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.

Snowblinded, a blogger retreats from HIV?AIDS doubts

Singed by flame war, Alexander of DailyKos bows to ‘biologist’ who sets him straight

The lionhearted (or perhaps Web naive) Alexander has “corrected” his headline that the Harpers/Farber article “explodes” HIV?AIDS, having been persuaded by a biologist correspondent that HIV does likely cause AIDS after all.

It is a sorry case of needless retreat in the face of faux scientific expertise.

Here is Alexander’s latest position:

CORRECTION

Frustration at the troll-rating that was done here caused me to post another diary, proposing that the troll-rating system be changed. In that diary, I got several posts from a biologist not working in the AIDS field saying that the grounds for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis are very solid. It sounds like he (or she) knows what he is talking about, so I have accepted his claim.

I now believe that I went overboard with my title that the Harper’s article “explodes” HIV=AIDS. It appears that there is a lot of solid science behind this hypothesis. Thus, at our current state of knowledge, it is likely that HIV does produce AIDS, and that Duesberg is wrong.

That is not to say however that HIV=AIDS is an established fact, so that other explanations of AIDS should not be explored. Also, it is not at all to say that Harper’s did not perform a very important service by publishing this article, and Celia Farber by researching and writing it and her many other articles on HIV/AIDS. Even if much or most of the science that gets done by the mainstream AIDS “community” turns out to be valid, there is so much money and particular agendas involved that this community can sure use some hard journalistic oversight.

Come on, Alexander, have courage! The biologist is no expert, and not even up to date on current HIV?AIDS theory, which has left cell killing by HIV far behind, for one reason because as it turns out that Duesberg did not even go far enough originally when pointing to mainstream research stating that active virus is found in only one in ten thousand of the cells it supposedly despatches, making it rather impossible for it to do the job.

Here is what the biologist wrote:

The cells that die off in AIDS are the cells that HIV are known to infect. And, again, infection predates die off.

The death of those cells, by ANY cause, leads to very similar disease succeptabilities (sic) that one sees in AIDS (e.g. severe Candida infections, which was one of the first ever observations that led to the discovery of AIDS). In fact the death of those cells in essence causes practically all the visible aspects of AIDS.

The true figure is one in sixty thousand, as they discovered later. This alone makes a nonsense of saying HIV infection of cells correlates with massive cell death on any basis, direct or indirect, however “succeptable” they are. It obviously has to be some other engine of mass destruction, which is totally indiscriminate as to whether a cell has an active virus in it or not.

The “biologist” repeats other assertions which the HIV rationalizers have long since moved on from, and his logic (as well as his spelling) is sometimes excruciating. For example, an assumption is apparently a premise in his mind:

About the only somewhat tentative link is exactly how infection actually kills off those particular cells. THAT is one place where I have heard different interesting hypotheses, but all presuppose HIV as the causative agent.

Anyone who claims that a retrovirus is able to induce lysis is completely unaware of the difference between a retrovirus and a virus, probably because some false pictures of HIV bursting cells were concocted by a certain prominent scientist who should have known better and entered some textbooks.


You also seem unaware that some viruses burst their host as a method to release the newly formed particles. Again, a common thing called lysis. Many viruses, HIV included, alternate between lytic and lysogenic (latent, integrated) phases of their cell cycle.

Essentially all the claims of the biologist are misleading and spurious, out of date and showing no signs of understanding that he is repeating exactly the claims that demonstrate how absurd the HIV?AIDS claim is.

For one example, his list of factors which “explain” the supposed African HIV?AIDS pandemic is a roundup of all the nonsense, such as “dry sex” which is held to explain the heterosexual epidemic in Africa, as opposed to the same epidemic being limited to gays and drug users in the States, but misses out the most damning mainstream finding of all – the vanishing rate of passage of HIV positivity from man to woman or vice versa, recently graphed at the HTPN meeting as a 1/1000 to 1/10,000 risk per bout

You ignore the many social differences between US/Europe and Africa that are part of the difference in epidemic dynamics and how in US/Eur. populations where the sexual activities are similar to those in Africa (migrants frequenting prostitutes without protection, for example) the dynamics are more similar to Africa. In otherwords, your ignore the social elements of the dynamics. Other social aspects that affect the dynamics even in different parts of Africa are rates of circumcision (circumcision correlates with lower infection rates), practices like dry intercourse (which increases rates), etc. And, of course, there is condom availability and usage rates.

You don’t seem to be aware that there are two different HIV viruses with different origins, different geographic ranges and different levels of virulence. You also seem unaware that even within these two different species there are many strains of HIV. So the two different species as well as the social factors above EASILY explain the different kinds of epidemic dynamics seen.

On a mundane level, there is no better example of the Ptolemeic factor, where difficulties are met by one invented supposition after another, and Occam’s Razor blunted by refusal to even conceive of the possibility that the ruling assumption (that HIV is the cause of AIDS) is wrong, even though this is the precise point at issue!

Ignorance is correlated with arrogance, as usual, and having paraded his out-of-date defense the biologist tells Alexander that

This is just a brief summary of the things that you are missing or misunderstanding. I don’t necessarily blame you since it is clear you aren’t a biologist. I am no HIV expert (though I was offered a job in an HIV lab in Seattle 8 years ago but came to NYC instead). But I am up on the basics and you are way off on those basics.

The result of this confident misinformation is that Alexander, snow blinded, hastily takes two steps back, salutes the claimed expertise of the biologist and apologizes for his precipitate headline and like a dog rolling over, vows to do more reading:

Anyway, I think that now is a good time for me to stop pushing this line of thinking, unless that is I do a lot more reading about HIV, which will probably be never.

Thanks once more for your detailed posts, which have convinced me that much if not most mainstream AIDS research is respectable science.

The exchange vividly illustrates the way the blind can lead the blind in this arena, where a smattering of apparent technical expertise is enough to make the outsider surrender in abject humility to the authority of the professional, even one who admits he is no expert and out of date.

As far as we are concerned, this is the chief difficulty faced by all outside critics and investigators who suspect that all is not well in HIV?AIDS land. Lacking expertise, they can be quickly disarmed by any scientist carrying a weapon, ie official expertise.

Unless, that is, they take the trouble to think for a minute, and realize that there is plenty of expertise on both sides of the argument, even if they don’t possess it themselves.

All they have to do is go to Duesberg’s site and check out his papers, to see that at the highest level, it is Peter Duesberg’s arguments which have survived a trial by fire, ie the best ammunition that his hostile referees could throw at him.

For two decades he has published finely researched, copiously referenced and precisely stated papers which have not yet once been countered by peer reviewed responses at the same level in the same journals, which indicates that whatever rationalizations those versed in the field have come up with to supposedly counter his continuing deconstruction and rejection of this vexed paradigm, they are not sufficient to publish in direct opposition to his challenge.

So it really not necessary for someone who is impressed by the cogent and polished summary of the problems with the field that Farber has published in the reputable Harpers this month to immediately abandon ship simply because some biologist who is not even in the field tells him he does not know the science.

The biologist’s posts are here The troll rating system is broken

(show)

Daily Kos

Display:

Permalink | 156 comments

HIV (4.00 / 6)

Sorry. I am a research biologist and I can tell you that the theory that HIV is the causative agent of AIDS is pretty damned solid. To the point where drugs designed based on the genetic sequence of HIV have turned AIDS from a disease that kills rapidly to one that can be survived for more than 20 years. That is an indication of a robust theory–predictions leading to results.

HIV isn’t the ONLY thing because it is seldom the agent that actually kills. But the same could be said of SCID. It isn’t the genetic defect that kills in SCID, it is the fact that the individual can’t mount an immune response to common bacteria and viruses and other organisms.

I did not participate in the diary you mention, so I don’t know if you deserved to be troll rated. And I do not necessarily fault you for posting a diary on the subject. But really, denying the link between HIV and AIDS has about the same backing as denying the link between smoking and cancer, between carbon dioxide and global warming, and denying evolution. It is making a controversy where there really isn’t one.

Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

by mole333 on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:41:26 PM PDT

The position I took in my diary… (none / 1)

is that until an explanation is found for how HIV produces AIDS, one cannot know with certainty that HIV does produce AIDS. Of course, you can say that science doesn’t seek explanations, only predictions. Some scientists believe the one; others the other. (If I was belligerent about anything in my posts, it was in my insistence that science seeks explanations.)

One poster by the way said that he has been HIV-positive for twenty years, but never took any anti-HIV drugs. Unfortunately I can’t refer you to that post, since it has been hidden from me with troll raitings. :-)

The difference between a liberal and a progressive is that a progressive thinks for himself, whereas a liberal lets the Republicans do his thinking for him.

by Alexander on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:34:03 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Explanation (4.00 / 2)

As far as I can tell there is as much explanation for how HIV causes AIDS as there is evidence for any causative agent causing a disease.

People with AIDS are invariably HIV-positive (the reverse is NOT necessarily true). That is a strong corrrelation. Infection also demonstrably predates symptoms and the dynamics of the infection with HIV match the dyamics of the development of the syndrome in a manner that is much like ANY retroviral infection.

The cells that die off in AIDS are the cells that HIV are known to infect. And, again, infection predates die off.

The death of those cells, by ANY cause, leads to very similar disease succeptabilities that one sees in AIDS (e.g. severe Candida infections, which was one of the first ever observations that led to the discovery of AIDS). In fact the death of those cells in essence causes practically all the visible aspects of AIDS.

The mechanism of the viral infection is well worked out and is pretty much like ANY retrovirus. HIV is not unique or even unusual in this way.

About the only somewhat tentative link is exactly how infection actually kills off those particular cells. THAT is one place where I have heard different interesting hypotheses, but all presuppose HIV as the causative agent. Some hypothesize a direct viral killing, others hypothesize that the cells are killed off by the body’s own reaction to the HIV infection. The latter is based on how survival rates differ in individuals that mount a primarily Th1 vs. Th2 response to the virus. But HIV is central to both hypthoses.

As to HIV-positive for 20 years without meds, I would have to know what he means by HIV-positive. For example, the first test essentially tests for antibodies, which simply shows exposure to the virus. The more definitive test detects actual viral presence. However, whatever his meaning, there are always outliers. The statistics still basically show that meds have turned a death sentence into a manageable, though not curable, disease. Those meds are, again, based on the molecular knowledge of the HIV virus. The loss of effectiveness of the meds over time are also explainable by the known variability of the HIV virus on a molecular level. The case is really quite solid.

Details remain to be argued over. The overall link is about as solid as it gets.

I knew someone who, based on a single observation, agrued against the double helix theory of DNA. My counter arguement was that if he was right, then the actual structure must be so similar to the double helix that the difference would almost certainly be irrelavent because almost the entire basis of molecular biology can be worked out from a double helix model. So any other theory would have to give all the same predictions and so would be in essence the same theory. Much the same can be said about the prion theory, which also still has its detractors. I think the same applies to the HIV theory. The predictive basis of HIV as the causative agent is so good that any alternative is still going to have to take HIV into account. If HIV is NOT the primary cause, it is still the most major factor.

Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

by mole333 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 07:55:08 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Okay… (none / 1)

So I skimmed your diary.

Sorry, but there are so many missing facts, misunderstandings and fallacies. Your confuse easily transmitted disease epidemics with an “epidemic” like AIDS which is very difficult to transmit. The dynamics of the epidemics will be radically different.

You ignore the many social differences between US/Europe and Africa that are part of the difference in epidemic dynamics and how in US/Eur. populations where the sexual activities are similar to those in Africa (migrants frequenting prostitutes without protection, for example) the dynamics are more similar to Africa. In otherwords, your ignore the social elements of the dynamics. Other social aspects that affect the dynamics even in different parts of Africa are rates of circumcision (circumcision correlates with lower infection rates), practices like dry intercourse (which increases rates), etc. And, of course, there is condom availability and usage rates.

You don’t seem to be aware that there are two different HIV viruses with different origins, different geographic ranges and different levels of virulence. You also seem unaware that even within these two different species there are many strains of HIV. So the two different species as well as the social factors above EASILY explain the different kinds of epidemic dynamics seen.

You don’t seem aware that the “kill the host rapidly” (in this case killing the T-cells that they reproduce in) is typical of a newly evolved virus or a virus that jumps species. The host-pathogen interaction has not fine tuned so the reactions of each to the other are greatly exaggerated. Very common. You also seem unaware that some viruses burst their host as a method to release the newly formed particles. Again, a common thing called lysis. Many viruses, HIV included, alternate between lytic and lysogenic (latent, integrated) phases of their cell cycle. This is very common even in such well-studied bacterial virues like M13.

This is just a brief summary of the things that you are missing or misunderstanding. I don’t necessarily blame you since it is clear you aren’t a biologist. I am no HIV expert (though I was offered a job in an HIV lab in Seattle 8 years ago but came to NYC instead). But I am up on the basics and you are way off on those basics. Perhaps, and I didn’t read the comments much, but perhaps Armando’s reaction was because you are earnestly defending something that is so poorly informed.

Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

by mole333 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 01:55:01 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

You have out-argued me (none / 1)

As I mentioned in my original diary, I hadn’t read about AIDS for years, until the Harper’s piece. Thank you for filling me in a little bit on the many things I am missing.

I don’t know what reaction of Armando’s you mean: his name doesn’t come up in either of my diaries.

Yes, the word “lysis” started coming back to me after I read some critical posts (that didn’t mention it), from my reading of a bio textbook (Keeton) many years ago. As I mentioned somewhere, I got that argument (about it being silly to hypothesize that HIV destroys its host cells, since it needs them to replicate) straight from Duesberg. I must admit that I was puzzled when I first read that argument, since I had a vague memory of lysis. I must also admit that Duesberg’s making that argument might mean that I should reappraise his credibility somewhat.

You wrote in your preceding post:

About the only somewhat tentative link is exactly how infection actually kills off those particular cells. THAT is one place where I have heard different interesting hypotheses, but all presuppose HIV as the causative agent. Some hypothesize a direct viral killing, others hypothesize that the cells are killed off by the body’s own reaction to the HIV infection.

This is exactly what I had in mind when I said that there is an explanatory gap. I don’t know if you would agree with me that having two such radically different hypotheses for a central aspect of AIDS aetiology shows that an understanding of the mechanism of aids, as opposed to the accumulation of a great deal of data on empirical regularities exhibited by the disease, has not got very far. And I read this article, by Celia Farber, who also wrote the Harper’s piece, which suggests that David Ho’s theory (the second hypothesis you mention) has fallen into disrepute.

Still, what you have said has convinced me that a great deal of evidence has been amassed in favor of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. FWIW, my guess as to the likelihood that it is true is 70%. (I would be much more suspicious of your claims if you were an AIDS researcher.)

Nevertheless, I think that Farber performs a very valuable function with her reporting on the AIDS “establishment”. Clearly, excesses do get committed in the fight against AIDS (not just in le Carré novels), and with so much money slushing around, the scientific community can use a little journalistic oversight.

Anyway, I think that now is a good time for me to stop pushing this line of thinking, unless that is I do a lot more reading about HIV, which will probably be never.

Thanks once more for your detailed posts, which have convinced me that much if not most mainstream AIDS research is respectable science.

The difference between a liberal and a progressive is that a progressive thinks for himself, whereas a liberal lets the Republicans do his thinking for him.

by Alexander on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 10:48:18 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Cool (none / 0)

Whoops on the Armando reference. I was conflating your troll-rating rant with an Armando rant going on at the same time. Some of the complaints were similar so they ran together in my mind. Replace “Armando” with “people who troll rated you.”

As to explanatory gaps, well, yes there are gaps. There are always gaps. There are gaps in our understanding of something so well-studied and basic as gravity. In fact, some seemingly well known things do suddenly get overturned, like the discovery that ulcers are caused by bacterial infection.

But the immune-system killing its own vs. the lytic may even be a false dichotomy. Truth is, in many cases there is a race between lysis and immune killing when a cell is infected by a virus. So both are possibilities and could both be happening. It is an active area of research and honestly here I am not quite up on the latest developments.

Abuses in science? NEVER! Oh, yeah…that stem cell thing. Oh, and that Indonesian Archaeologist. And that Norwegian guy. And…

Sadly scientists are not always honest and don’t always have integrity. In other words they are people. What I can tell you is that almost every scientist I have known studying almost anything in either biology or atmospheric sciences (my wife’s field) have been driven largely by a very strong desire for accurate and factual discovery. Discoveries that overturn accepted paradigms are GOLD in science, they make your career. So there would never be mass acceptance of a bad theory.

Most abuses come from the need to publish. A researcher may be facing tenure or some other cirtical deadline and decide to fudge. I have never known anyone who did this of all the hundreds of scientists I have known. Then again, many bad papers get published where I do question the conclusions of the author. But that isn’t abuse, that is simply incompetance. And, again, scientists are human and hence there are incompetant scientists.

AIDS is also an area where politics gets involved. That also can lead to abuse. Any area where big money interests have a stake you will see the possibility of research towards a particular conclusion (which is bad science). Tobacco companies funding research that shows smoking doesn’t cause cancer is one example. But for the most part, the fact that MOST funding comes from NIH and NSF, and peer review puts most grants and publications under the scrutiny of other scientists, lead to a fairly strict level of accuracy. Even most cases of fraud are eventually discovered no matter what the interests behind the research. The Korean stem cell fiasco was rooted out by scintists. Same with cold fusion. Etc. SO mostly it works and works well despite the problems. So I would say that most (but NOT all) mainstream science in general is respectable, whatever the field. Or, if not respectable, at least accurate. Most scientists aren’t that respectable : -)

Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

by mole333 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 04:53:56 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I have the highest regard for natural science (none / 0)

Social science is another matter. There’s a lot of pseudo-science going on there; the whole field of economics is I would say a pseudo-science. Political scientists also like to deny the obvious. In the case of economics, material interests overpower any objectivity researchers might find. It was not that way in the 19th century.

As for the Korean stem cell thing, I read that it was a Korean news program (their equivalent of 60 Minutes, I guess) that exposed it, by reporters interviewing researchers close to the study while misleading them as to what their report was actually about. But the reporters got their tip that something was wrong with the stem cell research from graduate students or post-docs, perhaps anonymously through a Korean science Web site.

As for your argument that “discoveries are gold in science”, so that there would never be mass acceptance of a bad theory: yes and no. The bacterial basis of ulcers is a case in point. Sometimes when there is a bad theory, it takes a real maverick to overturn it. And it might take decades before such a person comes along. There is both peer pressure to accept the prevailing paradigm, and the paradigm also often puts blinders on researchers, which prevent them from asking the right questions or seeing phenomena in the proper way. This is of course what T. S. Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions is all about.

Anyway, thank you for a very enlightening exchange.

The difference between a liberal and a progressive is that a progressive thinks for himself, whereas a liberal lets the Republicans do his thinking for him.

by Alexander on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:29:50 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I’ve added a “correction”… (none / 0)

to my original diary as a result of your remarks, for the benefit of any people who might run across it from Google searches.

The difference between a liberal and a progressive is that a progressive thinks for himself, whereas a liberal lets the Republicans do his thinking for him.

by Alexander on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 12:04:29 AM PDT

© Kos Media, LLC

Some of the 159 comments so far on this thread, which is at “Follow up thread with 159 comments, include:

(show)

—————————————–

Some conspiracy theories have merit (none / 1)

In this case, the questioning of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is supported by a number of eminent scientists including a Nobel laureate. To suppress debate and inquiry on these issues goes against the very core of the scientific method, and is as deplorable when you do it as when Bush-appointed hacks do it. For shame.

Not long ago, the first researchers to put forth the claim that bacteria caused ulcers were laughed at. Before that, it was the tectonic plate theory. Little more than a hundred years ago, it was universally believed in the field of physics that light could pass through space because of some kind of invisible, intangible “ether”. Going further back, the supposedly great scientist Aristotle had all kinds of wrong notions, including a lack of understanding of inertia and a belief that heavier things fell faster than lighter ones.

Maybe it will turn out that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is correct (though I rather doubt it). But if you look into it at all, you’ll find that all the conventional ways scientists are supposed to demonstrate the existence of a virus pathogen have been skipped or whitewashed. Then once the powers-that-be declared this theory to be correct, all funding was made contingent on accepting it blindly. It’s a shameful chapter in science, even if HIV/AIDS turns out to be right, as they (and you) nevertheless should allow other avenues to be explored, and for the hypothesis to be well challenged and tested.

-Alan

-9.00, -3.69 Bush, 12/12/05: “I think we are welcomed [in Iraq]. But it was not a peaceful welcome.”

——————————

Nobelist Kary Mullis (none / 0)

is an excellent in-vitro enzymologist, but has very little expertise on in-vivo virology. He’s not a credible expert in this particular case.

by lazybum on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 08:34:21 PM PDT

———————

by SlackerInc on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:04:55 PM PDT

Naive, eh? (none / 0)

Are you a molecular biologist or biochemist? Kary Mullis is the latter–in fact, he won the 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. And he wrote:

“If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document.”

Who are you to call him naive? Sure, there are plenty of other eminent scientists who disagree with him, and you’re certainly free to side with them–but calling him “naive” seems a bit presumptuous on your part.

-Alan

————————————

You’re the one who called him a crackpot (none / 0)

In this diary. I only challenged you on it.

In any event, it is germane. If the POV the diarist originally supported was actually in the same ballpark as “flat earth” (can you name any Nobel laureates, “crackpot” or otherwise, who believe the earth is flat? I rather doubt it), there might be more justification for his having been trollrated. But when you’ve got people like Mullis and Duesberg to point to, and publications like Harper’s (and Mothering, which is where I first read about it), it’s just not in the “flat earth” category, and to claim otherwise, as you did, is strawman all the way.

-Alan

——————————

3 Responses to “Snowblinded, a blogger retreats from HIV?AIDS doubts”

  1. Robert Houston Says:

    Despite the misleading assertions of the quoted “biologist” and of the snobbish acolytes of the HIV=AIDS cult, it’s interesting to note that many of the major points of Duesberg’s critique of HIV have been largely accepted by conventional AIDS researchers since at least the mid-1990s. Of course, they give no credit to him for his prescience, yet they’ve reluctantly come to agree with key conclusions of his early critiiques in Cancer Research (1987) and the Proceedings of the NAS (1989). He pointed out, for example, that HIV was non-cytopathic, and was effectively neutralized by antibodies, and thus was far too scarce to be a direct cause of T-cell decline.Ten years later, this became a common view in AIDS research (though not in public information from AIDS agencies). For example, see R.W. Anderson, Ascher and Sheppard, “Direct HIV cytopathicity cannot account for CD4 decline in AIDS in the presence of homeostasis” (J. AIDS &Human Retrovirology 17:245-252, 1998). They wrote, “the observed viral burdens seem to be too low to deplete the CD4 population in the face of replenishment.” Going even further than Duesberg, they note “the ratio of infectious to noninfectious virions to be 1:60,000” and that there’s no more than 1 virion per 100 CD4 cells. (This means only 1 in 6 million of such cells – not one in 60,000 – would have active virus.) According to Anthony Fauci, Dir. of NIAID, “the proportion of HIV-infected CD4+ T cells…is typically in the range of 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000…and rarely exceeds 1 in 100 even in patients with advanced HIV disease” (in Fundamentals of Immunology, Ed: W. Paul, 2003, p. 1294).It’s because key points of Duesberg were accepted that other theories, such as “immune activation” have been pursued to explain AIDS. The theorists, such as Zvi Grossman, must start with the conclusion of HIV causation and ride their epicycles around it, since the central dogma can’t be questioned. Nevertheless, environmental influences of an unhealthy lifestyle (e.g., drugs, frequent infections, and dietary deficiencies) can also explain an increase of immune activation in HIV-positives (which also occurs in HIV-negatives). The normal homeostatic process to which it leads, activation-induced cell death, can be substantially inhibited by antioxidants such as vitamin E, according to research from the Univ. of Heidelberg (M. Li-Weber et al. “Vitamin E…protects T cells from activation-induced cell death,” J. Clin. Inv. 110:681-690, 2002).The “biologist” also claims erroneously that “the cells that die off in AIDS are the cells that HIV is known to infect.” But HIV is known to infect macrophages, monocytes and B cells, as well as T cells. Moreover, the cell death (apoptosis) in AIDS occurs mainly in the uninfected cells (T. Finkel et al. “Apoptosis occurs predominantly in bystander cells and not in productively infected cells of HIV- and SIV-infected lymph nodes,” Nature Med. 1(2):129-134, 1995). Celia Farber summarized the new HIV theories succinctly but accurately in footnote 13 of her terrific new Harper’s article. Her remark on p. 50 about antibodies signalling immunity could have used the qualifer “usually” or “typically”, but otherwise was essentially correct. A current textbook states, “Antibody to antigens on the viral surface is sufficient to prevent infection by viruses that cause smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, hepatities A and B, and influenza, to name some” (G. Pier et al. Immunology, Infection, and Immunity, 2004, p. 457).Thank you, Truthseeker, for your insightful discussions of her fine article.

  2. Truthseeker Says:

    Thank you for that backup and correction, Robert, which points out vividly how the mainstream followed along Duesberg’s path and proved his main conclusions in every respect, going further than he did in proving themselves utterly wrong.

    The papers you quote actually revealed that the situation was even more impossible than he suspected, as you point out. The virus was initially thought to be active in 1 in 10,000 cells, as I recall, and now as you state Fauci has confirmed it was not in more than 1 in 100 cells in any form, active or inactive. and typically ranges up to 1 in 10,000. At the top end that would be 60,000 x 10,000, which would be I in 600,000,000 cells active.

    Small wonder these scallywags cannot find any virus in patients of any status, even dying ones!

    There is nothing clearer in the scientific literature than the obvious fact that something else causes AIDS immune deficiency, if it occurs.

    Having reviewed your work years ago on this topic I have now realized what is also obvious, and that is, the real cause of early AIDS and the real cure to early AIDS, which you evidently pointed out at the time, and will post on that if my call to Dr Fauci offering him this solution on a private basis for a large sum of money proves fruitless.

    Having given him gratis through this blog the simple and easy answer to bird flu, which would save as much as ten or twelve billion dollars annually, not to mention the lives of the world’s innocent poultry, currently being executed in large numbers as a threat to humanity, and having got no polite response of any kind, this is the last offer I will make to him.

    But I think he deserves one more chance, for having posed for my camera so proudly at the HTPN meeting last week, when I offered to take his portrait.

  3. Robert Houston Says:

    While making your private arrangements with Dr. Fauci, you may wish to remind him of his own admitted puzzlement as to how HIV could be a direct cause of anything. As he discreetly put it in the foremost textbook of immunology, “quantitative studies of the frequency of HIV-infected cells in vivo suggest that single-cell killing by direct infection with HIV may not be the predominant mechanism of CD4+ T-cell depletion… the data illustrate the difficulty in accounting for CD4+ depletion solely by direct mechanisms.” (A. Fauci, et al. In: Fundamental Immunology, Ed: W. E. Paul, 2003, p. 1294.)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 167 access attempts in the last 7 days.