue to check it out. If they gave awards for outstanding drugs, this one certainly deserves it!

    It sounds like you have every thing under control now. Keep probiotics in your system, which I’m sure you do. Doesn’t Hulda Clark recommend wormwood?

  325. Barry.

    You said:
    “Are we certain that HIV kills only CD4 cells (in an unexplained manner) and no other white blood cells”?

    Considering there is presently no verified proof that HIV even kills CD4 cells, (even Bob Gallo just admitted in his testimony in Australia that he did not ever find HIV in patients T Cells), we are really making a leap to a grand assumption that HIV has anything to do with a decline in T Cells.

    Please not that what is considered to be HIV is grown in immortal T Cell lines, and these t cells all seem to be thriving!

  326. lincoln claims: even Bob Gallo just admitted in his testimony in Australia that he did not ever find HIV in patients T Cells

    The defense lawyer partially quoted Gallo out of context.

    The full quote is given here: I don’t know if I made this point clear, but I think that everybody here knows-we never found HIV DNA in the tumor cells of KS. So this is not directly transforming. And in fact we’ve never found HIV DNA in T-cells, although we’ve only looked at a few. So in other words we’ve never seen the role of HIV as a transforming virus in any way. The role of HIV has to be indirect.

    Note that the ultimate source of the quote is a “rethinker” journalist John Lauritsen. There is nothing at all in anything that Gallo has written that supports the “admission”. Gallo reported as early as 1984 that their group found HIV DNA in T-cells. This had been repeated by many, many groups by the time of this meeting where Gallo was allegedly quoted.

    As ususal the “rethinkers” also ignore the context. The meeting was to discuss the aetiology of Kaposi’s Sarcoma.

    Gallo stated accurately that HIV DNA had not been found in the DNA of KS tumor cells. (The official report of this meeting has an addendum where it is stated that the DNA of a herpes virus, later to be known as HHV8, had been found in KS tumor cells). The context was the question whether HIV directly tranforms cells. The answer is no. It doesn’t transform KS cells. It doesn’t transform T-cells.

    The only thing that Kevin Borick proved is that the defense is willing to mislead if it appears to support their case.

  327. Chris,

    Thank you for admitting: “The context was the question whether HIV directly tranforms cells. The answer is no. It doesn’t transform KS cells. It doesn’t transform T-cells.no such cite exists”.

    And considering there is also no evidence that HIV is doing any cellular damage, it is all rather damning evidence that HIV is not doing anything at all, isn’t it Chris?

    Unless, you have access to some mysterious paper that the rest of the world does not have or know about, that proves that HIV is doing any type of direct harm whatsoever, anywhere, in anyone’s cells!

  328. Noreen.

    Up above a bit, you mentioned something discovered at the Albert Einstein College, and you said:

    “They in effect killed HIV well over 90% and received a patent”.

    I myself find this claim to be very questionable, as to how they would know they had killed supposed HIV. Was this verified by the same flakey tests and PCR which cannot or identify what a minute particle that it is amplifying actually is, or were they using evidence of nonspecific-to-HIV reverse transcriptase activity, as is used to claim people have hiv, or that is used to diagnose people as HIV positive?

    Most likely they used one or more of these unsubstantiated means. I call them unsubstantiated as there is no proven viral HIV isolation as of this day from human beings, which is why there are no specific HIV tests yet available, even after 25 years of this crap.

    So obviously, to me at least, they have no idea what caused the changes they observed, or believe they observed.

    I am also left with the same questions for the BYU thing where you wrote:

    “Or how about last year when BYU developed CSA-54, a compound, which hunts down and kills HIV”.

    Are we really so sure their evidence of what they supposed was HIV is correct?

    I am rather unconvinced, as they are simply looking for various proteins that are “believed” to be unique, and “believed” to exist nowhere else and under no other circumstance in all of nature.

    I, as well as a lot of others, say Pooh! These claims of killing HIV are major, and unsubstantiated assumptions, which is why there is presently the court case down in Australia.

    For all we know, all they affected was some type of antibody or peptide shutoff, or perhaps affected cellular breakdown or oxidisation in some way, or maybe the processes they used simply interfered with the test to be able to detect these proteins.

    I don’t think we really know!

  329. Hey DT.

    I was just wondering, since you never answered my questions with anything other than a remark that eggs on toast creates stress, if you, as a pharma rep, avoid answering questions, that doctors may ask, if your sales might be decreased had you answered them honestly and directly?

    It is rather mind boggling to me, to find that most doctors get most of their updated information on treatment from overall biased and not necessarily knowledgeable or wise pharmaceutical company drug reps.

    Should I ever forget, please remind me never to trust a doctors advice.

  330. Thank you for admitting: “The context was the question whether HIV directly tranforms cells. The answer is no. It doesn’t transform KS cells. It doesn’t transform T-cells.no such cite exists”.

    All I can say is thanks for admitting that you are completely incapable of reading and understanding.

    HIV does not transform cells. It does not directly cause KS. There is evidence that another virus HHV-8 does. HHV-8 DNA is found in KS tumor cells.

    HIV does not transform T-cells. It does not directly cause leukemia or any othe malignancies. There is evidence that HTLV-1 and HTLV-II can transform T-cells.

    Likewise there is evidence that EBV and HPV can transform cells.

    While HIV does not transform T-cells there is plenty of evidence that it causes the depletion of these cells.

    Unless, you have access to some mysterious paper that the rest of the world does not have or know about, that proves that HIV is doing any type of direct harm whatsoever, anywhere, in anyone’s cells!

    Duesberg cited this paper when he attempted to claim the Continuum prize.

    A molecular clone of HTLV-III with biological activity

    So “rethinkers” can hardly claim to be unaware of it.

    For some strange reason Duesberg offfers the paper as evidence for the existence of HIV but fails to mention the cytopathic effects observed.

    Note that Gallo et al used controls. Cell cultures transfected with HIV showed profound CD4 depletion. Controls did not.

    It is not true to claim that HIV does not kill T-cells in vitro. This is not the dominant effect in vivo but it does occur.

  331. “In 1985, Gallo and his colleagues (Gallo et al., 1985) showed that in mitogenically stimulated lymphocyte cultures from AIDS patients or in cultures from healthy donors “infected” with HIV, there is a decrease in the total number of viable cells. However:

    (i) the decrease in viable cells begins before a significant increase in reverse transcriptase activity (RT), that is, HIV expression;

    (ii) the rate of cell loss remains the same even when the expression of HIV (RT), is maximum.

    These suggest that the cause of the decrease in viable cells may not be HIV. Since then other researchers have shown that:

    (a) “lymphocytes may be productively infected in the absence of cell death” (Hoxie et al., 1985);

    (b) the presence or absence of the cytopathic effects is a function of the cell type (cell line), culture conditions (presence or absence of interleukin-2 (IL-2), presence or absence of serum, fibrinogen, fibronectin, alpha-globulin), and the origin of the HIV preparation (von Briesen et al., 1987; Ushijima et al., 1992);

    (c ) early in 1986, Zagury, Gallo and their colleagues reported that: “T4 lymphocytes from normal donors infected by HTLV-III in vitro, as well as HTLV-III-infected primary T4 cells from AIDS patients, have been difficult to maintain in culture for longer than 2 weeks, and it has often been assumed that the virus has a direct cytolytic effect on these cells”. However, by avoiding PHA stimulation and by reducing the number of cells per millilitre of culture medium from 105-106 to 103-104, they were able to “grow the infected cells for 50-60 days” without cellular degeneration which, according to them, was due to “the lack of further antigenic stimulation and, presumably, the reduced concentrations of toxic substances released by the mature cells” (Zagury et al., 1986)”

    http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/ept4cells.html

  332. Thanks Chris for the very good try.

    But what you have really just shown us is Gallo’s desperation of trying to prove that he could cause cell death with his witches brew of mixed up, chopped up bits of cloned cellular material that he called HTLV-III.

    “Numerous converging lines of study have ‘implicated’ HTLV-III”.

    Pure desperation Chris, not unlike many of your own posts.

    Perhaps you can show us something that has been isolated from a patient instead of mixed up in vitro of chopped up bits of cloned cellular material and endogenous retroviral DNA fragments.

    And even at that, this paper that Amanda Fisher pretends to be proof of HIV caused cell death does not prove that whatever she and Gallo had in their molecular clone was definitely what was cytotoxic to cells.

    This little feat has yet to be demonstrably proven in the 22 years since the paper you pretend is some kind of proof, and HIV has never been directly isolated from human T cells, and you sir, damn well know it or you would have shown us the evidence a long time ago.

    I don’t know if you are aware of it, but the case in Australia is boiled down to a big question mark as to what exactly Gallo had cloned in vitro, and how exactly he had proven it to be a cause of T cell death, which he has never done. And just exactly what he used to verify this. Just because his cultures died, does not mean that anything was proved to have been caused by a virus isolated from any human being.

    By the way, Chris. I would really really really like you to tell me why, exactly, you would like HIV to be real, and, why exactly, you would like it to be the cause of AIDS.

    Could you please tell me why you want these two things to be real?

  333. What I mean by that, Chris, is that I can certainly understand why Gallo wanted it to be real, and I can understand why Gallo wanted it to be the cause of AIDS. I mean, after all, he really wanted to be a hero and he really needed an AIDS virus to make him into one.

    I can understand why DT would want it to be real and to be the cause of AIDS. I can understand why a lot of researchers would want it to be. I can understand why a lot of politicians would want it to be. I can understand why the media would want it to be.

    But you, Chris, without your telling me, I can only tell you that I don’t understand, but I would very much like to.

    So, Chris J. Noble, why do you yourself want HIV to be real? Why do you want a virus, especially Gallo’s claimed virus, to be the cause immune dysfunction in anyone, let alone in Gay men and Blacks? (after all, gays and blacks are about 97 percent? of the hiv diagnosed).

  334. Pure desperation Chris, not unlike many of your own posts.

    Perhaps you can show us something that has been isolated from a patient instead of mixed up in vitro of chopped up bits of cloned cellular material and endogenous retroviral DNA fragments.

    It’s amazing how you can divine this without reading the paper.

    The HIV DNA used for the infectious molecular clone was not found in uninfected cultures. It is not endogenous.

    And even at that, this paper that Amanda Fisher pretends to be proof of HIV caused cell death does not prove that whatever she and Gallo had in their molecular clone was definitely what was cytotoxic to cells.

    They used controls. In each case the cultures were treated exactly the same. The only difference was the DNA in the plasmid. Cell cultures transfected with plasmids containing HIV DNA showed profound CD4 loss. Those transfected with plasmids containing HTLV-I or no retroviral DNA did not. The only difference was the HIV DNA. Pure HIV DNA.

    Cell cultures transfected with HIV DNA produced HIV antigens and infectious viral particles.

    This little feat has yet to be demonstrably proven in the 22 years since the paper you pretend is some kind of proof, and HIV has never been directly isolated from human T cells, and you sir, damn well know it or you would have shown us the evidence a long time ago.

    The evidence has been there for 22 years. The “rethinker” habit of putting your fingers in your ears and repeating “is not, is not, is not” does not make the evidence go away.

    By the way, Chris. I would really really really like you to tell me why, exactly, you would like HIV to be real, and, why exactly, you would like it to be the cause of AIDS.

    There is nothing that I would like more than for HIV not to exist and not to cause AIDS. Unfortunately, wishful thinking alone does not change reality.

  335. “It should be clarified: it is very normal that genetic material DNA, natural or artificially multiplied – when put onto cells is able to enter those cells, may integrate itself into the cells, chromosomes and eventually may be activated to produce its proteins …

    As the group around Eleni Eleopulos et al. has shown neither (Duesberg} nor anybody else has shown that the genetic pieces of “HIV” used in the transfection experiments he cites were isolated out of a virus. Only if researchers were able to multiply from cells exactly that genetic material which previously had been isolated from a virus, only then the claim of virus detection would be valid: virus-isolation logically always goes first. Or may anybody postulate new viruses, sprinkling his or her genetic material onto cells, detecting this material in the cells and claiming a new virus? A repeated artefact remains an artefact. To call such re-detected DNA “infectious DNA” is conspicuously misleading.”

    http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/slreplypd2.htm

  336. “It should be clarified: it is very normal that genetic material DNA, natural or artificially multiplied – when put onto cells is able to enter those cells, may integrate itself into the cells, chromosomes and eventually may be activated to produce its proteins …

    That is very true. What identifies HIV specific genetic sequences as coming from an infectious virus is the observation that having been put the DNA into cells, it directs the synthesis not just of single proteins, but of proteins and RNA that can assemble into more infectious virus. Random pieces of DNA, even DNA derived from HERVs, don’t have that property.

    To isolate virus directly from patient blood or T-cells in the way you apparently would like to see it done, isn’t feasible – you would have to kill patients to get enough starting material to work with. And despite your assertions, it is completely unnecessary to demonstrate that HIV genetic sequences encode an infectious virus. It’s only non virologists who seem to think it’s some kind of “gold standard”.

  337. Dale,

    These are not my assertions but those of various experts, if you don’t mind me calling them that.

    Since we’re now onto isolation and gold standards, its HIV scientists from Gallo downwards that have proclaimed the “infectious clone” proof that they have discovered a unique, exogenous, pathogenic retrovirus, HIV. This is why much of the discussion centers around it.

    Although everybody believes it is a necessary condition to fulfil, the rethinkers, virologists as non-virologists, do not think that to show that the “HIV genome” is infectious is suffient evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Many things are infectious; the crucial point is to demonstrate through isolation, purification, chemical characterization etc. that Gallo and Montagnier did indeed discover and identify a unique, exogenous, pathogenic retrovirus. This before even beginning the discussion whether this virus plays any important role in AIDS.

  338. Pope:
    “AZT, especially in high doses, is an excellent predictor of ‘HIV-related’ fatalities”

    And guess what? Having had chemotherapy is a good predictor for death from lung cancer. So this is merely another fallacious argument.

    “Then there’s the PCP argument. According to DT, PCP was almost non-existent before HIV and corresponds perfectly with the spread of HIV. That is of course not true. Conditions like PCP and KS correspond with certain risk groups such as popper users, who hardly existed before the seventies. “

    Actually it is true. Prior to 1981 there were hardly any cases of PCP recorded in the medical literature. Its epidemiology essentially mirrors that of HIV prevalence.

    The CDC states here that “The beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s shifted the incidence of PCP from a rare disease to a more common pneumonia. Clusters of PCP cases in homosexual men and intravenous drug users were one of the first indications of the HIV epidemic (2). PCP rapidly became the leading AIDS-defining diagnosis in HIV-infected patients. In the initial stages of the epidemic, PCP rates were as high as 20 per 100 person-years for those with CD4+ cell counts below 200 cells/µL (3). PCP was responsible for two thirds of AIDS-defining illnesses, and an estimated 75% of HIV-infected patients would develop PCP during their lifetime (4).

    PCP incidence declined after the introduction of cotrimoxazole as prophylaxis. I wonder why this was, considering some rethinkers feel cotrimoxazole use actually causes AIDS?

    The CDC explain how “The advent of HAART has resulted in further declines in rates of PCP and other opportunistic infections” I wonder why that was too…? Couldn’t possibly be anything to do with the success of HAART, could it? Perish the thought!

    “In the West, TB is prevalent among IV drug users, whereas KS is not really a big hit among factor VIII recipients”

    TB is commoner in certain groups, one of these being drug users. You may need to read up about the medical consequenses of drug use before you make too many unsupported assertions, however. TB is far more prevalent and problematic in drug users with HIV.

    Kaposi sarcoma is due to HHV type 8. Initially is was thought to be related to use of nitrites (poppers) but this hypothesis did not hold up under scientific scrutiny. Popper users who are not HIV infected do not get KS. HIV-infected men who use poppers (and other drugs) do not progress to AIDS faster than those who don’t. KS is prevalent in Africa (where it mirrors a higher HHV8 prevalence). Africans are not known for their use of poppers. Disseminated forms of KS correlate with HIV seropositivity.

  339. Pope,

    Many things are infectious, as you say. However, among those infectious things, only two (HIV-1 and to a lesser extent, HIV-2) predict the eventual development of the clinical symptoms that characterize AIDS with such a high degree of certainty. Are you suggesting that medical science should ignore that correlation just because, even though it has been isolated and characterized by other techniques, it is impossible to isolate HIV by one particular technique that rethinkers have decided, for no scientifically valid reasons that I have ever seen explained, should be the “gold standard”?

  340. Hey Chris. You said:

    “There is nothing that I would like more than for HIV not to exist and not to cause AIDS. Unfortunately, wishful thinking alone does not change reality”.

    But in another thread you tell us what you write is your “opinions that are my own”.

    Chris do you really know the difference between reality and belief? For some people ghosts or maybe dracula is a reality and for others they are mere beliefs.

    Do you believe yourself qualified to know the difference???

    Why would you tell me that “There is nothing that I would like more than for HIV not to exist and not to cause AIDS”, but be unwilling to remotely allow yourself to believe that this is already the case?

    You have yet to answer my question as to WHY you want HIV to be real or to be the cause of immune dysfunction.

    Claiming you don’t want HIV to be real or to be the cause of AIDS, and then fighting like hell on these threads to try to prove that your opinions or beliefs or illusions or fears are real, and attempting to convince the rest of us of your beliefs and opinions, certainly makes you seem as if you are one of those people who even lie to your own self. Are you lying even to yourself Chris?

    Now one more time, Chris, and try to be honest this time.

    Why do you yourself want HIV to be real or to be the cause of immune dysfunction?

    And furthermore, why do you want to convince the rest of us that your opinions and beliefs are “reality”, as you call it?

    Have you ever been mistaken about something before, Chris?

    Is there any possibility that you are mistaken this time?

    One of us, Chris, either you or me, is absolutely right that HIV is or is not the cause of AIDS, and one of us is absolutely wrong.

    Which one of us do you think has more integrity and honesty going on Chris?

    You, or me?

  341. Dale, You said:

    “only two (HIV-1 and to a lesser extent, HIV-2) predict the eventual development of the clinical symptoms that characterize AIDS”

    So Dale, if it is indeed “ONLY” two things, namely your believed in hiv1/hiv/2 that are predictors,

    are you claiming that stress is NOT a symptom that characterizes immune dysfunction?

    Are you claiming that drug abuse in not a symptom that characterizes immune dysfunction?

    Are you claiming that antibiotics overuse is not a symptom of immune dysfunction?

    Are you claiming that the various known and proven pathogens of TB mycobacterium are not a symptom of immune dysfunction?

    Are you claiming that the various known and various isolated pathogens found wht the 29 “AIDS defining diseases” are not all symptoms of immune dysfunction?

    Are you going to retract your silly statement that ONLY HIV/1 and HIV/2 are clinical symptoms of immune disfunction?

    Or am I going to need to point out your most obvious of lies that you have stated as some kind of ULTIMATE-GOD-TRUTH?

  342. Dale, you said:

    “it is impossible to isolate HIV by one particular technique that rethinkers have decided, for no scientifically valid reasons”.

    Well Dale, if it is impossible to isolate HIV, in order to prove its very existence, (which should certainly be THE MOST scientifically valid reason to do so, as every scientist would admit),

    then the brighter and more reasonable among us would reach the obvious scientific conclusion that it is therefore NOT SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO EXIST, and remains in the realm of beliefs and opinions.

    But, of course, I would expect that the simple logical truth of this would surely escape you, as you seem to prefer belief and opinion to proven and validated science.

  343. What I said lincoln was NOT that “only HIV1 & HIV2 are symptoms of immune dysfunction” but that of various infectious agents currently known that only HIV1 & HIV2 predict the development of the clinical symptoms that characterize AIDS.

    However, if you want to get into a discussion of other non-infectious factors associated with immune dysfunction …

    Nowhere is there any indication that 80% or more of individuals who suffer from stress or who have used/overused antibiotics or who have abused recreational drugs will become immunodepressed. But according to the literature I’ve read, 80% or more of individuals who are seropositive for HIV will. HIV causes AIDS is a useful hypothesis that makes useful and testable predictions as to who will get AIDS and how to prevent it. Show me data that better supports an alternative hypothesis and I’ll be happy to change my views.

  344. Hey Dale,

    You said:

    “However, among those infectious things, only two (HIV-1 and to a lesser extent, HIV-2) predict the eventual development of the clinical symptoms that characterize AIDS with such a high degree of certainty”.

    What are the clinical symptoms that characterize AIDS,

    AND,

    What are the other known and verified effectors that characterize these various syptoms?

    Please explain yourself Dale, as this makes absolutely no sense to any rational person.

  345. Dale, You said:

    “Show me data that better supports an alternative hypothesis and I’ll be happy to change my views”.

    Perhaps you would show me any sizeable American cohort of “AIDS” cases that is not also far more than 80% illicit drug abusers?

    By the tone of what you have posted in these threads, I say you are lying that you “would be happy to change my views”. I don’t think you would be “happy” to do so at all!

    Do you find yourself to be lying regularly to yourself and others Dale? How often do you lie?

  346. Dale,

    What I mean by “HOW OFTEN DO YOU LIE”?,

    is, say, on a scale, say, of 0 to 100, with 100 being that everything that comes out of your mouth is a total and complete lie, down to zero, meaning that everything that comes out of your mouth is to be taken as the Highest Truth and Word of GOD.

    Are you a total and complete liar, or do you just lie half of the time, or do you simply slip in an average of about 10 or 20 or 30 percent of what you say is lies.

    Please clarify this so that I can apply your response to my future responses to you.

    At the moment, I would say you are about 20%, and at times even as much as 30% percent honest?

    Would you agree or not, and why?

  347. What are the clinical symptoms that characterize AIDS,
    AND,
    What are the other known and verified effectors that characterize these various syptoms?

    Progressive reduction in blood CD4+ cells, inversion of normal CD4+:CD8+ ratio and other signs of abnormal T cell function including but not limited to chronic immune activation; eventual clinical signs of immune dysfunction as evidenced by opportunistic infections that, while they occur in immune competent individuals, cause more severe symptoms in the immune compromised.

    Other known causes of similar immune suppression – certain types of cancer and use of immunosuppressive drugs (such as those used by organ transplant patients to prevent rejection)

  348. Dale. You failed to answer the second part of my question:

    What are the other known and verified effectors that characterize these various syptoms:

    “Progressive reduction in blood CD4+ cells, inversion of normal CD4+:CD8+ ratio and other signs of abnormal T cell function including but not limited to chronic immune activation; eventual clinical signs of immune dysfunction as evidenced by opportunistic infections that, while they occur in immune competent individuals, cause more severe symptoms in the immune compromised”?

    Are you claiming that other disease states and other phenomena do not have any effect on these “symptoms”?

    Well I would hope not, because the books are full of such effects on HIV negative people! I would have to attribute such a claim back to the department of “Dale’s Lies”.

  349. After extended back and forth with Lincoln,

    Chris Noble wrote:

    There is nothing that I would like more than for HIV not to exist and not to cause AIDS. Unfortunately, wishful thinking alone does not change reality.

    Dale wrote:

    Show me data that better supports an alternative hypothesis and I’ll be happy to change my views.

    I think that these comments are very helpful (particularly Dale’s perfect formulation) for getting the scientific conversation back on track.

    Up until reading the book by Dr. Culshaw, I must admit, that I really hadn’t thought about AIDS in any depth, except for a generalized desire to reduce suffering for those who had it.

    True, the issue is complex, and nearly impossible to sort through in systematic fashion, without devoting a lot of time and energy.

    I would start with the basics, trying to accurately formulate the competing scientific claims:

    Scientific Claim 1:

    A retrovirus, named HIV, transmitted primarily through blood or semen, attacks and destroys CD4 cells, by an unexplained mechanism. This disabling of a critical component of the immune system leads to opportunistic infections and death, if untreated.

    Scientific Claim 2:

    The causal link between the retrovirus => CD4 cell decline => opportunistic infections => death is unproven. Many different things cause CD4 cell decline; many different things cause opportunistic infections. Focusing narrowly on the retrovirus, to the exclusion of other possible factors of pathogenesis, is a mistake.

    Feel free to improve upon the wording of these fomulations. The first step is to describe the claims accurately, not prove them. For example, I am unclear if proponents of Claim No. 1, would add that the reduction of CD4 Cells, leads to other immune dysfunction, that is unique to AIDS patients. But all suggestions/improvements are welcome.

  350. Barry,

    I would say you have purified the “overwhelming mountains” of evidence on both sides of the issue and have successfully isolated them down to five simple and honest and truthful sentences.

    Should we tattoo these 5 sentences into Anthony Fauci’s forehead?

    OR?

    Should we set up a boxing ring and may the best man win?

  351. Hey Chris, Dale, DDT, et al,

    How bouts we flip a coin, and no two out of threes or threes out of fives?

    One flip of the coin, and we can all get on with our lives?

    And, then we have to figure out just where do we go from here?

  352. 1) DT:

    “Pope:
    “AZT, especially in high doses, is an excellent predictor of ‘HIV-related’ fatalities”

    And guess what? Having had chemotherapy is a good predictor for death from lung cancer. So this is merely another fallacious argument.”

    Yes, DT you’ve got it; it’s just another fallacious argument about causation, of the type “HIV is a good predictor of immunodeficiency, therefore HIV causes AIDS”

    2) DT:
    “Then there’s the PCP argument. According to DT, PCP was almost non-existent before HIV and corresponds perfectly with the spread of HIV. That is of course not true. Conditions like PCP and KS correspond with certain risk groups such as popper users, who hardly existed before the seventies.” (Pope)

    DT: “Actually it is true. Prior to 1981 there were hardly any cases of PCP recorded in the medical literature. Its epidemiology essentially mirrors that of HIV prevalence.”

    What I meant is it’s not enough to say “PCP mirrrs the spead of HIV prevalence”. one must add PCP mirrors the spread of HIV/AIDS – in certain subgroups at risk of AIDS, gays in this case.

    3) DT:

    “PCP incidence declined after the introduction of cotrimoxazole as prophylaxis. I wonder why this was, considering some rethinkers feel cotrimoxazole use actually causes AIDS?
    The CDC explain how “The advent of HAART has resulted in further declines in rates of PCP and other opportunistic infections” I wonder why that was too…? Couldn’t possibly be anything to do with the success of HAART, could it? Perish the thought!”

    Of course PCP incidence will decline when one becomes aware of the problem and starts treating it. Nobody claims the AIDS drugs are not lethal, lethal to all organisms including bacteria, fungi and human cells.

    3) DT:

    “TB is commoner in certain groups, one of these being drug users. You may need to read up about the medical consequenses of drug use before you make too many unsupported assertions, however. TB is far more prevalent and problematic in drug users with HIV.”

    My assertion was that TB is more common among IV drug users. I don’t see that I disagree with you or your reference in this, so I conclude your line about “unsupported assertions” was a characteristic attempt at a misleading cheap shot.

    In your reference, I find this in support of your last sentence: “Although the number of cases of tuberculosis occurring in drug abusers since 1984 is not directly related to HIV infection, the resurgence of tuberculosis appears closely related to the HIV epidemic. The largest increases have certainly occurred in areas with the highest HIV prevalence. The recent outbreaks of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis among HIV-infected substance abusers in different geographic areas make drug users a difficult group to treat”.

    I don’t see how that refutes either Duesberg or Perth.

    4) DT:

    “Kaposi sarcoma is due to HHV type 8. Initially is was thought to be related to use of nitrites (poppers) but this hypothesis did not hold up under scientific scrutiny. Popper users who are not HIV infected do not get KS. HIV-infected men who use poppers (and other drugs) do not progress to AIDS faster than those who don’t. KS is prevalent in Africa (where it mirrors a higher HHV8 prevalence). Africans are not known for their use of poppers. Disseminated forms of KS correlate with HIV seropositivity.”

    Look, I’m not going to call you guys closet fascists or anything like that, but please dust off your old geography books from the long gone school days before you simply tell us stuff like “KS is prevalent in Africa”. Again, Africa is a big and varied place, my guess is what you wanted to say was that KS is endemic in certain parts of Africa. But until I know I really can’t comment on this kind of statements, unreferenced to boot.

    With regard to Western KS cases, are you saying that higher incidence of KS among male homosexuals are also explained by HHV8 prevalence as well?

    “However, the plethora of AIDS diseases was not, and still is not randomly distributed even among the different risk groups . For example, Kaposi’s sarcoma was exclusively diagnosed in male homosexual risk groups using nitrite inhalants and other psychoactive
    drugs as aphrodisiacs (Newell et al 1984; Haverkos et al 1985; Selik et al 1987; Duesberg 1988; Haverkos and Dougherty 1988; Beral et al 1990)” http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html

  353. “Pope,

    Many things are infectious, as you say. However, among those infectious things, only two (HIV-1 and to a lesser extent, HIV-2) predict the eventual development of the clinical symptoms that characterize AIDS with such a high degree of certainty. Are you suggesting that medical science should ignore that correlation just because, even though it has been isolated and characterized by other techniques, it is impossible to isolate HIV by one particular technique that rethinkers have decided, for no scientifically valid reasons that I have ever seen explained, should be the “gold standard”? (Dale)

    Dale,

    I’m not saying science should ignore any correlation, that’s one of the main points. It may be that there is a correlation between HIV and the clinical symptoms of what you call AIDS. I happen to doubt the correlation is as
    good as you apparently think. I certainly disagree that the correlation is good enough to hand out death sentences by.

    Your simplified formulation again smoothes over how many scientic and political toes and heels were chopped to make the shoe fit. I hate to direct you to that awful website again, but here’s an account from one of the actual developers of the antibody tests dealing with just one aspect of the issue:

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/01/rodney_richards.html

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/02/rodney_richards.html
    (Notice these are different URLs. The piece is in two parts)

    The rethinkers are asking for an HIV particle – a whole particle directly from a patient. They don’t need, as DT suggests, to kill a patient in order to get enough material to propagate the thing in cell lines. Just one particle, from a purified selection for obvious reasons

  354. Let us assume that I have fairly formulated the competing claims:

    Scientific Claim 1:

    A retrovirus, named HIV, transmitted primarily through blood or semen, attacks and destroys CD4 cells, by an unexplained mechanism. This disabling of a critical component of the immune system leads to opportunistic infections and death, if untreated.

    Scientific Claim 2:

    The causal link between the retrovirus => CD4 cell decline => opportunistic infections => death is unproven. Many different things cause CD4 cell decline; many different things cause opportunistic infections. Focusing narrowly on the retrovirus, to the exclusion of other possible factors of pathogenesis, is a mistake.

    I would, then, ask proponents of Scientific Claim No. 1:

    There are patients described in the literature who have depleted CD4 cell counts, in the absence of HIV, true?

    Therefore, it logically follows that there are factors, other than HIV, that cause a decline in CD4 cell counts, true?

    References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  355. Dale, DT, Dr. Noble,

    If any of you should choose to take Barry up on his challenge, please notice that the authors of the last study referenced by him seem to be familiar with the ‘uniquely “profound immunodeficiency” in the case of AIDS’ line, and have decided to deal with it right off the bat.

  356. Dear Chris Noble, Dale, Robster, Wic, DDT, Tara, and all. If you wish not to take Barry up on his challenge, you might then consider becoming members of The Group For The Scientific Reappraisal of HIV-AIDS, by clicking on the link below, and signing your name to join the growing ranks of Rethinkers.

    You will be joining an ever increasing number of scientists, researchers, doctors, politicians, and lay people from around the world, including distinguished Nobel Laureates and other leaders of our civilized world, in a global effort to end HIV/AIDS.

    It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.

    By signing the statement below one becomes a member of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis. Sofar, more than 2500 people have signed this list online. This list is an addition to the first list (1991-1994).

    CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE LIST

  357. Yah know, sometimes, I just crack myself up!

    Thank you all for the endless hours of amusing entertainment.

    Yours in Good Spirits,
    Abraham Lincoln

  358. Lincoln’s comments includes this: Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis.

    Lincoln is saying HIV scientists are not credible, no matter how many tens of thousands of them there are or what their credentials are because science is not a democracy.
    But dissidents are credible as proven by sheer numbers and credentials on this list of 2500+ people.

    I looked at the list. Less than a third of the signers are MDs or PhDs in science. I didn’t see anyone I recognized from HIV AIDS research. A lot of signers especially the more prominent ones watered down their position with comments. Like Gerard Pollack who says AZT should be debated more and I think that’s hardly a denialist stance.

    Compare this list and the Durban Declaration. I can’t sign Durban even though I study SIV and HIV because I don’t have a PhD in science. Even Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos couldn’t sign Durban. We can both sign the Reappraisal list. We can sign it as many times as we want under different names too.

    The Durban Declaration is monitored and fact-checked and only people with genuine relevant degrees (PhD in science or MD) get to sign it.

    Who are those many biochemical scientists I wonder Lincoln? That guy in Mexico can’t even figure out how to do an ELISA properly and brags about it on his website. Giraldo is even worse and he’s just a technician, hes not licensed to practice medicine in this country. What about Walter Gilbert whose still on the list years after he saw how wrong some dissident ideas were and spoke out publically. How can someone get off the list?

    Lincoln your list is full of holistic therapists and PhDs in anthropology and students and journalists and businesspeople.

  359. Pope and Lincoln,

    If you wish not to take Barry up on his challenge..

    Not to be a stickler, but I don’t view this necessarily as a “challenge.” I intend to scrutinise the Clam No. 2 as hard as I scrutinise Claim No. 1. No pre-determined outcomes either.

    I’ve even dusted off my old Epidemiology: principles and methods by MacMahon and Pugh (1970)!

  360. Barry, T-cell counts can be depressed by a lot of things and you guys already talked about a lot of them.

    Viral infections
    Fungal infections
    Bacterial infections
    Immunotherapy
    Some other therapies
    High stress
    Intense exercise
    Some heart problems
    Some cancers

    This doesn’t mean HIV doesn’t cause CD4 decline. Healthy people who get HIV almost always have CD4+ losses sooner or later even if they don’t have OIs or therapies first. Healthy monkeys who get pathogenic SIV almost always have CD4+ losses.

    The reasoning here reminds me of a story. A guy gets shot in a bad drug deal. There’s blood on the ground all around the body. A witness says the guy was shot and describes how. The police detective sucks on a pencil, furrows his brow, and replies, “hell no, there’s a lot of ways blood can leave the body. Getting shot was just a symptom of the blood loss not its cause. I see a hundred cases like this every year and every time the so-called bullet is just what I call a passenger. What do I always see? Drugs. Always drugs. Poverty. Always poverty. Stress in other words. And stress causes nosebleeds. This guy died of a goldarn bloody nose.”

  361. Barry,

    that’s ok. I appreiate your motives. You will soon enough see that it WAS a challenge to some; in fact I trust you’ve seen that already just above…

    Adele, it does you credit as a scientist that arguing by analogy isn’t your strong point. The question was, is a bullet always the necessary and sufficient cause of death by blood loss or could a knife wound have caused the same kind of “profound and prolonged” bleeding?

    It looks to me like you’ve just conceded that point, and so it’s your opinion HIV free AIDS is a scientific fact.

  362. Pope it does you credit as a religious man that arguing, period, is not your strong point.

    A knife wound, getting beat with a baseball bat, a botched operation and a bad nosebleed can all cause profound and prolonged bleeding. But when you see a fatal gunshot wound, you don’t think nosebleed.

    When my ten monkeys have profound CD4 loss and get really sick weeks, months, or years after inoculation with a pathogenic SIV strain while the uninfected monkeys in the next cage over have no CD4 loss and are healthy, I can rule out high stress, excess aerobic exercise, immunosuppressive therapy, lymphatic cancers, radiation, and all the other causes I listed before. It’s SIV and AIDS.

    Pope of course there’s HIV-free lymphocytopenia. Do you know how many cases? Then tell us how many of these are ICL? Do you know how hard it is to recruit ICL patients for a study? Do you know why? Because there aren’t many. You’re lucky to find fifteen or twenty people and then even some of those won’t fit the definition.

    Many things CAN lead to CD4 loss. Not many things DO lead to CD4 loss. Untreated HIV is one. IT leads predictably to CD4 loss in most almost all infected people. You don’t like it, I don’t like it. But its true.

  363. The argument goes if stress can cause loss of T-cells then HIV doesn’t cause loss of T-cells.
    It’s like if having a rabies vaccine can cause a false positive on HIV test then the HIV test obviously doesn’t test for HIV.
    Cute but kinda amateurish.

  364. Adele,

    I may have misunderstood Barry, in which case I apologize for referring to his “challenge”, but it seemed to me we had started over and were proceeding with much smaller steps than my religious flights of fancy.

    The first small step, as I understood it, was to examine if there are cases that fit the description of AIDS without HIV.

    Just one single confirmed such is enough to expose the name trickery that made HIV part of AIDS as an a priori matter.

    Thus, at this point we don’t need to question whether HIV and SIV can cause CD4 cell loss, or make sick.

  365. Adele wrote:

    T-cell counts can be depressed by a lot of things ..

    This doesn’t mean HIV doesn’t cause CD4 decline

    Of course it doesn’t — didn’t imply that it did. But when examining ANY scientific proposition: (X is the sole cause of Y), you have to ask and answer 2 things:

    1. Does something other than X cause Y?
    2. Does X cause something other than Y?

    I think we can all now agree, based on the science, that CD4 cell depletion is not a result (effect) unique to HIV (purported cause).

    This has implications, though, based on “confounding variables,” which I will discuss later.

    For example, if you lived in a Japan in the 1940s and later developed leukemia it could be caused by HTLV, a virus that purportedly causes cancer, but you may have suffered exposure to the radiation fall-out the atomic bomb detonated in Hiroshima). You would have to address the confounding factors.

  366. lincoln whined: Why do you yourself want HIV to be real or to be the cause of immune dysfunction?

    Your constant assertion that because I have examined the evidence and have concluded that this evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory that HIV exists and is responsible for the specific pattern of immune suppression seen in AIDS that I somehow want to believe this to be true is simply rhetorical nonsense. Your arguments are an indication of a complete lack of integrity. Please address the evidence rather than pursuing pointless speculation about my motivation.

    So far I am supposed to be an alcoholic, drug addicted, self loathing, megalomaniac, homophobic closet gay who secretly desires for some secret personal reasons that HIV exists and causes AIDS. If this really helps you avoid examining the evidence that I have presented then you are welcome to live in your delusions.

    Please accept that if you voice your own delusions about HIV and AIDS in public then you are almost certain to be criticised. Please do not take these criticisms personally. Deal with the science and evidence.

  367. The reasoning here reminds me of a story. — Adele

    Your story is a poor analogy. First, any common observer can see that the circumstances of a gunshot wound are nearly opposite to the circumstances of HIV=AIDS. Therefore, your story’s “lesson” is worthless, in this case. A gunshot wound is clinically unmistakeable. Hell, even a medically untrained detective could make a correct diagnosis. You are unfairly trying to characterize rethinkers as bumbling detectives by using a simple and transparent analogy. That’s deceitful. Stick to the facts, Sherlock.

    Lastly, you say that “everyone” with HIV suffers T-cell loss but that is easily falsifiable. In the US alone, there are an estimated million HIV carriers, yet out of that million, there are only a few thousand HIV-postive AIDS patients in any given year. That certainly leaves room for many, many possible patients who excape your “everyone” claim. Just because you believe that everyone who tests positive will necessarily become T-cell deficient does not make it so. That’s what you have to prove, Adele. Even it there are a few thousand who fit that description, there are many more who do not–to say nothing of the increasing number of HIV-negative patients suffering from severe immune dysfunction that may or may not correlate well with T-cell losses. We’ll continue to be only selectively informed on that potential correlation as long as people like yourself, Adele, ignore other relevant co-factors. Propagation of such ignorance may be necessary to bolster your own faith in HIV, but for people like me, the ones who do not fit your correlation, well, I’d prefer that scientific inquiry into the matter be carried out with integrity and rigor.

    Kevin

  368. I looked at the list. Less than a third of the signers are MDs or PhDs in science.

    That just shows you how few mainstream scientists there are who value integrity above job security and/or personal glory.

    Compare this list and the Durban Declaration. I can’t sign Durban even though I study SIV and HIV because I don’t have a PhD in science.

    Credentialism has fallen out of favor, Adele, really it has…at least with independent-minded intellectuals. Do you know why? Credentialism is an even less reliable tool today than in the past. In the current environment, all PhD-level research involving HIV is being heavily funded by corporations that have significant interests in the outcome of that research. This is a conflict of interst that science can no longer afford to accommodate. For proof of just how damning these connections are, check out the following two websites:

    List of PhD researchers in situations that likely compromise professional decisons.

    This is what can happen when a high-level PhD researcher refuses to compromise.

    Kevin

  369. Kevin, you are completely misrepresenting Adele’s point.

    She was responding to the standard “rethinker” tactic of producing a list of scientists that dissent from manmade global warming/evolution/HIV etc. The basic “rethinker” tactic is to create the impression that a) there is a controversy in this field and b) the current “paradigm’ is in crisis.

    The Durban Declaration and the Steve Project are responses to this tactic. Lay-people reading popular literature and “rethinker” websites can easily get the false impression that there is in fact a legitimate controversy. There isn’t. There exists a scientific consensus on each of these issues. This consensus is not established by some political process but arises through the very processes that are central to the scientific project- the presentation of evidence to fellow scientists and the evaluation of this evidence.

    The portrayal of the vast majority of scientists as being either a) following the consensus out of ignorance b) only concerned in keeping their research positions or c) paid shills of the pharmaceutical companies is just a selfserving delusion that enables people to ignore reality.

    In reality scientific recognition goes to people that make discoveries that go against the current understanding of science. Every scientist would rather be an Einstein or a Galileo than the vast majority of scientists that make the majority of small but vital contributions to science. If you have ever been to a scientific conference or followed rivalries between different groups you would know that the scientific community is not the giant flock of sheep as portrayed by “rethinkers”.

    If “rethinkers” really want to overturn the science behind HIV/AIDS then they will have to produce some science that is capable of convincing scientists. Writing popular books directed at lay-audiences or pursuing test-cases in courts will not achieve these aims.

    You cited Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” and suggested I should put it on my reading list. It’s been on my bookshelf for several years. The term “paradigm” has to be one of the most abused words in post-modern times. Kuhn must be turning in his grave with the use/abuse that has been made of his work. Anybody whose theories are rejected by the vast majority of scientists appeals to Kuhn’s ideas in order to explain their lack of success. In reality the vast majority of theories that are rejected are rejected because they are not supported by the evidence. It should also be noted that nowhere in Kuhn’s book does he support the use of the legal system as an alternative to actually doing science. Scientific revolutions are not done in courts.

  370. The Durban Declaration was produced in response the ass whoopin’ AIDS Inc. received in South Africa. Rethinkers produced their list in response to the Durban Declaration.

    These things are unfortunately necessary because the ‘Establishment’s’ first and last lines of attack or defence are always “you are a fringe nut, you are alone, isolated, everybody says you’re crazy – we’ll have you fired!”.

    Dr. Noble’s contention that the sort of ‘consensus’ Kevin and others are referring to is not political in nature but grows out of the finest traditions of pure as driven snow self-correcting science is so naive and transparent that I think it warrants no further comment.

    Dr. Noble is absolutely right, however, that ‘paradigm'(in Kuhn’s sense) is a word that has been thrown around far too lightly in these debates, to the point that we have almost lost sight of its original meaning. It is now mostly to their detriment when rethinkers use it.

    In the face of this kind of propaganda war waged by those who have all the money, all the major access to the media, rethinker’s must do what they can to reach out and create some sense of unity.

  371. “She was responding to the standard “rethinker” tactic of producing a list of scientists that dissent from manmade global warming/evolution/HIV etc. The basic “rethinker” tactic is to create the impression that a) there is a controversy in this field and b) the current “paradigm’ is in crisis.”

    Cheney’s tactic is to claim that there is no civil war in Iraq.

    “If “rethinkers” really want to overturn the science behind HIV/AIDS then they will have to produce some science that is capable of convincing scientists. Writing popular books directed at lay-audiences or pursuing test-cases in courts will not achieve these aims.”

    Everyone on either side writes books for the lay people, so what? When laws are being written down because of science or when science tries to make the law, then the courts have every right to wigh in. Reality here or there, science is a democracy. It is concensus driven. Besides, scientists should not weigh in on legal debates; it is out of there pay grade and area of expertise. 😉

  372. “She was responding to the standard “rethinker” tactic of producing a list of scientists that dissent from manmade global warming/evolution/HIV etc.”

    Are you trying to make her look like a global warming denialist, ID proponent? Why don’t you just come out and also call her a holocaust denialist?

  373. Actually science and law do not necessarily serve the same purpose. Law serves a regulatory purpose; it defines the boundaries of human behaviour and relationships beyond which these are considered harmful to individuals or the public in general. The law also defines the the nature of certain behaviours and relationships within those boundaries and consequently the related rights and duties of the every member of society.
    Science on the other hand only attempts to describe the reality of nature; the only boundaries that science knows are those that are observed. Reality does not depend on the consensus of the observers; only the perception of that reality may achieve a consensus.

    Science is observational and descriptive; law is prescriptive and declarative. Science describes what is and law prescribes what should be. We do not choose our reality but we certainly choose our legal reality. As such law is reality by consensus; whatever society chooses to define as law becomes a legal reality. It need not reflect reality as it would be described by science.

    Law is very much dependent on science. Science often tells us what is harmful and should thus be suppressed. But law also finds much of its justification in morals and ethics that do not necessarily have a scientific basis. You can not empirically prove that all humans are created equal and have inalienable rights. But our ethical and moral beliefs hold these to be self evident truths. On the other hand you can prove that hitting some one can cause physical damage and on that basis laws proscribe assault.

    When the courts recognized the claims of HIV infected persons in their appeals for remedy against the various organizations responsible for the blood supply, they recognized the legal existence of HIV. Medical consensus was that HIV is a virus that is carried in the blood and semen of infected people and that in most cases it causes AIDS and leads to the death of the infected person. When presented with the factual evidence and the expert testimony the judges could only decide whether it was sufficient to warrant a conviction. The judges did not rule on the reality of HIV itself in scientific terms.

    The precautionary principal plays an important role in dealing with HIV infection in criminal law. The medical consensus and the factual evidence warrants treating the willful or negligent transmission of HIV as constitutive of assault and causing bodily harm. Some jurisdictions allow charges of attempted manslaughter and even murder. According to the precautionary principle a high probability of HIV infection leading to severe health problems, and evidence to the contrary lacking, is sufficient cause for action. The consequences are to serious for the victim.

    Whether the medical establishment is unanimous or not in their appreciation of the effects of HIV on the body or even as to its very existence is irrelevant. A consensus is sufficient. It may very well be that one day we will realize that our understanding of HIV was as wrong as the early nineteenth century belief that cholera was caused by miasma. But until then we have to assume that HIV causes AIDS and ultimately leads to death in most cases. We also have to assume that HIV is transmitted with the bodily fluids of the carriers. It would be terrible if we accepted Duisberg’s theories and it turns out that he was in fact wrong. What do you tell people then? Oups?

  374. It would be terrible if we accepted Duisberg’s theories and it turns out that he was in fact wrong. What do you tell people then? Oups?

    Why is that potential mistake any more terrible than the currently accepted mistakes? Could it be that your irrational faith in knowledge by consensus results from your inability to honestly consider the many human tragedies for which the current consensus is fully responsible. The tragedy of high-dose AZT is a good place for you to start your reality check, Sascha, but there are plenty of other “Oops” that you could currently tell people about, if that’s your concern. In fact, assuming you are interested in an honest consideration of the matters you discuss in your post, you will want to know about Guinea Pig Kids, a documentary that shows the enormous tragic potential of the current seriously-flawed theory.

    Kevin

  375. “It would be terrible if we accepted Duisberg’s theories and it turns out that he was in fact wrong. What do you tell people then? Oups?”

    Well we say “Oups” all the time but apart from that I think your interpretation of the legaleze is correct and it should and cannot be any other way. Parenze is a slam-dunk for the prosecution simply because this one guy took it upon himself to not only to re-write science but also to go and apply his newly found understanding of HIV to his sex life and to top it off he pulls a chauvinist stunt by thinking his sexual partners not worthy of his newfound wisdom. I can only imagine the terror those women went through, especially the one who now has to live with this HIV branding. HIV+’s still have the obligation to divulge their status to their sex partners because they just might not share the view that HIV is a load of crap and would like to be able to make that call themselves. Parenze is, at the very least, guilty of gross disrespect and should be bi…-slapped and at the worst he is indeed guilty of negligence causing bodily harm.

  376. Whether the medical establishment is unanimous or not in their appreciation of the effects of HIV on the body or even as to its very existence is irrelevant. A consensus is sufficient.

    No, it isn’t. Science is not performed in a vacuum, Sascha. Your post was full of absolutist booshat. Your view is the one that eschews reality for idealism. Even though I agree that legal proceedings are not the optimum method for establishing the validity of scientific claims, the effects of scientific claims on our collective liberties and on public health, in general, are hardly irrelevant matters that can be left completely to a highly politicized scientific community for validation. That just doesn’t work and HIV is the perfect example of how tragic the results of such negligence can be. Sometimes, it takes legal challenges to get the public to take notice of bureaucratic machinations run amuck, and public health issues are particularly vulnerable to politicization.

    You need to wake up.

    Kevin

  377. Kevin,
    How exactly do you expect the law to react in the case of HIV? The law is obliged to go with the scientific “consensus”. If the law chose to side with, for ex. Dusberg on the case of HIV and it turned out he was wrong then there would be hell to pay in the echelons of law enforcement but as lond as they go with scientific consensus, it is science which is held responsable. The AZT “Oops” is definitly a science “Oops” and not a legal “Oops”, that would be “Guantanamo”.

    Sascha doesn’t need to wake up, it’s not about him, he merely outlines in broad strokes what the legal reality is. “It need not reflect reality as it would be described by science.”

  378. The tragedy relates to the precautions that we can take in relation to what is believed to be a fairly serious threat. Were we to accept that Duisberg is right and forego the use of condoms, clean needles for drug users and screaning the blood supply for HIV and other virii and then discover that HIV is in fact real and that it does lead to AIDS; that would be a tragedy.
    You’re right about other tragedies that may in fact be caused by erroneous consensus; when applied to AZT and other possibly highly toxic or otherwise untested drugs the precautionary principle might have us use these sparingly if not at all. In cases where people were subjected to its application without informed consent being given you have a clear case of malpractice and possibly even criminal assault.
    My comments were in response to Pat’s contention that science is consensus driven. I disagreed. I don’t know that HIV causes AIDS and that it is deadly and that is sexually or otherwise transmitted or that it even exists. I don’t have the scientific background to assess for myself the evidence pro and contra and decide who is right. But I do know that I would be ethically deficient if I – in the face of what today is still an overwhelming agreement – decided to say to hell with it and act as if I had never heard of HIV.
    Faith in knowledge by consensus is not irrational; it is actually quite rational. The more people search for a cause and the more people come to the same conclusion, the higher the probability that that conclusion reflects reality. Of course it may turn out to be wrong all the same. We may have not had the basic knowldege to properly comprehend the problem. But as a rule of thumb it turns out to be quite reliable.
    Sufficiently reliable for individuals and society to use it as means of making policy decisions.

  379. Sorry Kevin, missed your previous discussion of my other point.
    Law is by definition very absolutist. It is what we like to call in legeleze the “last resort”. Law is a gross and innefficient means to regulate society. It has a hard time dealing with finer points, it can only serve as a final arbiter of human behaviour. Ideally we should always attempt to act without recourse to the law.
    Public policy is not law. It finds its justification in the law and its limits are constrained by the law. But it is policy; a means of achieving certain goals. Law protects us from policy by setting limits to what governments can and can’t do. Our fundemental liberties are protected by law and not by policy.
    You’re right that it very often takes a judicial decision to confirm a right or a liberty. Civil rights is an example. When policy blatantly violates a persons rights a court must then intervene to give remedy.

  380. Pat.
    In fact it is not a slam dunk for the prosecution. Due process demands that the prosecution prove all the constitutive elements of a charge. In this case it has to prove that harm was caused by the accused behaviour. That being said, as long as we have most of the medical establishment confirming that HIV infection leads to serious health problems then the judge would have a hard time rejecting that testimony.
    The judge is not bound to follow any theory. Expert testimony is stillonly testimony, but it carries a higher valus in the strict limits of what it is meant to verify.
    But I agree that Parenzee had a duty to inform of his serological status.

  381. Sascha doesn’t need to wake up, it’s not about him, he merely outlines in broad strokes what the legal reality is. “It need not reflect reality as it would be described by science.”

    You misunderstand my gripe with Sascha’s viewpoint, Pat. He outlines what the legal reality is like, in a perfect world, which is an important distinction. However, his post has far loftier aims than the simple claim that laws should be obeyed. Hell, I agree with that sentiment, entirely, but that is where my agreement with him, on this matter, ends. For example, I do not believe that legal decisions regarding matters of science are irrelevant. As is very often the case, legal means are often the last opportunity to correct wrongs that have been committed against members of society, where otherwise no corrective action would have been taken. Science is not immune to this type of correction.

    I, too, agree that Parenzee should be prosecuted for acting negligently and for, in essence, breaking the law, but what law exactly has been broken? That is what must be established and, in this case, that requires the evidence for the science supporting such a claim to be examined. I do not believe that he has committed attempted murder because I do not believe the scienctific claims supporting HIV are well-founded. Thus, his defense is about more than mere legal negligence, which is why Sascha’s naive understanding of consensus is so unacceptable. According to Sascha views, a legal challenge to the consensus would be hard to justify. Yet, when the consensus is wrong, laws are subject to change, or at least, I hope that’s still the case. Those changes rarely happen on their own. Someone must challenge the consensus, first, and that someone may break more than one law in the process.

    We don’t live in an ideal world, and neither do scientists, no matter how isolated one believes “the lab” to be. If you want to accurately describe the world, you have to experience it. Scientists included. Objectivity may be the ideal goal for all science, but it is certainly not the norm in HIV science.

    Kevin

  382. Kevin, you are completely misrepresenting Adele’s point.

    I think I demonstrated that she was, in effect, misrepresenting herself, by using a purposely misleading analogy to malign the very real concerns addressed by rethinkers. Were you offended that yet another apologist was exposed, Chris? I know that misrpresentation is your hallmark.

    The term “paradigm” has to be one of the most abused words in post-modern times. Kuhn must be turning in his grave with the use/abuse that has been made of his work.

    Just because a term has become “cliche” does not mean that its original meaning has lost relevance. The religiosity of modern science and its frequent deviation from acceptable standards of inquiry is what would have Kuhn rolling over in his grave.

    As Sascha’s uwittingly insightful post demonstrates, many scientists are holding onto to HIV simple because they do not want to accept the consequences of its failure. Sascha proves that point, exquisitedly:

    It may very well be that one day we will realize that our understanding of HIV was as wrong as the early nineteenth century belief that cholera was caused by miasma. But until then we have to assume that HIV causes AIDS and ultimately leads to death in most cases.

    I’m sure Kuhn would find nothing wrong with such “have to” moments in Science. What do you think, Chris, since you’ve obviously long-digested Kuhn’s work?

    I repeat:

    But no matter how great or numerous the anomalies that persist, Kuhn observes, the practicing scientists will not lose faith in the established paradigm for as long as no credible alternative is available; to lose faith in the solubility of the problems would in effect mean ceasing to be a scientist. — from wikipedia entry on “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”

    Kevin

  383. Kevin
    I was outlining the legal reality in the “real world”. Law is by definition perfect otherwise it could not be applied. Were it imperfect, any judge would dismiss the charges in an instant and we would not have to answer to any of our actions. That is what is meant by absolutist. Law is or isn’t. there is no grey area. The facts then tell us whether a law has been broken or not. Lots of grey area there.
    Legal decisions are of course not irrelevent to science, but they cannot decide the science in lieu of the practitioners themselves. A judge can rule thet there is insufficient evidence that HIV causes harm for him to convict, he might even rule that there is insufficient evidence that HIV exists but that would not change the science. Science is observation of our cosmos. What a judge says about that is irrelevant.
    I agree that courts convicting of attempted murder or manslaughter are over-reaching. It fits in with a development of harsher sentencing demanded by society and in particular victims defense organisations. Remember that the awards given to victims of infected blood supplies were based on the grieveous bodily harm that were the consequences of these infections. It works both ways.

  384. Pat,

    My own take on Chad Parenzee and the legal/scientific aspects of this is different from your own. I see that you consider Chad to be guilty of at least gross disrespect and at worst guilty of negligence causing bodily harm.

    If this were true, then one should be held legally accountable for sneezing or coughing without, as should, according to your interpretation, be required by law, as indeed this cough or sneeze could result in pneumonia and death.

    Show me where anyone is held legally responsible for spreading deadly hepatitis, tuberculosis, ebola, or any other disease by not warning the people they come in contact with.

    Perhaps, with this line of thinking, we could return to the world of 2000 years ago, wherein one who had leprosy was required to walk the streets shouting “unclean” “unclean” to all who would come their way.

    If the science of HIV is wrong, then Chad is also a victim, and it is the duty of the court, and all of us, to protect him, and his God Given rights to freedom and pursuit of happiness as well.

    And then there is the legal foundation of INTENT.

    Did Chad INTEND to cause anyone bodily harm? If Chad has his own doubts or misgivings of HIV science, then an intent to cause harm cannot be. If Chad believes that maybe HIV causes harm, and maybe it does not, then his intent to cause harm cannot be.

    For Chad or anyone to intend “with intention to do bodily harm to another”, then and only then would Chad Parenzee be guilty of a crime, and the law can and should see it in no other way or light, regardless of what “some” or even a “consensus” of scientists believe to be true.

    Furthermore, if Chad believes that only GOD can determine when another will pass from this life, then he would also certainly believe that if another person gets HIV, from him or anybody, and dies from it, then this is meant to be and is GODS will, not his. Certainly in this light, Chad would see it as GODS will that he had gotten it, and therefore it could only be GODS will that anybody else had gotten it.

    Most of Mankind has an extreme egoic fear of death, and most men are incapable of seeing a greater divine power at work. As such, a considerable portion of most of mankinds time and energy is spent in running or trying to squelch or remove all of their percieved causes of fear of ultimate and unchangeable death. Most could not conceive that the time of ones death is set at the time of ones birth, but for those that perceive reality from such a level of being, it is quite a reality for them. And whether or not such as this is ultimate truth, is for none of us to be able to know. One thing I am sure of, is that all will agree that eventually this planet we call earth will oneday dissappear and return to cosmic dust.

  385. My comments were in response to Pat’s contention that science is consensus driven. I disagreed.

    We agree on more than I first understood, but your original statement seemed to be an attempt to legitimize science as “consensus”, but your more recent comments have been clearer. However…

    Faith in knowledge by consensus is not irrational; it is actually quite rational.

    I should have been clearer on this point, myself. Faith in the current medical consensus is not only irrational, but highly dangerous. I had faith in this very consensus, and almost died. I found the answers to my own health problems in the minority opinion and many others have too. I don’t question the consensus opinion regarding most other contemporary scientific claims, i.e. global warming seems to be a real problem. That said, the considerable financial stakes surrounding HIV research have created an un-objective environment for consensus building.

    Public policy is not law. It finds its justification in the law and its limits are constrained by the law. But it is policy; a means of achieving certain goals. Law protects us from policy by setting limits to what governments can and can’t do.

    Public policy does not influence lawmakers and judges in the same way, and that’s a good thing. This distinction is equally important to understanding what governments can and can’t do. Otherwise, what does one do with a laws founded on unsound policies?

    Kevin

  386. Kevin
    I would not dream of interfering in someone’s decisions concerning his personal health care. And you have every right to come to your own conclusions concerning the information that health practitioners give you. You must do what you think is right and no consensus from anyone is necessary for you to take action. there is no justification for forcing someone to follow a therapy he does not believe in.
    When your decisions affect other people you have to take that into account though and possibly err on the side of caution. Public health policy is frought with difficult decisions based on insufficient information and unforseen consequences.
    Who decides what is the best policy? Judges are very wary of weighing in on policy decisions. If courts became the arbiters for all government policy than no one would dare take a decision for fear of a lawsuit.
    It is when the abuse is manifest that a judge can then render a verdict and thus force a change in policy. The difficulty is determining what is manifest. In the case of HIV I personally don’t believe that there is enough evidence to prove that health policy based on the consensus is manifestly wrong.
    Science on the other hand doesn’t know the strict rules governing evidence we have in the courts. Any time now someone might come up with a new hypothesis based on only the flimsiest of evidence. Others might then attempt to disprove his hypothesis by recreating the first experience. Overtime more resaerch will bring more insights and possibly invalidate the hypothesis. But there will be no judge to determine what is right or wrong. The arguments could go on for centuries without a clear settlement.
    In the meantime the rest of us are left with deciding public policy that is needed now and not a century hence.
    So we assume the consensus to be valid representation of reality and base our decisions on that consensus. This system hasn’t fared to badly over the past few millenia. We have obviously made mistakes and most of them were honest mistakes. That is why I said that following the consensus is generally a safe bet.
    But your right in saying that it can backfire miserably and cause untold harm.

    Sascha

  387. “If this were true, then one should be held legally accountable for sneezing or coughing without, as should, according to your interpretation, be required by law, as indeed this cough or sneeze could result in pneumonia and death.

    Show me where anyone is held legally responsible for spreading deadly hepatitis, tuberculosis, ebola, or any other disease by not warning the people they come in contact with.”

    I concede here also that this is true. Other infectious disease carriers have never been challenged in court before (to my knowledge).
    Yes, Sascha, I’m here. I didn’t quite get this:
    “My comments were in response to Pat’s contention that science is consensus driven. I disagreed”
    I think we misunderstand. Science is driven by evidence but because the”truth” is so elusive, it has to be agreed upon by consensus, thus the law goes by the scientific consensus. the will of the majority of scientists. no?

  388. Pat
    Yes, our perception of reality is consensus driven to some degree. And the law largely follows the opinions of the consensus. It actually stands to reason, a judge who would find for the plaintiff in a case he brought against the US government for conspiring with aliens to aid abet in his abduction would be out of a job very quickly. For the general consensus is that aliens may exist but they do not abduct humans.
    Now before you jump on me like a band of howling banshees, I’m not comparing the merits of the one with the merits of not believing HIV exists or causes AIDS. I merely used an exagerated example to illustrate a point.
    There have been cases brought against individuals for transmitting other infectious deseases. The earliest example of someone with being charged with transmitting an infectious desease in Switzerland, for example, tokk place in the late 40’s when a man cherged with rape was also found guilty of grievious bodily harm as well as willful transmission of an infectious agent because he infected his victim with gonorrhea.
    Mostly we find the convictions based on transmission of infectious agents concern epizootics. When farmers negligently or willfuly infect domestic animals.

  389. Hey Chris!

    As regards the advice you just gave me:

    “Please accept that if you voice your own delusions about HIV and AIDS in public then you are almost certain to be criticised. Please do not take these criticisms personally. Deal with the science and evidence”.

    Methinks ye doth protest too much, Chris J Noble!

    I am not sure if you were directing that advice to me or to your very own self. In case is was to me, may I suggest that you stand in fron of a mirror and repeat those words to yourself about a hundred times?

    There is an old saying that “one preaches what one’s own self most needs to learn”.

  390. Chris, you said:

    “So far I am supposed to be an alcoholic, drug addicted, self loathing, megalomaniac, homophobic closet gay who secretly desires for some secret personal reasons that HIV exists and causes AIDS”.

    Well, Chris, are you?

    And if you are, please don’t tell the world right here on this blog, but do tell someone, because if you are, I would like you to know that help is availble if you should wish to seek some help in putting away the bottles and the drugs. Emotional help is also available for dealing with mental and emotional psychoses which are usually the result of undealt with childhood emotional traumas and disturbances. And if you are a closet gay, I would encourage you to love yourself exactly as you are, regardless of what anyone else thinks of you, and understand that you, Chris Noble, gay or straight, are still a divine and loved child of GOD, and you are meant to be here, and gay or straight, you are equally loved by your creator, as such a creator does not create you to be who and how you are, and then withhold divine love from you. Only men hold such meaningless and destructive and judgemental beliefs.

    So carry on Chris, and hold your head high. You too, Chris, are smart enough, good enough, and tough enough to deal with all of these issues and any others that may ever confront you in your life.

  391. Pope wrote:The Durban Declaration was produced in response the ass whoopin’ AIDS Inc. received in South Africa. Rethinkers produced their list in response to the Durban Declaration.

    The “rethinkers” list started in 1991, 9 years before the Durban Declaration. It would be informative to see how many of the original signatories still question the link between HIV and AIDS. Some signatories have in the meantime died from AIDS.

    The meeting that took place in South Africa is an example of the complete opposite of how science should take place. It is an example of how a small minority of contrarian scientists managed to use political means to influence the president of South Africa. This is lysenkoism at its worst.

    The “rethinkers” had completely failed in the scientific arena and chose instead to go straight ot the president bypassing all normal procedures. The consequences of this travesty are only now begiining to be addressed.