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.

Legally blind

Judge turned against the Perth pair, threw out the baby with the bathwater

With Perth hobbled, perhaps conventional dissidents will be heard next time

Why Judge Sulan likes Gallo and we like John Moore

judge.jpgNews reports of the Adelaide judgement are coming through now, and they show the basis of Judge Sulan’s decision to disallow the appeal of Andre Chad Parenzee, 36, against being jailed for having sex with three women without informing them that he carries antibodies against HIV, a virus which according to the original papers of Robert Gallo in 1984 does not cause AIDS (not to mention that how such antibodies could be transmitted sexually is another unanswered question).

Quite simply, it is his contempt for the independent scholars from Perth.

Both in the media and in his comments, the two decent and thoughtful witnessess for the defense from the Perth Group are being trashed mercilessly for their challenges to orthodoxy, which the judge rates as foolish and inexpert. Their reputation is now mud. Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos is quoted on her forthright willingness to sleep with an HIV positive man as if she was some kind of gang bang:

‘HIV does not exist’ appeal thrown out

By Todd Cardy

April 27, 2007 05:56pm

A HIV-positive man convicted for having unprotected sex with three women has lost an appeal, after a South Australian judge rejected defence claims the virus does not exist.

Andre Chad Parenzee, 36, was convicted on three counts of endangering life last January after one of the women, a mother of two, became infected with HIV.

Defence lawyers launched an appeal calling two Perth medical researchers – Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Dr Valendar Turner – who testified in the South Australian Court of Appeal that the virus did not exist and could not be sexually transmitted.

The two AIDS-dissidents are members of the Perth Group, founded by Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos, that believes HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

Justice John Sulan today dismissed the witnesses’ testimony, saying the pair lacked credibility and were advocates for a cause rather than independent experts.

He said the evidence that HIV existed was compelling and he rejected the application for a re-trial.

“I am satisfied that no jury would conclude that there is any doubt that the virus HIV exists,” he said in his judgment.

“I consider no jury would be left in any doubt that HIV is the cause of AIDS or that it is sexually transmissible.”

Justice Sulan said Ms Papadopoulos-Eleopulos, a physicist who works at the Royal Perth Hospital, relied upon opinions of others, which she often took out of context and misinterpreted.

He said claims that HIV testing methods were flawed were unfounded and the virus had been thoroughly studied by international experts.

Parenzee’s application for leave to appeal his conviction was the first time that the existence of HIV/AIDS had been tested in an Australian court.

The hearing spanned more than a year with controversy lining much of the witness testimony.

Under earlier cross-examination, Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos was asked by the prosecution if she would have unprotected vaginal sex with a HIV-positive man.

“Any time,” she replied.

In other testimony, Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos declared that Africa did not have an AIDS epidemic because HIV did not exist and efforts to curb the spread of the virus were merely political stunts.

To counter the claims, the prosecution called eight HIV experts including AIDS research pioneer Professor Robert Gallo.

Prof Gallo, who was one of the scientists who discovered AIDS in the early 1980s and linked HIV as the cause of the disease, testified via video-link from his home in Bethesda, Massachusetts.

He told the court the Perth Group members was misguided, inappropriate and delusional.

Parenzee was remanded in custody to be sentenced at a later date.

The bottom line is that the Perth Group pair made such a poor impression with their claim the virus didn’t exist that the Judge dismissed their authority and, unfortunately, any other arguments levelled against the HIV∫AIDS meme which no doubt took root in his brain many years ago.

It is unfortunate for Parenzee that his home is Australia. The defenders and promoters of HIV∫AIDS must have been delighted when they heard that the only defense witnesses appearing from the critics’ camp to undermine their cause were the two key figures of the nearby Perth Group.

They must have seen that as soon as the Perth pair started attacking the existence of the virus, the otherwise totally unpersuasive paradigm which is now an ideological given of government policy, charity, and culture around the world would get a free pass.

A better idea

Defense counsel Kevin Borick would have done better to arrange a video transmission from Berkeley to match the one from Bethesda, where Gallo testified by satellite. The judge valued hands on science as a qualification, and Duesberg is a classic lab retrovirologist.

For new arrivals to this disputed realm, we refer to the distinguished Berkeley scientist Peter Duesberg, who but for his personal integrity would now have a Nobel in hand for his priority in cancer research, and whose repeated demonstrations in peer reviewed journals that the claims of HIV∫AIDS scientists do not accord with the scientific literature of the field, including the studies which the leading scientists themselves carry out, are a lot harder to dismiss than the Perth Group’s claim that HIV does not exist despite its genetic cloning and different strains.

But perhaps Judge Sulan would dismiss Duesberg, and his repeated demonstrations in peer reviewed journals that the claims of HIV∫AIDS scientists do not accord with the scientific literature of the field, as insufficiently hands on as far as HIV is concerned.

So much for science critics

judgecartoon.jpegAfter all, he appears to have no respect whatsoever for independent examination of the scientific literature by attentive outsiders. This is how he dismisses Valendar Turner’s knowledge, despite his publications in peer reviewed journals:

His opinions are based on reading scientific literature, studying of scientific literature, and spending a considerable amount of time thinking.

That a Supreme Court judge can be so naive, and condemn the very process he lives by, is an embarrassment to the judiciary of Down Under, not to mention the entire nation.

Silver lining to Perth defeat

While the Judge’s contempt is a poor reward for their efforts to save humanity from despair over HIV, and we are sorry for them personally, a Perth retreat from the courts may be a good thing for the more conventional cause of correcting the science of HIV∫AIDS.

There has always been a danger that the Perth Group’s anachronistic and increasingly foolish claim that HIV does not exist would distract from the contradictions of the paradigm based on current scientific literature and label all dissidents as crackpot. Now it has happened.

The judge appears to have decided early that the Perth claim was unfounded and out of date (which it is now that genetic cloning and sequencing of HIV is a commonplace around the world) and that the credentials of the Perth pair were fatally flawed by their lack of hands on experience in the field.

I have found that Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Dr Turner are not experts in the subject matter upon which they have given evidence. I have concluded that the witnesses called by the DPP are experts.

206 Because the witnesses called by the applicant are not expert, the opinion evidence which they gave is not admissible. I have noted above that the evidence given on whether HIV has been proved to exist, whether HIV is sexually transmissible, and whether it causes AIDS is opinion evidence. The finding that the witnesses for the applicant are not experts, and thus are not qualified to give expert opinion evidence, is, in my view, a sufficient basis upon which to refuse the application for permission to appeal.

judgecartoon.jpegSo he decided there was nothing in the rest of their claims, since Bob Gallo was so much more prominent in the science, famous and persuasive, and therefore reliable. The judge fawned on Gallo and the other mainstream authorities produced by the prosecution, as his comments on Gallo show:

When he gave his evidence he was forthright. At times, he was impatient with propositions that were being put to him. Mr Borick QC is critical of the manner in which Professor Gallo gave his evidence. He submits that Professor Gallo was not entirely frank and that his aggressive attitude towards the questioner was due to the fact that his opinions lacked credibility.

197 I reject that submission. I consider that Professor Gallo was a frank, forthright witness. Professor Gallo has been recognised throughout the world for his work. He is a pre-eminent expert in the field of virus identification and treatment. I accept his evidence and his opinions. I accept his evidence that the debate about HIV, whether it causes AIDS and whether it is sexually transmissible by heterosexual vaginal sexual intercourse, is a debate that was completed by the mid-1980s. I accept his evidence that the witnesses called by the applicant have misused material in support of their argument that HIV has not been proved to exist.

Here come de judge

All this can be seen recorded in detail in his lengthy and illuminating 82 page judgement, the Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Sulan now available to the world for study. Reading through it we have to say it seems unlikely that the Perth Group will survive this lengthy public demolition of their reputation by an inattentive judge prejudiced in favor of power.

In one way this is a pity since they have done good work on the fundamental reasons why AIDS patients should suffer immune decline in the absence of any ascertainable influence from HIV. But their distracting claim that HIV has not been effectively isolated is a stale red herring whose odor attaches itself to all critics of the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS, a claim which is genuinely unproven and contradicted by the scientific literature.

Peter Duesberg and other thoughtful scientists who can see that the paradigm is unjustified do not need to be associated with unprofessional quarrels with premises they do not challenge. It was always a danger that the Perth Group would break into the headlines and put paid to any chance that the valid scientific objections to the paradigm would be taken seriously by those outside the field.

Not to mention that Duesberg himself powerfully, cogently and conclusively dismissed the Perth Group’s reasoning ten years ago (see Virusmyth’s The Missing Virus section) on the existential issue, even as he respected their many contributions on other fronts, including the real nature of African AIDS, inaccuracies of HIV testing, and misconceptions about hemophilia and AIDS. In fact, he gave them the first two chapters of the scholarly volume that he edited, AIDS: Virus or Drug Induced, in 1996, for their invited expert reviews of HIV∫AIDS research distortions.


******************************************
SPECIAL NOTE: The Perth Group deserves respect, in the opinion of the editorial staff of NAR, and the strictures of Judge Sulan are ignorant calumny. The Perth Group’s identification of oxidative stress as one key mechanism in the kind of immune deficiency now labeled HIV∫AIDS is notable as one of the earliest contributions made (published in 1988, after more than five years research) to a correct diagnosis of AIDS and its underlying mechanism, a solution derailed in 1984 by the unfounded and still undemonstrated claim of Gallo that HIV was the culprit. Their analysis pointing out that oxidative stress caused by drugs, malnutrition and multiple infections can harm sensitive T cells is justified by much mainstream literature since, and has been endorsed by Luc Montagnier in his book “Virus”.

It should also be pointed out that their critique of Montagnier’s original experiments detecting the presence of HIV in the blood of AIDS patients (they said that he had failed to purify the virus) was endorsed in the Adelaide court room by none other than the satellite image of Bob Gallo himself, perhaps glad to draw attention away from his own lab sins which are legion (he is famous for making a fool of himself with contaminations of cultures). and Montagnier has conceded it. But this basis for challenging the very existence of the Virus grew out of date as labs all over the world cultured the Virus, duplicated its sequencing, and even distinguished between strains of the 9 kilobase wisp of RNA even as they failed to show its harmful effects.

The Perth Group would have been better off defending their analysis of the mechanism of immune deficiency against Gallo’s groundless challenge by pointing out, for example, that not only was finding HIV in 36%of AIDS patients, and antibodies to it in 88%, screamingly unconvincing, but the presence of cytomegalovirus, Epstein Barr virus and herpes virus in approaching 100% of patient blood samples indicated a theoretical bias on the part of Gallo that science cannot explain. All this is well exposed in Robert Root-Bernstein’s Rethinking AIDS, Chapter four.

Indeed the Group made very sharp points along these lines in the first paper, A Critical Analysis of the HIV-T4-cell-AIDS Hypothesis, they contributed to the Duesberg’s collection, AIDS: Virus or Drug Induced (1996). For example, they point out the little appreciated fact that Gallo’s original T cell culture of HIV was in a leukemia cell line, HT, which already happened to have the property of forming occasional giant cells with fused nuclei. This Gallo then interpreted as a cytopathic effect of HIV, his only evidence of supposed HIV cell killing in the one Science paper of his 1984 broadside to supposedly prove that HIV could kill cells.. “The virus positive cultures consistently showed a high proportion of round giant cells containing numerous nuclei (syncytia)”. But the syncytia was already happening before the presence of the harmless Deadly Virus.
*******************************************

Now the loss of credibility due to arguing the Virus doesn’t exist has happened as feared in a court of law in Australia and sent an unfortunate man innocent of causing harm back to jail, because it meant that the very obvious proven fact in the literature (pace Nancy Padian, who now denies what she demonstrated) that HIV is effectively not transmissible in sex between heterosexuals could not be established in the Judge’s now closed mind.

But Kevin Borick, his lawyer who made the error of placing his bets on the Perth argument, says he will appeal anyway on other grounds, according to reports. And if this decision now fences off the Perth Group spoiler effect, it is all to the good.

Misdirected insults

blindbreast.jpegHowever, let’s not agree with the court in rejecting their case on the grounds that they are outsiders to the field of HIV∫AIDS without practical experience of the virus. This is naive if not absurd. Judge Sulan has no idea it seems of how often outsiders come up with advances in a field, especially on a theoretical level. His jeers at Papadopulos-Eleopulos along these lines are silly:

Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos has no practical experience. She has never worked with patients who are said to be infected with HIV, or with any virus. She has never treated or diagnosed patients who have viruses. She has never worked in laboratories or conducted research. She has no practical experience.

133 She has given evidence on the topics of virology, immunology, epidemiology, microbiology and microscopy. She has no practical experience and she has never worked in any of the areas.

134 Although Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos demonstrated a superficial understanding of a number of the areas, I consider that her knowledge is limited to her reading. She has what one might describe as a textbook understanding of the science of viruses, but she has no depth of knowledge or understanding and she simply relies upon written material. She did not demonstrate any understanding or knowledge similar to that demonstrated by the witnesses called by the DPP.

135 I conclude that she does not have expertise in the various disciplines in which expertise is required. In my opinion, she is not qualified to express opinions about the existence of HIV, or whether it has been established that it causes AIDS. Nor has she expertise to express opinions about whether the virus is transmissible. Nor is she qualified to express opinions about the tests that have been developed to diagnose the virus.

136 Even if I were to conclude that Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos had some expertise to express opinions about the methodology for determining whether HIV exists, I consider her opinions to be so out of line with the prevailing opinions and the prevailing evidence which supports the existence of the virus, that no jury could rely upon her opinions. In my view, no weight could be given to her evidence. That is a relevant factor in considering whether permission to appeal should be granted.

137 Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos lacks independence. She is an advocate for a cause. She chooses to rely upon opinions of others which she often takes out of context and misinterprets. She lacks objectivity. If faced with evidence which does not support her views, she simply refuses to acknowledge it, or dismisses it without any basis for so doing. Examples of her refusal to acknowledge evidence which does not support her views include her response to the epidemiological evidence which she says is not proof and which she dismisses as unreliable.[81]

Of course, he had the good lady in front of him, so for all we know she does give a poor impression in public. She certainly fails to speak very good English, according to the transcript, although Gallo’s grammatical structures are not much better. We suspect that if Judge Sulan had been able to see Gallo in person rather than on video he might have got a different impression, also.

Here is what he thought about Turner:

Dr Turner’s knowledge of the subject matter is limited to reading. He has no formal qualifications to give expert opinions about the virus. He has no practical experience in the treatment of viral diseases. He has no practical experience in the disciplines of virology, immunology or epidemiology.

143 His opinions are based on reading scientific literature, studying of scientific literature, and spending a considerable amount of time thinking.

144 I conclude that Dr Turner is not qualified to advance expert opinion about virus isolation, antibody tests, viral load tests, or sexual transmission of the virus. His knowledge of these subjects is limited to having read a number of publications. He relies entirely on his interpretation of various studies in the specialised disciplines of virology, epidemiology, microbiology, immunology, pathology or infectious diseases, in none of which he has qualifications beyond his medical degree. He has no practical experience, and has performed no research which has been published.

This is an extraordinarily clear statement that no one but insiders are qualified to read and understand the literature of a field. The Gallo-Fauci-Moore defense team must be chortling.

How rebels are handicapped

blindjudge.jpegIn this way, the task of critics who detect a flaw in conventional wisdom is made difficult. The first accusation is that they don’t know what they are talking about, because they don’t have the inside knowledge needed to make a good decision. If for example you disagree with George W. Bush’s upcoming decision to drop bombs on Iran, the first counter is, you are not in possession of secret information about how close they are to making a nuclear weapon.

Then it is also a fairly clear principle in cases where independent scholars and critics tilt at mainstream shibboleths that the critics are likely to be eccentrics in personality and behavior, and the defenders at the top of the establishment much more acceptable in their smooth conformity to the conventions of dressa and behavior, since that is partly how they got to the top of the pyramid and stay there. The critics, meanwhile often have all the earmarks of the crackpot, or at least can easily be painted as such.

That is why we thank Destiny for the existence of John P. Moore, one of the greatest assets of the movement to reexamine HIV∫AIDS science in his non conformist behavior in speech and writing, and in the inaccurate and ad hominem style of his website AIDSTruth.org

Unlike Anthony Fauci of NIAID, he is neither stylish in dress nor smooth in behavior. He and Robert Gallo, the ebullient roguish initiator of this gigantic mess, have in common the tendency to let loose verbally or in print and on line (in the case of Moore) if they get a chance.

Quick way to tell who’s right on HIV∫AIDS

For a change, we have colorful individuals on both sides of this debate, and that is as it should be. For after all, these are disputes about scientific theory and interpretation, and the quality of the ideas that are expressed are highly dependent on the qualities of the man or woman expressing them.

In fact, we have often thought it is not really necessary for any outsider who comes upon this debate to read very far into it to know who is almost certain to be right.

All one has to do is line up Robert Gallo, Anthony Fauci, Mark Wainberg and John Moore and compare them with Peter Duesberg, Harvey Bialy, Celia Farber and Rebecca Culshaw.

It would be pretty clear even to a distinguished but mentally myopic, meme ridden, power worshipping Australian Supreme Court judge who are the salesmen heavily invested in the paradigm, and who are the independent minded, public spirited, self sacrificial critics.

Addition: While we were posting this a very fine Comment by the inimitable MacDonald has been attached to the previous post, but is highly relevant here for its deft exposure of the Judge’s bias against the Perth Group as revealed in his Reasons for Decision, in which his Reasons for Bias against the Perth Group are in fact, as MacDonald aptly points out, much better as Reasons to Reject the Testimony of Robert Gallo, to whom they apply in spades. (Later moved to Comments under this post. – Ed.)

121 Responses to “Legally blind”

  1. MacDonald Says:

    Drpsduke,

    I’m not sure where your pine trees are going; looks to me another Birnam Wood.
    In your analogy, human spread is the fastest and most versatile, so that must correspond to influenza, whereas the pine trees correspond to HIV. According to this, fast spread means greater diversity. The real picture is the opposite.

    Bottom line, all influenza A isolates are essentially identical within the same year – your words. No two HIV isolates are identical , anywhere, ever – your words. It’s the norm even for two clones from a single HIV isolate to show variation. So… is the mutability of HIV unique?

    You have now stated a couple of times that the Perth Group know nothing about virology. Would you like to substantiate that – perhaps with another of your analogies?

    Are you aware that you’ve said above that not all HIV infections lead to AIDS? Would you like to sign your full name?

  2. drpsduke Says:

    MacD, the analogy about pine trees and humans was only to say that rate of evolution alone does not determine diversity. Human diversity accumulated over tens of thousands of years, all over the world, and then in the past 600 years we moved around a lot more than we did in the hundreds of years preceding that. Likewise HIV diversity accrued in Africa for decades, and then spread out to the north (primarily subtype B to USA/Europe; primarily subtype E to Thailand) and the the south (South African infections are more than 90% subtype C). Neither rate of travel, nor rate of evolution nor a combination of both necessarily tells all there is to know about diversity. Many other factors, such as number of offspring per individual, average lifespan of each individual, and amount of “room” for population growth all contribute.

    Everyone has heard of long term survivors, long term non-progressors, “elite controllers” and other groups of people who have infection with HIV-1 M group viruses and do not get sick within 10 or 20 years of infection. Everyone also knows that some strains of HIV-1, such as those in the Sydney bloodbank cohort with defective Nef genes, are less pathogenic. And that HIV-2 is often non-pathogenic to humans.

    Mazzucchelli R, Corvasce S, Violin M, Riva C, Bianchi R, Deho L, Velleca R, Cibella J, Bada M, Moroni M, Galli M, Balotta C.
    Role of CCR5, CCR2 and SDF-1 gene polymorphisms in a population of HIV-1 infected individuals.
    J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2001 Jul-Sep;15(3):265-71.
    PMID: 11693435

    Hendel H, Henon N, Lebuanec H, Lachgar A, Poncelet H, Caillat-Zucman S, Winkler CA, Smith MW, Kenefic L, O’Brien S, Lu W, Andrieu JM, Zagury D, Schachter F, Rappaport J, Zagury JF.
    Related Articles, Links
    Abstract Distinctive effects of CCR5, CCR2, and SDF1 genetic polymorphisms in AIDS progression.
    J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1998 Dec 1;19(4):381-6.
    PMID: 9833747

    Schindler M, Munch J, Kutsch O, Li H, Santiago ML, Bibollet-Ruche F, Muller-Trutwin MC, Novembre FJ, Peeters M, Courgnaud V, Bailes E, Roques P, Sodora DL, Silvestri G, Sharp PM, Hahn BH, Kirchhoff F.
    Nef-mediated suppression of T cell activation was lost in a lentiviral lineage that gave rise to HIV-1.
    Cell. 2006 Jun 16;125(6):1055-67.
    PMID: 16777597

    Xiang Z, Ariyoshi K, Wilkins A, Dias F, Whittle H, Breuer J.
    HIV type 2 pathogenicity is not related to subtype in rural Guinea Bissau.
    AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1997 Apr 10;13(6):501-5.
    PMID: 9100992

    I don’t need an analogy to substantiate that the Perth group either does not know virology, or knows it and choses to tell lies about what they know. It is substantiated by the Parenzee trial very well, and also by their web site.

  3. MacDonald Says:

    Neither rate of travel, nor rate of evolution nor a combination of both necessarily tells all there is to know about diversity

    I understand that, which is to say I understand that evolution and diversity are not the same – although if I remember any of my girlhood Darwin correctly, diversity accumulates only if the variations are viable, ie. are insignificant or tend toward greater fitness, which again is a function of the interplay between environment, competition and the individual’s response.

    Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that the fact that all influenza A isolates are “essentially identical within the same year”, and no two HIV isolates are identical, period, necessarily says anything about the latter’s diversity, which was the initial point. Perhaps I was also mistaken in calling the spans of time we’re talking, granted your 70 years timeline, a blink of the eye by most clocks.

    But since you introduced the question of virus evolution, I’ll be mercenary about it and simply remark that it seems to me there are influenza vaccines but no HIV vaccines, and that rapidly developing drug resistance is a major problem. In other words, far be it from me to contest your claim that the evolutionary rate of HIV and Influenza A are equal, but still there seems to be ‘something’ about HIV.

    However, if you’re telling me there is nothing unique about HIV, I shall certainly keep it in mind.

  4. drpsduke Says:

    MacD, no two Influenza viruses are 100% identical, by “essentially identical” I only meant that they are greater than 99.8% identical, or have one difference per 500 bases or something like that. Any two HIV-1 isolates from the same HIV-infected individual are also likely to be between 99.0% and 99.99% identical.

    The vaccine for human influenza A virus is updated every 2 to 4 years. Both influenza and HIV evolve at a rate of roughly 0.2 to 0.5% per year depending on the gene (pol evolves slower than env in HIV, for example). So the flu vaccine is updated for every 2% change in the virus, roughly. So if we new exactly which HIV strain each person would be exposed to, and we could create a custom vaccine for the virus each person would be exposed to, we could protect people from HIV as well as we protect them from flu (the flu vaccine is not 100% successful, but it is probably better than 70% successful). But we don’t know exactly which HIV strains a person will be exposed to, and we can’t make a custom vaccine for each of the 6 billion people on earth, nor one for each of the few million people at greatest risk of exposure next year.

    This does not mean that it is impossible to make a vaccine against HIV-1 M group viruses that will work, or at least reduce infections by 60% to 80% over current unvaccinated levels. It only means that the problem is more difficult than creating a vaccine against influenza A viruses.

    Until a safe, effective and affordable vaccine is available to the world, prevention of infections though accurate information about HIV-1 and HIV-2 is critical. HIV is not like the flu, it does not spread randomly through the air. It is rather simple to practice safer sex, never share needles for injections of either legal or illegal drugs, and nearly eliminate new infections. The same practices will also greatly reduce transmissions of HCV, and several other viruses and bacteria, whereas a vaccine against HIV-1 would not.

    There are many things that are unique about HIV, but the mutation rate or evolution rate is not one of them. Also, the methods used to create infectious molecular clones of HIV, or the methods used to classify isolates and strains of HIV-1 and HIV-2 are not unique. Gradient centrifugation as the Perth group gets excited about, is useful in partially purifying many viruses including HIV, but serology and molecular cloning are also critical.

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    Truthseeker, many lines of evidence point to an origin for the HIV-1 M group entering humans at least 70 years ago (although not being transported to the United states until the late 1970s

    You stated that the well publicised Virus remained pathogenic after 70 years or longer, but what evidence do you have that it is or has ever been pathogenic? There is only supposition, which is no doubt much the same as the basis of the papers you cite, we are completely confident, knowing Bob Gallo’s source for his favorite fantasies. There is no proof or even good evidence that HIV will give anyone more than the equivalent of a brief cold, if that, before being corralled by antibodies. Apparently you have overlooked this point, which is precisely the difficulty that has caused the wrangling over the Gallo hypothesis that “HIV” is the cause of “HIV/AIDS” for the last twenty years, the ostracism of the paradigm’s critics, the media censorship of the extra-sensitive topic by Dr Anthony Fauci, etc. etc.

    Perhaps as an Sydney opthamologist (if that is the case) you are unaware of all this, but there is plenty about it on the Web now, starting with this blog’s list of sources down the right hand margin of the front page, recently expanded, but preferably the ones marked Accurate/Helpful, not the ones marked Misleading, of which the prime example is AIDSTruth, which you have apparently been relying on a little too much.

    Certainly anyone who talks such silly nonsense about a vaccine for the self vaccinating Virus being feasible or even necessary is in dire need of updating on the science of HIV in vivo since 1984, since it was soon established that there are more than sufficient antibodies to defeat HIV available in any healthy human within a week or two of infection.

    And anyone who posts here the usual pap about “safe sex” is clearly in need of reviewing some of our posts mentioning Nancy Padian before proceeding further.

  6. MacDonald Says:

    Drpsduke, as far as I can see you’ve just confirmed that there are difficulties with the many strains of HIV in existence at any point in time which are not found to a comparable degree with Influenza, so I’ll move on.

    It is rather simple to practice safer sex, never share needles for injections of either legal or illegal drugs

    To such as we are, disembodied intellects in cyberspace, safe sex, monogamy and all that looks a relatively simple proposition. But, alas Drps, that old fallen Adversary has created a different world out there filled with subterranian caves and tunnels connecting in a most wonderful fashion things seen and unseen: dark riverbeds through which courses life rich and alien to the detached Cartesian cogito. And yet, would the Cartesian Ego ‘be’ without those caves and rivers and deep, dark subversive places which it has all but disowned?

    the methods used to create infectious molecular clones of HIV, or the methods used to classify isolates and strains of HIV-1 and HIV-2 are not unique.

    I don’t think the Perth Group claim that the methods used for HIV are unique. However, Dr. Dwyer in his testimony seemed to confirm DeHarven’s and others’ observation that these methods were developed alongside HIV research very much as an answer to the needs of that research. it is pretty obvious that these methods are now in universal use. The question is, was something lost, were certain standards lowered, in the process of establishing the fair new biotech world?

    there are tried and true methods of virus isolation and those methods were developed from the original work done in 1983 by Montagnier’s group, and then Gallo’s group and all the others, so that now – and all that follows a process that we do for virus isolation of any description for any virus, and the way that that is all done, I think is perfectly appropriate and correct in identifying HIV. (Dominic Dwyer, Parenzee prosecution expert witness)

    With regard to classification, Ill just quote this little snippet:

    There are arbitrarily many HIV isolates that would constitute new ‘types’ by the criteria applied to papillomaviruses (>10% dissimilarity) [J Clin Virol 2000 Oct;19 (1-2):43-56]

    I believe there are problems with classifying HIV as a quasi species as well, but I’m pretty certain there is somebody else who has a lot more to say about this than I could so I defer.

  7. Nick Naylor Says:

    Sculder,

    I appreciate your comment and questions and ask, for now, that you review this entire thread. It should make sense that if I try to address these items in too lay a language, it can increase the difficulties on this complex subject. BTW, speaking of lay analogies and the matter at hand; more on train engines, fuel combustion and that destroyed bridge as an inadequate explanation of drugs and “viral load” – when we return to analyzing the implications of Judge Sulan’s Opinion, that point towards which, there is a full scale tugging going on of a certain duke …

    Example: even the term “mutation” is all too ambiguous when trying to “see” the genomic alterations and assess the important processivity distinctions between reproducing RNA template-RNA replicase “viral” interactions and RNA template-reverse transcriptase-DNA template-RNA polymerase II “transposon” interactions.

    However, we intend to answer your questions in more detail along with an evaluation of points taken and points evaded.

  8. Nick Naylor Says:

    Duke says, “I don’t need an analogy to substantiate that the Perth group either does not know virology, or knows it and choses to tell lies about what they know. It is substantiated by the Parenzee trial very well, and also by their web site.”

    Duke, do you know what we’re talking about here, the implications of Judge Sulan’s Ruling on the validity of a field within science? The Perth Group’s exclusion was part of a gatekeeping function: the Court can exclude testimony based on narrow criteria of what constitutes an expert witness. However, a gatekeeping function does not justify the over-reaching that occurred here: where the common sense standard of reasonable doubt would suffice as determining the probative value of the evidence offered to the court by Perth Group. That testimony itself need only be capable of being applied “reliably” to the facts of the case. The science behind that testimony need only be the “product of reliable principles and methods”.

    So your chap shot, never intended and undeliverable in any case as “expert testimony” to the relevant triers of fact, goes down as another nail in the coffin of justice that was this heinous prosecution.

  9. MacDonald Says:

    It is worth repeating that the judge in his gatekeeper function both shut locked and bolted the door.

    Even if I were to conclude that Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos had some expertise to express opinions about the methodology for determining whether HIV exists, I consider her opinions to be so out of line with the prevailing opinions and the prevailing evidence which supports the existence of the virus, that no jury could rely upon her opinions. In my view, no weight could be given to her evidence. That is a relevant factor in considering whether permission to appeal should be granted.

    In other words,

    1. Ms. Papadopulos Eleopulos cannot be accepted as an expert witness. [shut]

    2. Even is she were an expert I would disregard her testimony. [locked]

    3. I disregard her testimony on the grounds that the majority does not share her views, and so would/should a jury. [bolted]

    The judge would reach this last conclusion, not by consulting the literature given to him by the Perth Group, but simply by asking the authors of the cited literature their opinion.

    By these indisputably democratic criteria, how would it be possible for anybody, Duesberg or anybody else, to win against ‘prevailing opinion’? The whole wasteful trial boiled down to an unnecessary, cruelly prolonged show of hands – 8 against 2

  10. Truthseeker Says:

    (We decided to make a post out of this comment but we post it here anyway in its raw state to keep the thread intact. – Ed.)

    By these indisputably democratic criteria, how would it be possible for anybody, Duesberg or anybody else, to win against ‘prevailing opinion’? The whole wasteful trial boiled down to an unnecessary, cruelly prolonged show of hands – 8 against 2

    Very well put, MacDonald, a nice analogy indeed, except for this, for it was not even a democratic vote, but one where received opinion was counted, and dissident opinion was not, so the perceived vote was in fact 8-0.

    But perhaps this was inevitable and even justified. How else is the judge expected to weigh a difference in scientific opinion where the wrangling has gone on for twenty years without an agreed upon resolution? He has to choose sides on the basis of credentials and the Perth pair have lousy credentials in the crucial matter that they stood upon, which was the claim that HIV was not proven to exist and that its indications could merely be those of an ERV, even though the darn retrovirus not only replicates in culture but has been sequenced up the gazoo by lab mice all over the world. Neither of them have made this claim in a peer reviewed journal. So naturally the judge put them down as amateur crackpots, and threw out the baby with the bathwater, dismissing them as credible witnesses despite the valuable contributions they have published in other respects such as testing, oxidative stress and so forth.

    As we have intimated in our posts, the Perth pair are a menace to the credibility of the critics of the HIV∫AIDS paradigm not only in their out of date critique of Montagnier’s inadequate isolation of HIV, which is fair enough, but was obsolete even at the time that Gallo took over, and certainly is now, but also with their remarkable attitude that they alone should be allowed to testify on the validity of HIV∫AIDS science to the Adelaide court, which they forced the family of Parenzee to agree to. Thus they have to take full responsiblility for the Adelaide debacle, where all the exposure of Gallo’s self justification as trash talk and scientifically self defeating went down the drain because the Perth pair was exposed as peddling anachronistic and uninformed opinion on a fundamental issue.

    What could have been an easy triumph for the HIV doubters was turned into a circus where the judge was misled by their amateurish global skepticism into rejecting without proper consideration the valid elements in their testimony and the opinion of kary Mullis. Instead of proving with ease that there are a myriad inconsistencies and reasons for reasonable doubt in the HIV∫AIDS paradigm, and thus empowering Paranzee’s appeal, the apparently wilful Eleni alienated the judge by providing him with all the signs of an untrustworthy witness that he looks for by nature of his long court experience in assessing the credibility of testimony and of the people who give it.

    What is unfortunate is that Eleni’s lack of moderation in pursuing her global skepticism is matched by some of the finest minds among supporters of the paradigm critique :-) Unfortunately, the encouragement all HIV∫AIDS skeptics receive year after year as the fault lines and fissures in the paradigm grow ever wider seems to be some kind of seductive drug which leads them to overbalane into total universal global skepticism where they start to earn the label “denialists” by denying everything including the kitchen sink, which in this case is the very existence of a virus currently identified as HIV.

    The result is that they discredit their own case in other respects, just as the Perth pair did in Adelaide.

    They say that no good deed goes unpunished, and certainly Duesberg has suffered enough for his public spirited stand against the sense and validity of the HIV∫AIDS claim. The fact that he has to suffer having these opinions attached to his good science, like a bunch of tin cans attached to the rear bumper of a Bentley, is beyond the call of duty. NAR stands with the realists in saying that the less heard from the Perth Group the better from now on, at least until they update their opinion on this fundamental point.

    We are as anxious as Duesberg evidently is to avoid the taint of crackpot skepticism visited upon all by Perth.

  11. MacDonald Says:

    I’m gonna try only one last time: there are thousands of crackpots out there who’ll stake their lives on a bet that HIV arrived on the Murchison meteor. Why are they not a danger to sane rethinkers, Mr. Truthseeker? Why is it that only Perth remains the target in post after post?

    When you’ve find the answer to that, you’ve found the answer to the question why AIDS Inc. lined up their A TEAM!!!!!!! against a pair whom we’ve just learned from Drpsduke are ignoramuses and liars.

    You’ll also have the answer to the question why the pods have found out they can do much more damage by just staying away from NAR and letting you rant on.

    For those potentially genuine rethinkers out there, I mentioned Descartes a few comments up. When Descartes said “I doubt ‘everything'”, well he didn’t really doubt ‘everything’; he proposed a method of fundamental inquiry. Get get it?!! A METHOD!!! A method which is the cornerstone of modern science and has produced results beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Is Dan the only one who can comprehend this?

  12. Truthseeker Says:

    You may have to define your terms again MacDonald for us to appreciate that there is even a morsel of sense in what you say. Pray do.

    You a) believe there is no HIV virus as a provable separate viable retroviral entity and/or b) believe that it has been mislabeled and mischaracterized? and/or c) that Duesberg doesn’t know what he is talking about in this regard?

    We will study our response with interest. Perhaps we should add
    and/or d) there are fairies in the bottom of the garden?
    No wait. You are accusing us of believing in a fairy at the bottom of the test tube.

    MacD, why don’t you refer to the post again to see why the Perth pair deserve removing from the game – they were the ones who barred testimony at the trial from others more credible than themselves. It is now now public knowledge that they insisted that this be so and won the acquiescence of the Parenzee family to this demand. This hubris was repaid by the result which by extension threatens the lives of many people around the world.

  13. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS, you are making some fair and well-reasoned points on the “debacle”. The large problem of the Perth testimony not reflecting current retrovirology is real. But the lacunae here are shared by almost all, given the vast thousands of papers on the subject that perhaps only John Coffin and Thierry Heidmann have a grasp of. What “harmless passenger virus” vs “nonexistence” leave out is a consensus which I’ll put in the most general terms: retroviral transcriptions in stressed cells have something to do with immune system adaptations that may be protective in some circumstances, and dysfunctional in others. Additionally, these stresses cause genomic alterations in certain blood cells that move toward an autonomous state out of harmony with the rest of the body, thus increasing the likelihood of transcription of genes downstream from any retroviral LTR that become “activated” by these processes. The distinction endogenous vs exogenous is meaningless functionally since current “HIV” and “HERV” research both demonstrate what is conventionally understood as promoter and enhancer regulated transcription via DNA dependent RNA polymerase.

    As the saying goes, the devil is in the details, again, a huge quantity that can overwhelm this little monkey brain. Is the above a fair summary of what most researchers in this field really and truly believe. I don’t know. But I will say it represents what a careful scientist with an unbiased perspective can reasonably conclude trying to make the broadest possible survey of this most vexing literature. What I’ve been attempting to get across (in a most maladroit manner, admittedly) is that the ontological question, “the very existence of a virus currently identified as HIV”, is imbedded in the question of “proximate causality” as understood by lawyers. As one legal scholar puts it, “application of the principle of causality remains the exclusive province of the trier of fact because the law employs the layman’s concept of causality for the resolution of causal issues.” In this case, the “trier of fact”, the jury, was prevented from applying their “lay” judgement to the facts in dispute by the good judge’s over-reaching into the realm of deciding on the validity of the science. It is “causation-in-fact”, the “existence” or not of an active reproducing virus within the body of Chad Parenzee, that should be the basis of his defense. Simply offering an opinion, even by a court qualified expert, that “HIV” is a harmless passenger would not provide sufficient detail to counter the weight of expert medical and scientific opinion on the prosecution’s side; it would be insufficient “grounding” for those deliberations in the jury room. You have already conceded that Perth’s “opinion evidence” on the non-specificity of the antibody tests would be necessary expert testimony to support a credible defense. What the TEAM were guilty of, as the lawyer puts it, was putting forward an “affirmative defense of can’t cause”, which is “nearly impossible from a scientific viewpoint because a null hypothesis can be disproved, but it cannot be proved. Furthermore such a defense is usually strategically unwise because it may be perceived as an attempt to prove too much.” Again, a STRATEGIC error that has nothing to do with the Perth analysis which HAS BEEN published in peer-reviewed journals.

    As far as your last post, technical matters ARE being addressed and I will continue in this vein shortly. Duesberg knows exactly what he’s talking about on matters techne, it is the ontos where the challenge lays.

  14. Bwian Says:

    Oh Truthseeker has added a tail to his last post, stating plainly for the record why it is a rethinker duty to target the Perth Group again and again with everything one has or has not in one’s grasp. As it is now common knowledge, not much more need be said about it other than. . .

    YES! every jihad must start with such a purging of aberrant elements within one’s own ranks in the name of the cause, and end with undying belief that every adverse outcome would have been different if only the kismet chosen suicide squad had been purer of heart.

  15. Bwian Says:

    Nick, even granted the possibility that endos and exos may be functionally similar in these respects does not eradicate the relevant distinction between them in terms of sexual transmissibility.

    MacDonald is right about one thing and one thing only, since he clearly has even less of a clue about virology than Nick and the Perth Group, it would have made no difference if it had been Duesberg or Smith and Jones down there in Adelaide. Crackpot opinion is till crackpot opinion and would still have been dismissed

  16. Dan Says:

    The large problem of the Perth testimony not reflecting current retrovirology is real.

    You’ve hit the nail on the head, Nick, and done so in very few words.

    Current “retrovirology” gives the world the deadly debacle that is AIDS. It seems that current “retrovirology” needs to be shaken at its foundation. For many of us rethinkers, the Perth Group is a necessary part of that process.

    Let’s see if this post makes it past the censors…

  17. MacDonald Says:

    Nick,

    I’ m not sure what you mean by the ‘Perth testimony’. I have only seen Valendar Turner’s affidavit online… There’s a limit, don’t you think, to how sophisticated an argument one can make to a science ignorant judge via a science ignorant defence lawyer and convince him that a science ignorant jury would be influenced by it?

    Speaking of science ignorance, my dear Bwian I may not be as well versed in virology as others, but I can’t be nearly as wrong a you say since I basically agree with you. Maybe my well developed intuition makes up for lack of scientific sense.

  18. Dan Says:

    TS, from earlier in the thread…

    This is a science blog, not a political one

    Noted.

    Unfortunately, the next two statements which come from the same post sound quite political, or at the very least, not so much about the science.

    But it doesn’t matter whether they are right or wrong about their incredible claim. The simple fact is that they are a menace to the reputation of others who claim that the paradigm is wrong, as the Adelaide case showed

    This is not amateur hour, this is war, as John Moore has stated. To oppose an aircraft carrier you need a few Exocet missiles, not a Vietnam era battleship

    Now TS is agreeing with Moore that this is war. If it is war, then united we stand, divided we fall, correct?

    The Perth Group gambled and lost. I, for one, didn’t think for a minute that this case would be any challenge to the paradigm…Perth Group or not. Just my opinion. Time to move on.

  19. Truthseeker Says:

    Now TS is agreeing with Moore that this is war. If it is war, then united we stand, divided we fall, correct?

    Absolutely not, Dan. That is Moore’s politics, which he forces on others who disagree with him, but which only reflects the concious or unconscious knowledge of the weakness of his paradigm, which no half way intelligent person would support in its basics, whatever recondite issues are disputed by the distinguished sophisticates who contribute to this blog.

    We have not the slightest interest in bending our opinion to suit the politics of others, since we basically are revolted by science twisted by emotion and bias of any kind. Unless they offer us ready money of course, when we are like anybody else, willing to assert the moon is made of cheese if the price is right.

    To us the whole point of being a very rich country is that we can afford to deal with the truth, but apparently this is a very naive approach. We haven’t adapted to the modern world, where everything is now commercialized, even DNA.

    Anyone here whose scientific analysis is bent around their politics kindly leave unless they have a large sum of money to deposit in our bank account, in which case they may stay and we will never contradict them, we promise.

    As far as the Adelaide case being lost by the Perth pair is concerned, yes, it was, and a pity that the willful Eleni arranged that outcome by threatening to call a press conference and denounce any other dissident who was called as a witness, if that rather unlikely internet rumor (from Landis, apparently) is true. true or not, telling any judge that you don’t believe the virus really exists is just asking to be rated a crackpot, which indeed is the case since otherwise you would know that and be more cautious.

    The Perth pair just discredit the real scientists and their real objections to HIV∫AIDS ideology which has never had anything scientific to recommend it. Want to ensure a case is lost? Call the Perthbusters!

    That’s politics. But it’s separate from science, and has bearing only in who is listened to and who is not.

  20. Truthseeker Says:

    By the way, anyone who has a favorite dynamite page to refer to on the Web on either side that we haven’t listed in the beanstalk Blogroll in the right margin we have recently built up, please say so here or in email at al@scienceguardian.com, and we will add it immediately.

    Also anyone familiar with programming WordPress please contact if you may be able to help with adjustments..

  21. Nick Naylor Says:

    Bwian, it’s true that juries cannot “comprehend” highly specialized science in terms of its practice. But the legal standard requires equal, undrestandable presentations under the guidance of expert counsel by each side which satisfies a common-sense understanding of justice. The judge is only supposed to be a screen to insure that “opinion evidence” by qualified experts is “reliable”, arrived at by rational methods.

    Apparently, we still have to beat this point to death given our gracious host’s choice to dig in his heels and continue to attack the Perth’s PRACTICE of science, which has nothing to do with losing this case. But the question I’m trying to raise is how VALID was the testimony, say Gallo’s on “purification”: and yes, it is the job of opposing counsel to somehow expose it’s invalidity. This can and has been done by expert trial lawyers, even in technically complex areas.

    As far as Eleni’s testimony, I’m relying on the parts excerpted by Judge Sulan.

    More boring tecno-legal details will follow.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 144 access attempts in the last 7 days.