Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.
----------------------------------------------

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

BEST VIEWED IN LARGE FONT
Expanded GUIDE TO SITE PURPOSE AND LAYOUT is in the lower blue section at the bottom of every home page.

Henry corrects Tara

Professor drives nice point through Frog’s heart

Consensus is not the measure of a paradigm

Lists signs it is ripe for replacement, points to censorship

Buy his book!

henrybauer.jpgHenry Bauer, author of the comprehensive and well phrased book on the failings of HIV∫AIDS mentioned below, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory by Henry H. Bauer (McFarland Publishers, 2007, $35) alerted us today that the Public Library of Medicine “has warmed the cockles of my heart by posting the following” as email:

Consensus in science

Henry Bauer

Professor Emeritus, Chemistry and Science Studies

Virginia Tech

E-mail

Competing Interests: As revealed in the letter, I am author of a dissident HIV/AIDS book

Submitted Date: September 06, 2007

Published: September 10, 2007

Smith and Novella fail to define ‘rigorous scientific standards’, and apply implicitly this single criterion: accordance with the prevailing mainstream consensus. Evidently they accept as unproblematic a ‘strongly held consensus opinion of the scientific community’ that has persisted for ’23 years’. This begs questions grappled with in a century’s worth of scholarship in science studies (history, philosophy, sociology, etc., of science), thereby ignoring fundamental insights about scientific activity. Amateur pundits – including scientists, journalists, and others – continue to rely on such discredited notions as ‘the scientific method’ and ‘falsifiability’ even as scholarship in science studies long ago demonstrated their inadequacy and abandoned the quest for a definable distinction between science and pseudoscience (1). Pseudoscience is like pornography: it cannot be defined, only ‘recognized when we see it’ – albeit different people judge any given case differently.

A mainstream consensus in science is useful in the short run, as a summary of empirical data and a guide to further research, but it is no absolute truth. Indeed, the mainstream consensus almost always proves inadequate in the longer run: science progresses precisely by modifying a ‘well-established’ consensus in fundamental ways or by overturning it entirely in scientific revolutions (2). Most important to note and not widely appreciated is the fact that before such a paradigm shift, the mainstream typically resists strenuously what eventually becomes the new consensus (3). The contemporary attacks on ‘HIV/AIDS denialists’ (including the frequently ad hominem features of those attacks) illustrate well that typical circumstance.

Among indications that HIV/AIDS theory, like so many consensual scientific beliefs before it, is destined for replacement are these: Gisselquist et al. (4) have shown that sexual transmission of HIV cannot explain the purported epidemics in Africa; an insider has revealed that the estimates promulgated by UNAIDS are unrealistic (5); the totality of official data on HIV tests in the USA are incompatible with the demographics of an infectious and sexually transmissible agent (6). The latter analysis by the present writer has been described in non-partisan sources as ‘credible’ (7) and ‘important . . closely reasoned . . . systematically demolishes the theory – more correctly the hypothesis or conjecture – that . . . (HIV) causes . . . (AIDS)’ (8). The first review to appear in a mainstream AIDS journal (9) is not uncritical yet acknowledges the book’s demonstration of ‘major failings of HIV epidemiology’ and that ‘competent and qualified people who questioned the orthodoxy have been largely excluded from the leading journals’ – illustrating the resistance to change noted above.

Smith and Novella are simply wrong in taking a prevailing mainstream consensus as a sound or sufficient basis for criticizing the views of well qualified individuals who dissent from that consensus.

References

1. Laudan, L. 1983. The demise of the demarcation problem. Pp. 111-27 in Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, ed. R. S. Cohen and L. Laudan, D. Reidel.
2. Kuhn, T. S. 1962/70. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
3. Hook, E. B. (ed). 2002. Prematurity in Scientific Discovery. University of California Press.
4. Gisselquist, D., R. Rothenberg, J. Potterat, and E. Drucker. 2002. HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa not explained by sexual or vertical transmission. International Journal of STD and AIDS 13: 657-66.
5. Chin, J. 2007. The AIDS Pandemic. Radcliffe.
6. Bauer, H H. 2007. The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory. McFarland.
7. Eberhart, G. 2007. C and RL News (College and Research Libraries News) 68, 6 (June).
8. W. F. Shughart II, Public Choice, in press.
9. Potterat , J. J. 2007. International Journal of STD and AIDS 18: 645-6.

Henry H. Bauer lives in Blacksburg, Virginia (tel is (540) 951-2107) and is editor-in-chief, Journal of Scientific Exploration and dean emeritus of arts & sciences, and professor emeritus of chemistry & science studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University.

We will do a review of his book as soon as we have time, but already we can say it is well worth paying even $35 for (it is a textbook) though it is only a small paperback (282 pages). Written in scholarly and polished prose, it is notable for the graceful accuracy of its phrasing, which accomplishes what NAR tries and often fails to do, which is to describe what is happening in an accurate way that tells all, without any loaded phrases of the journalistic kind.

Its content deserves to be much bigger in format than 9x6in, since it is unusually comprehensive and covers the topic against a background of the history and philosophy of science, since Henry Bauer has made a specialty of writing about, assessing and publishing paradigm challenges. In this case it appears that in a remarkably short time he was able to penetrate to several new understandings of why the paradigm won’t fly.

His book is listed at McFarland in North Carolina whose order line is 1-800-253-2187. They have sold 300 of the first two printings, with only 44 left this morning. That’s about 300 people with sufficient interest to pay $35 and be well informed by a seasoned observer of paradigm disputes, surely worthwhile if you are involved in this issue in any way.

We wonder how much of Bauer’s willingness to deal with this topic fearlessly has to do with the fact he is emeritus and thus somewhat beyond the vengeful strictures attempted on other critics in this paradigm arena, which have included attacks on the jobs as well as character of paradigm critics.

Judging from his accomplished work in this area, we imagine that his institution has always been enlightened in this realm, and any underhand tactics by the likes of John P. Moore, Nancy Padian and Mark Wainberg, whose belief in HIV impels them to write letters of complaint to the administration officials of universities and others that harbor critics would get short shrift from Virgina Polytechnic.

16 Responses to “Henry corrects Tara”

  1. McKiernan Says:

    So H H Bauer gets his PHD in 1956 according to wikipedia. He is an emeritus of something from 1978 to 1999.

    Then all of a sudden in 2007, this genius in chemistry and science studies comes out with a book about the failings of the HIV/AIDS paradigm. And then you list his references about hiv/aids from 2007 only.

    One might ask, where was this science studies genius with no apparent expertise in retroviruses between 1978 and 2006 ?

    And why was it again why we should pay $35.00 to buy his promissory book ?

  2. Truthseeker Says:

    McKiernan. what happened? Did your Rip Van Winkle act end? As far as Bauer’s book is concerned the proof is in the pudding. Borrow it from the library if you can’t afford $35 for a book. Or check out the reviews on Amazon. Either way, try and show the basic scientific ethic of getting data which has some meaning before reaching your conclusion. If the guy got his PhD in 1956 and in 2007 (fifty one years later) produces a good book in a year, then he is not too old to have his wits about him. Maybe you should wake up and do something with your retirement yourself. In case you hadn’t heard, sixty is the new forty, Oprah told David Letterman that today since he is now sixty.

    Probably has a lot to do with diet. Do you know the basics of a good diet? Yogurt is a key. Fresh green veggies, tomatoes, grains, not too much meat, fish is best. Try walking instead of sitting on your verandah in a rocking chair. Did you know that having a pet adds seven years to our life?

  3. MacDonald Says:

    Hey McKranky,

    Here’s a FREE sample of how a non-expert in retroviruses like Tara Smith, Steven Novella or Henry Bauer can evaluate the HIV/AIDS connection.

    http://hivnotaids.homestead.com/Abstracts.html

    Why don’t you read it and get back to us with your critique of the author? One condition though: remember those smoke coloured shades that were delivered to you in an unmarked envelope that day your mailman got sick and was substituted by the guy in the black chopper, wearing black suit and similarly smoke coloured shades? You were spying on him apprehensively through a crack in the curtains, but he just delivered the packet and winked before he left again, as if he’d seen you, but you knew he couldn’t have because you were completely hidden and safe where you stood. Ok, good. You need to take those glasses off before you start reading, ok? Take them off put them away. you will feel uncomfortable and insecure in the beginning but it will pass, trust me. You can read and think without them. All it takes is a positive attitude and a little bit of practice.

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    MacK, here is a page you might like, which tells us what to do when faced with the “small but vocal” group of HIV-AIDS skeptics. Click here.

    It is at a site called Everything2.com. Here is the text:
    ———————

    What to say to HIV-AIDS skeptics

    (idea) by AxelBoldt (1.1 wk) (print) ? 1 C! Sat Oct 11 2003 at 16:26:54
    There’s a small but highly vocal group of skeptics who question the standard HIV-causes-AIDS theory. Peter Duesberg and Kary B. Mullis are often cited as prominent members. To see them in action, you may want to visit virusmyth.net. They claim that either HIV does not exist at all or that it doesn’t cause the complex of diseases known as AIDS (often they will reject the term “AIDS” altogether as ill-defined). There are two groups:

    * Those that believe that the diseases described as “AIDS” are caused by behavioral risk factors such as recreational drug use, promiscuous sex, malnutrition, stress, etc.
    * Those that believe that the diseases described as “AIDS” are caused by AIDS drugs such as AZT or protease inhibitors.

    If you meet a specimen, it is inadvisable to argue the evidence for the standard theory. They will talk you to death, just like creationists, never accepting defeat(*). Instead, first make sure that they firmly commit to one of the two non-standard theories above. Don’t let them wander back and forth. Then comes the attack:

    * To people who believe in behavioral risk factors: “Start an insurance company and offer life and health insurance policies to people who test positive for HIV but do not belong to any risk group. Examples are newborns infected through their mothers, wifes of hemophiliacs, health care workers infected on the job etc.”
    * To people who believe in AIDS drugs as cause: “Offer life and health insurance policies to people who test positive for HIV and agree not to take any AIDS medications. Plenty of customers in Africa.”

    Since the skeptics believe to have a better risk estimate than the rest of the insurance industry, they will become rich and will prove their theory at the same time. (*) Here are some arguments, but remember I don’t recommend using them:

    * Baboons can be infected with HIV-2 in the laboratory and will then invariably develop AIDS-like diseases; the lab baboons not so infected won’t develop such diseases.
    * Of two twins, one infected with HIV at birth and the other not, the infected one will develop AIDS, the other won’t.
    * In one study of 51 Mexican patients who received HIV-positive blood transfusions, all of them developed AIDS within 48 months. There are similar studies of health care workers infected on the job.
    * HIV infects and kills CD4+ T-helper cells in the test tube. T-helper cells are crucial to the immune system.
    * Characteristic AIDS symptoms such as wasting syndrome, Kaposi’s sarcoma, Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma or dementia occur in HIV positive patients that have been treated with AZT, in patients that have been treated with protease inhibitors, and in patients that haven’t been treated at all. They occur virtually never together in HIV negative persons.
    * The number of HIV particles in a patient’s blood can be measured with PCR. It correlates well with severity of AIDS symptoms.
    —————-

    How d’ja like the twins point? It’sa clincha!

  5. drpsduke Says:

    Notice that they do not provide any citations to follow up on their wild assertions. Can you find any actual twin studies on HIV infection? Was the infected twin poisoned with antiretrovirals through a feeding tube?

    Biggar RJ, Cassol S, Kumwenda N, Lema V, Janes M, Pilon R, Senzani V, Yellin F, Taha TE, Broadhead RL.
    The risk of human immunodeficiency virus-1 infection in twin pairs born to infected mothers in Africa.
    J Infect Dis. 2003 Sep 15;188(6):850-5. Epub 2003 Sep 9.
    PMID: 12964116

    Biggar RJ, Janes M, Pilon R, Roy R, Broadhead R, Kumwenda N, Taha TE, Cassol S.
    Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection in twin pairs infected at birth.
    J Infect Dis. 2002 Jul 15;186(2):281-5. Epub 2002 Jun 17.
    PMID: 12134267

    Krasinski K, Turner BJ, Hauck WW, Fanning TR.
    HIV-1 infection in a population-based twin sample.
    Pediatr AIDS HIV Infect. 1997 Apr;8(2):114-9.
    PMID: 11361777

    Duliege AM, Amos CI, Felton S, Biggar RJ, Goedert JJ.
    Birth order, delivery route, and concordance in the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 from mothers to twins. International Registry of HIV-Exposed Twins.
    J Pediatr. 1995 Apr;126(4):625-32.
    PMID: 7699546

    Baboons are not infected with HIV-2 or HIV-1 in the wild. The only baboons infected with a primate lentivirus in the wild, had as SIV from the vero subspecies of African Geeen monkeys, and they were not dying of AIDS when they were sampled. In captivity baboons do develop CD4+ T-cell depletion and an immune deficiency leading to an AIDS-like death when infected with HIV-2.

    Locher CP, Witt SA, Herndier BG, Tenner-Racz K, Racz P, Levy JA.
    Baboons as an animal model for human immunodeficiency virus pathogenesis and vaccine development.
    Immunol Rev. 2001 Oct;183:127-40. Review.
    PMID: 11782253

    Barnett SW, Murthy KK, Herndier BG, Levy JA.
    An AIDS-like condition induced in baboons by HIV-2.
    Science. 1994 Oct 28;266(5185):642-6.
    PMID: 7939718

    Locher CP, Witt SA, Herndier BG, Abbey NW, Tenner-Racz K, Racz P, Kiviat NB, Murthy KK, Brasky K, Leland M, Levy JA.
    Increased virus replication and virulence after serial passage of human immunodeficiency virus type 2 in baboons.
    J Virol. 2003 Jan;77(1):77-83.
    PMID: 12477812

    But most good AIDS dissidents insist that there are no animal models for AIDS, so this must be dismissed, along with SHIV infection of macaques etc. The authors were all on the payroll of some pharma company, no doubt…

  6. Truthseeker Says:

    In captivity baboons do develop CD4+ T-cell depletion and an immune deficiency leading to an AIDS-like death when infected with HIV-2….But most good AIDS dissidents insist that there are no animal models for AIDS, so this must be dismissed.

    Not sure why we need “no animal models”, Dr PS, if the human model shows zero effect of HIV-1 on health. But perhaps you have some different data not yet incorporated into the data base at PubMed. What was the latent period for HIV-2 in baboons in that study, pray tell? How much HIV-2 was thrown at them? Did they infect each other, or did the scientists do it? Oh OK, “serial” in one …hmm does that mean through sex? If so how much sex, since for humans the maximum claimed is 1 in 1000, or wait… are these baboons gay?

    Why don’t you include relevant quotes from the abstracts at least, if you want to make a last stand for a thoroughly disproven paradigm on ground we seem to recall has been thrashed over here before, yielding not very much wheat from the chaff.
    An AIDS like death, dear me, did they develop Kaposi’s sarcoma? Wait! That’s no longer an AIDS indication, is it? So what was AIDS-like, exactly? Sorry this stuff’s hash was settled so long ago we are vague about the details now, but we are sure of one thing, that if animal models were persuasive they would occupy the forefront of the debate, wherever it occurred.

    But perhaps you know better, or are you just idly hitting PubMed with a query and pasting it here? Anyone reading your first two lines would think you were a dissident yourself. Well, seems not. But tell us, what questions have you got about the paradigm that you would like answered? Perhaps you question, in the end, what positive HIV tests really measure, since Bauer has shown that the epidemiology indicates it cannot even mostly be just an infectious agent, whatever it is.
    So what do you think positive HIV antibody tests really indicate overall? The blacks in Harlem with their bus stop ads featuring Magic Johnson urging them to go get their “AIDS tests” which we now know score much higher than average that the white population would love to know what you think.

    We sit at thy knees, O Master.

  7. drpsduke Says:

    if the human model shows zero effect of HIV-1 on health

    Um, not quite zero… Maybe 10 to 20% of untreated HIV-infected humans are long term survivors or non-progressors, but at the other end of the spectrum some 10% to 20% are classified as the rapid progressors. A very few even die within one year of infection.
    Within that range of variabiity, some percentage of the differences in rates can be definitively assigned to viral factors, with defects in Nef contributing to some of the long term survivors and changes in evelope sometimes associated with rapid progression. A larger proportion of the variability is found to correlate with human factors, such as different alleles of the CCR5 gene or SDF-1alpha, or Major Histocompatibility complex.

    Meissner EG, Duus KM, Gao F, Yu XF, Su L.
    Characterization of a thymus-tropic HIV-1 isolate from a rapid progressor: role of the envelope.
    Virology. 2004 Oct 10;328(1):74-88.
    PMID: 15380360

    Casartelli N, Di Matteo G, Argentini C, Cancrini C, Bernardi S, Castelli G, Scarlatti G, Plebani A, Rossi P, Doria M.
    Structural defects and variations in the HIV-1 nef gene from rapid, slow and non-progressor children.
    AIDS. 2003 Jun 13;17(9):1291-301.
    PMID: 12799550

    Resino S, Correa R, Bellon JM, Munoz-Fernandez MA.
    Preserved immune system in long-term asymptomatic vertically HIV-1 infected children.
    Clin Exp Immunol. 2003 Apr;132(1):105-12.
    PMID: 12653844

    Imami N, Pires A, Hardy G, Wilson J, Gazzard B, Gotch F.
    A balanced type 1/type 2 response is associated with long-term nonprogressive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection.
    J Virol. 2002 Sep;76(18):9011-23.
    PMID: 12186885

    Munkanta M, Terunuma H, Takahashi M, Hanabusa H, Miura T, Ikeda S, Sakai M, Fujii T, Takahashi Y, Oka S, Matsuda J, Ishikawa M, Taki M, Takashima Y, Mimaya J, Ito M, Kimura A, Yasunami M.
    -B polymorphism in Japanese HIV-1-infected long-term surviving hemophiliacs.
    Viral Immunol. 2005;18(3):500-5.
    PMID: 16212528

    Why don’t you include relevant quotes from the abstracts at least,
    quoting the whole abstract is not quite legal due to copyright and all that. Quoting selected snippets is often unethical because I might quote the parts that agree with my argument and not those that disagree. Besides, the abstract most often does not contain the details of the materials, methods and raw data, that you really need to read to get the full story. PubMed is free to everyone in the world, the full abstracts are just one or 2 mouse clicks away for anyone who cares to see them. Full papers sometimes require a subscription and are sometimes freely available from the journals. In other ases you can write to the authors for a reprint, go to the library, or buy a subscription.

    how much sex, since for humans the maximum claimed is 1 in 1000
    No, the 1 in 1,000 type numbers come from studies of USA or European heterosexual long-term serodiscordant (where the couples started being followed after already proving to be in the low transmission category) couples. In most other studies, the rate of transmission is far higher than that, with the highest rates found when the donor partner is preseroconversion with a huge spike in viral load before his or her antibodies have brought that viral load down to less the preseroconversion peak.

    McCutchan FE, Hoelscher M, Tovanabutra S, Piyasirisilp S, Sanders-Buell E, Ramos G, Jagodzinski L, Polonis V, Maboko L, Mmbando D, Hoffmann O, Riedner G, von Sonnenburg F, Robb M, Birx DL.
    In-depth analysis of a heterosexually acquired human immunodeficiency virus type 1 superinfection: evolution, temporal fluctuation, and intercompartment dynamics from the seronegative window period through 30 months postinfection.
    J Virol. 2005 Sep;79(18):11693-704.
    PMID: 16140747

    Tang J, Tang S, Lobashevsky E, Zulu I, Aldrovandi G, Allen S, Kaslow RA; Zambia-UAB HIV Research Project.
    HLA allele sharing and HIV type 1 viremia in seroconverting Zambians with known transmitting partners.
    AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2004 Jan;20(1):19-25.
    PMID: 15000695

    Quinn TC, Wawer MJ, Sewankambo N, Serwadda D, Li C, Wabwire-Mangen F, Meehan MO, Lutalo T, Gray RH.
    Viral load and heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Rakai Project Study Group.
    N Engl J Med. 2000 Mar 30;342(13):921-9.
    PMID: 10738050

    Gray RH, Wawer MJ, Brookmeyer R, Sewankambo NK, Serwadda D, Wabwire-Mangen F, Lutalo T, Li X, vanCott T, Quinn TC; Rakai Project Team.
    Probability of HIV-1 transmission per coital act in monogamous, heterosexual, HIV-1-discordant couples in Rakai, Uganda.
    Lancet. 2001 Apr 14;357(9263):1149-53.
    PMID: 11323041

    would love to know what you think. We sit at thy knees, O Master.

    What I think has no bearing on reality. I am no master, I just know how to find data from actual studies, rather than relying on someone like Harvey Bialy or Anthony Liversidge to tell me what someone like Peter Duesberg thinks about the gay lifestyle. You tell me, how many gay men did Peter interview to to conclude that the ones who used the most drugs were the ones who were dying in 1981 through 1994? Which drugs did Arthur Ashe and Micheal Callen use, for example?

  8. Truthseeker Says:

    Thank you for providing that set of fat targets for blowing out of the water, Dr PS, which shows that you are as is typical of paradigm defenders, utterly unfamiliar with what is wrong with the paradigm scripture you quote, or else plain dimwitted, or perhaps knowingly misleading, which is a sin that one suspects most of the competent priests are committing, and not unconsciously, which some of the naive and kinder hearted lay dissenters might allow. Since we have some reason now to think that you are slow witted perhaps you have some moral excuse for peddling this nonsense at such a late stage in the demolition of the paradigm, but not much.

    However tempting the nonsense you put up here is as a target, however, the pleasure of shooting it through the bullseye will have to wait because we have a lunch at the University Club tomorrow and the clock is moving onward. But we can say as a quick Parthian shot that your attempts to curry favor with the gays by accusing critics of homophobia is quite frankly pathetic, since it betrays your lack of faith in scientific defenses of the paradigm that you therefore do not wholeheartedly believe more vividly than a stripper reveals her charms by snaking round a pole in a Times Square 25 cents peep show.

    A very few even die within one year of infection…..! Holy Virus, where have you been in the last 23 years?

    Anyway thank you for revealing your lack of understanding of what is going on, which we will attempt to deal with tomorrow if there is time to teach you the basics. But why not buy Bauer’s book? Or Bialy’s? or Duesberg’s, since you evidently haven’t read any of them.

    Must go, cheers.

  9. MartinDKessler Says:

    “Infected with HIV” – well, assuming that this bug actually exists, (I’m trying to look at the basics) do the anti-body tests actually prove that the test taker with a “positive” result is really infected? To me it is folly to talk about HIV infection rates, administer toxic therapies, compile statistics, and report them based on a test that hasn’t been validated. For the most part it seems to me that the antibody tests are more likely to capture gays and IV drug users – two groups (among others) the goverment might like to exterminate. Even the dissident literature writes about “HIV infection rates” as if the data was true. That says to me that even the dissident commentary took the infection rate data seriously. Rebecca Culshaw’s book seemed very concerned about the lack of validation data of the antibody tests – that’s a good start.

  10. Chitachitamuchita Says:

    As original source of information for :

    “Of two twins, one infected with HIV at birth and the other not, the infected one will develop AIDS, the other won’t.”

    drpsduke provided two Biggard papers as references

    But Biggard work was only on HIV transmission and there is nothing saying that one of the twins developed AIDS. .

    Manipulating information DrPSDuke ?

  11. Truthseeker Says:

    If the human model shows zero effect of HIV-1 on health

    Um, not quite zero… Maybe 10 to 20% of untreated HIV-infected humans are long term survivors or non-progressors, but at the other end of the spectrum some 10% to 20% are classified as the rapid progressors. A very few even die within one year of infection. Within that range of variability, some percentage of the differences in rates can be definitively assigned to viral factors, with defects in Nef contributing to some of the long term survivors and changes in evelope sometimes associated with rapid progression. A larger proportion of the variability is found to correlate with human factors, such as different alleles of the CCR5 gene or SDF-1alpha, or Major Histocompatibility complex.

    If you are on the level, Dr PS, is it not time, at long last, to call a halt to this nonsense? How you, as any kind of scientist, can sit at your keyboard and write such unsubstantiated fantasy at this stage of the game beggars the imagination, even if your motives emotional and political, whatever they are, drive you to it. What evidence is there that remains after removing the assumption that HIv causes illness, let alone death, that allows you to turn this highly suspect, data managed correlation in these studies based on this unquestioned premiseinto a causal one? What prescription are these meme spectacles you wear that can blind you to the elephant in the room invisible to you, when the critics have shot, dismembered and made stew out of the animal for your gustatory enjoyment and easy digestion? The elephant being the drugs which, unlike HIV, have a known, demonstrable effect on the human system, an effect explicated in a thousand papers without data management, according to principle and practical effects familiar to all, even those without a degree, drugs which correlate so well with their effects when whatever it is that triggers positive HIV antibody tests does not correlate AT ALL in the general population with the rise and fall of the bundle of everything-including-the-kitchen-sink health disasters that are labeled without proof or even good reason “HIV-AIDS”? What does it take to get you to take off these distorting grey lenses and see what is right in front of your nose? What does it take for you to develop some sense of responsibility for the babble you are propagating when you as a scientist above all should be talking sense to the masses that follow your lead? Perhaps the topic of the book we were reading last night might seem irrelevant to you if we mention it – Auschwitz by Lawrence Rees – but believe us when we say it sure seems to evoke a few parallels to your behavior when one reads the testimony of the SS guard Oskar Groenig and his “just following orders” and “seemed right at the time” and no need to apologize even now because after all he knew about the “international Jewish conspiracy”. Is there really any more substance to your pathetic invocation of technical expertise and studies which promulgate this deadly fantasy by working backwards from it? Studies which in their assumptions conflict with their reviews by mainstream as well as by honest, knowledgeable and thoroughly analytical critics, whose rebuttal has been maintained without cogent refutation or even sensible answer except for claims as empty as hot air balloons of “overwhelming evidence dangerous to question” for twenty three years, gathering support wherever intelligent readers attend properly to their points? Is your capacity for reviewing what you have accepted so weak or is it that you have no understanding of history and how often science and medicine rejects advances because they conflict with conventional wisdom when by definition all major new knowledge conflicts with current understanding, either revising it or replacing it? Are you really unfamiliar with the fact that this has all happened before, many many times, though perhaps not quite to the absurd extent of this Enron-Worldcom of medical science.

    Yes, many AIDS patients die rapidly once they enter the gates of this particular hell on earth with a positive HIV test but there is not a shred of acceptable evidence they die because of HIV, and there is every evidence they die of the drugs they have taken before or after this ignorant diagnosis, the latest being the Danish Lhose study which shows that drugs double the death rate in the first year. But what is it that blinds you to the implication of the history of this artificial epidemic which shows that the prevalence of “HIV positivity” in this country has remained flat as a pancake for more than two decades at a million or so while deaths from the real cause have gone up and down hand in hand with the arrival of lethal medication for a harmless virus in the form of AZT and then the reduction of toxicity of the medication by reducing AZT and mixing protease inhibitors into the less poisonous cocktail gays now take so enthusiastically, beaming with delight at being saved even as they are forced to take drug holidays and breathe germs all over anybody that talks to them. “Definitively assigned to viral factors, with defects in Nef contributing to some of the long term survivors and changes in envelope sometimes associated with rapid progression” – for God’s Sake, man, pull yourself together and stop clutching at straws, an elephant is an elephant and it will step on you sooner or later if you refuse to acknowledge it is there, and spend your thinking time trying to rationalize a hypothesis based on a claim that even Robert Gallo was tentative about until he found that you only had to attach a nonsensical idea to an NIH pig trough for it to take off like a rocket to the stratosphere beyond the reach of reason forever more. Or is it just too difficult for you to realize how much of the literature is corrupted by the premise of the studies you think prove the premise?

    I am no master, I just know how to find data from actual studies, Look at the premise of the studies, before you use the data in your thinking. That is the way of the master.

    What I think has no bearing on reality. You said it yourself.

    More later, or should we say, later, Moore?

  12. hhbauer Says:

    “Maybe 10 to 20% of untreated HIV-infected humans are long term survivors or non-progressors”, according to drpsduke. I would very much like to have citations to the sources for this figure. It is far larger than I have previously seen from mainstream sources. Given 1 million HIV-positive Americans, that means 100,000–200,000 who should never be given antiretrovirals. It means that 10%–20% of HIV-positive newborns should NOT be given ARVs. But is not the current recommendation, ARVs for all pregnant HIV-positives and all newborn HIV-positives?

  13. Nick Naylor Says:

    Dukester is telling us tall tales once again. Now he informs us that he can’t copy and paste excerpts from the papers he cites because of copyright violations! Are there any illustrative lawsuits he’d care to tell us about? Does he know something about pending cases? Should I call a lawyer?

    And why can’t he stand on his own two feet and provide the context of these papers, if necessary? Talk about cluck, cluck chickenshite – omigod, what if the authors disagree with his interpretation and can penetrate thru his anonymity?

    But what are the substantive points that we’re supposed to glean from his long lists anyway that haven’t been run by us before? By Bennett, Foley, Noble, Dale, Franklin, etc – really, talk about people degenerating into terminal bores …

    To quote a fed-up with BS Senator Chuck Hagel after Ambassador Crocker went through his presentation of the evils of Sadam Hussein, “We already know he was a monster, how is this relevant to our current situation?” (Actually a paraphrase)

    Yes Duke, we know there’s a pile of papers that would have reached to the top of the World Trade Center if it was still standing, and they purport, through the mystical process of incremental inductivism to finally – no now finally – no no NOW finally – confirm that HIV causes AIDS.

  14. Chitachitamuchita Says:

    Dr PS Duke,

    Have you, at least, read the paper of Gray that you quote ?

    Gray RH, Wawer MJ, Brookmeyer R, Sewankambo NK, Serwadda D, Wabwire-Mangen F, Lutalo T, Li X, vanCott T, Quinn TC; Rakai Project Team. Probability of HIV-1 transmission per coital act in monogamous, heterosexual, HIV-1-discordant couples in Rakai, Uganda. Lancet. 2001 Apr 14;357(9263):1149-53.

    Can you tell us how MUCH is the HIV-1 transmission rate via heterosexual relations in Africa and how it differ from the transmission rate obtained in the studies “from Europe and US”. The data are indicated in the ABOVE CITED paper.

    Once you read the value can you explain us the high prevalence rate of the HIV-AIDS epidemic existing in Africa ?

    If, as I assume, you cannot read and therefore cannot clarify us, could you tell us where you bought your PhD ? Or could you tell us if Dr is just an ADDED part of your name …..

  15. Nick Naylor Says:

    More Homework for the Dukester

    While you’re at it, can you explain to us how your list, or any research for that matter, backs up the charge that “denialists are a hazard to public health”.

    Specifics please.

  16. Truthseeker Says:

    Thank you Dr PS, your posts are really helpful. Perhaps you are doing it ironically, or to provoke helpful responses to paradigm claptrap. But if you are serious, it is equally helpful. For there is nothing more revealing in this sorry caper than the way the footsoldiers of the paradigm Mafia clutch desperately at straws in their clearly doomed attempt to rescue their supremely dangerous hypothesis from drowning in a sea of unanswerable debunking. What it reveals to anyone in command of the material who thinks about it is that the time for entertaining such points as if they was still some room for argument is over. Intellectually speaking, the issue is settled. The overwhelming evidence for HIV causing AIDS is so underwhelming that it is impossible to find it even using an electron microscope.

    The only remaining question is, what is it that paralyzes the critical faculties of defenders such as yourself, if that is what you are, who are able to find PubMed with google and list the titles of papers. Thanks for that, by the way, even though it is not clear that they offer anything to consider at this stage. That is why we asked that you should convey the points you are trying to make by quoting. But you say you don’t think you are allowed to.

    quoting the whole abstract is not quite legal due to copyright and all that. Quoting selected snippets is often unethical because I might quote the parts that agree with my argument and not those that disagree. Besides, the abstract most often does not contain the details of the materials, methods and raw data, that you really need to read to get the full story. PubMed is free to everyone in the world, the full abstracts are just one or 2 mouse clicks away for anyone who cares to see them. Full papers sometimes require a subscription and are sometimes freely available from the journals. In other cases you can write to the authors for a reprint, go to the library, or buy a subscription.

    We have often made the point here that Pubmed is freely available to all comers on the Web, though the papers are often represented only by abstracts, so you have to find a library that subscribes.

    But of course people should use it even if just via google (“pubmed”). PubMed is the downfall of all the irrrationality that inhabits the brains of those taken over by the HIV meme. While we sympathize with their predicament, it is the purpose of this blog to bring the actual papers of HIV∫AIDS to the attention of all who remain free of meme induced mental paralysis, since they reveal ever more clearly how shockingly easy it has been for one man, Robert Gallo, and a few well placed political supporters, primarily Anthony Fauci, to peddle, promote, promulgate and make a permanent part of the culture one of the silliest ideas ever to be tried on in science.

    One of the most miserable aspects of the whole phenomenon is how the mainstream literature shows that the African AIDS picture is utterly without foundation because as Gisselquist has repeatedly noted in mainstream journals there is no way even the maximum claimed transmission rate for whatever causes “HIV positivity” is enough – in fact it is wholly insufficient – to generate an epidemic of any kind in Africa, certainly not a pandemic.

    Links
    Running on empty: sexual co-factors are insufficient to fuel Africa’s turbocharged HIV epidemic.
    Gisselquist D, Potterat JJ, Brody S.

    Hershey, PA 17033, USA. david_gisselquist@yahoo.com

    The hypothesis that heterosexual transmission drives sub-Saharan Africa’s HIV epidemics requires much faster transmission dynamics in Africa than in the US and Europe, where heterosexual transmission is arguably insufficient to existing levels of HIV prevalence. Initially, experts surmised that Africans had more sexual partners; however, studies of sexual behaviour circa 1990 undermined this assumption. Next, it was supposed that the high burden of bacterial sexually transmitted disease (STD) in Africa explained greater HIV transmission efficiency; however, during the 1990s, community studies in Africa showed that STD had much less than expected impact on HIV transmission. Current attempts to explain HIV as a primarily sexual epidemic in Africa propose multiple factors, including herpes simplex virus type 2, lack of male circumcision, concurrency, and others. These factors also fail for various reasons to account for Africa’s HIV epidemics: they are present also in the US and/or Europe; they do not correlate with differences in HIV prevalence across Africa; etc. While behavioural and biological variables influence personal risk for HIV acquisition, the available evidence suggests that they do not differentiate African from US and European epidemics, nor do they determine the differential HIV epidemic trajectories noted across Africa.

    PMID: 15228728 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Yet now you write the following:

    how much sex, since for humans the maximum claimed is 1 in 1000
    No, the 1 in 1,000 type numbers come from studies of USA or European heterosexual long-term serodiscordant (where the couples started being followed after already proving to be in the low transmission category) couples. In most other studies, the rate of transmission is far higher than that, with the highest rates found when the donor partner is preseroconversion with a huge spike in viral load before his or her antibodies have brought that viral load down to less the preseroconversion peak.

    The attempt to evade the fatally sharp point made by Padian’s study, which is that NO seroconversions were detected among dozens of serodiscordant heterosexual couples taking no precautions at all over six years of study (a result in perfect accord with the elementary science of the immune system and the facts such as they are of HIV∫AIDS, which is that most “HIV positive” people have effectively no active virus in their systems to transfer, even if that was the only reason why tests score positive in TB-malaria-dengue-leprosy ridden Africa (all crossreact with ELISA and Western blot, as Max Essex warned in 1993), if they are done at all) cannot be contradicted by this shell game maneuver of suggesting that all the transmission comes when people are recently infected and before the antibodies have time to kick in and wipe out the virus.

    If it was true it would have to be sustained by a high rate of infection and spread, which is exactly what HIV never shows, just as the overall death rates in African countries do not show any sign of being accelerated dramatically by rampant HIV∫AIDS, despite the lurid fantasies of New York Times and New Yorker reporters wearing meme colored spectacles and informed by the lurid projections of meme infected paradigm promoters which, just as in the US, are never realized.

    would love to know what you think. We sit at thy knees, O Master.

    What I think has no bearing on reality. I am no master, I just know how to find data from actual studies, rather than relying on someone like Harvey Bialy or Anthony Liversidge to tell me what someone like Peter Duesberg thinks about the gay lifestyle. You tell me, how many gay men did Peter interview to to conclude that the ones who used the most drugs were the ones who were dying in 1981 through 1994? Which drugs did Arthur Ashe and Michael Callen use, for example?

    With all respect for your willingness to at least list to literature, and obvious intelligence, we will accept that you are no master, if you say so, though perhaps a master provocateur, like Noble etc, but we only meant trivial irony. However your thinking does not reflect reality in one respect, that’s for sure, since Harvey Bialy has a very long and familiar acquaintance with the literature of this field, as you would appreciate (perhaps you do, and are simply willing to muddy the waters in ineffectual defense of the paradigm) if you read his scholarly and politically shocking book, Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS, which is reliable from beginning to end precisely because of his intimate acquaintance not only with Peter Duesberg but with the scientific material, as well as the behind the scenes efforts of senior editors of trusted science journals and scientist opponents of review to prevent proper illumination of the Grand Canyon between the reliable data and the fantasy hypothesis. Apparently you missed the fact that Duesberg and Bialy have co-authored commentary on paradigm promoting studies, and that in his capacity as founding science editor of Nature Biotechnology Bialy published extremely sharp editorials and editorial on the fatuous inconsistencies of HIV science, long before his excellent book.

    Why you should mention the investigative science reporter and critic Anthony Liversidge in the same breath as the more distinguished Bialy we have no idea, but we do happen to know that he is certain that Peter Duesberg is not anti gay in any way, and visibly is not, since he has been willing to help them save their own lives by informing them correctly on the science of this area for 23 years, at considerable professional and personal cost, instead of letting them sink or swim as they probably deserve, given the fact that their own lives are at stake and if they do not think about this topic well themselves, they might be blamed for that, especially if they furiously reject Duesberg’s review and make his life harder because of it, in what might be seen as a disgracefully ingrate manner, except that people like yourself have them so tied up with profound terror and despair that they are driven to masochistic self destruction, and in this state cannot hear what is being said to them, and if they hear it cannot think about it well.

    For that, if you are the reflex defender you seem to be, and not the reviewer you may be, your own lack of objective thought as a scientist living off public money, if that probability is the case, about a matter of life and death public interest bears much of the responsibility. Not only does a close minded scientist stain the name of science itself, but in this case, causes harm by actively maintaining and protecting a belief which has killed many and will at this rate harm and kill many more millions.
    If you are such a man, we wonder what is it that you dream about at night. Don’t you have any children? Don’t you have any friends to whom you tell the truth? Are you really so cut off from reality and from life that you cannot take responsibility for truth when it comes to you for protection?

    You mention the names of two people who were victims in one way or another of the lack of review of HIV∫AIDS imposed by people such as Fauci et al. Good scientists do not form their ideas anecdotally, as you know. In medicine and illness, each case is individual, is it not, and complex. Ashe is no argument since he took his medications even though the existence of Duesberg was pointed out to him, and he seems to have read what he had to say, but gave up the struggle to understand what was going on, because what he was reported as saying was, in paraphrase, “What he (Duesberg) has to say looks convincing, but someone else will have to look into it, I just have to trust my doctors.” Which he did, and died. So what drugs did he take? You can easily answer the question yourself. He died in 1993.

    Callen, we have no good information on, you’ll have to ask Celia Farber. But the world doesn’t suddenly stop and revolve in the opposite direction. He survived two decades as HIV positive without “life saving” drugs. Everyone eventually dies, of course. He didn’t die of HIV, that’s for sure. The entire medical and scientific literature is against it, even if the entire (almost) medical and scientific community is for it. The case against HIV is settled. There is nothing left to defend it.

    The shameful thing is that there was never any good reason to suppose there was anything in it.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 147 access attempts in the last 7 days.