I have been arguing against HIV-AIDS denialism for many years and have actually converted a few such ignorant death-promoters to the scientific perspective on the issue.
After watching the first day of a week-long “news” series on KCOP-Los Angeles (IIRC) in the 80’s strongly endorsing Duesberg’s and others’ denialist claims with virtually no balance whatsoever, I even personally launched an email, letter, and telephone campaign against KCOP that included Nobel laureates and others on the Skeptical Inquirer’s masthead that I contacted.
After a couple of days of this, the reporter and producer apologized (very begrudgingly) by phone to myself and on the air, but the strong stench of HIV->AIDS denialism didn’t fade for years.
With that in mind, I suggest that Guy in the Corner and others interested in this topic acquire the very recent September/October 2007 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, the cover of which is headlined: AIDS: Deniers vs. Science.
[QUOTE=Guy in the Corner]
I’m dealing with someone who denies that HIV causes AIDS. Is there any scientific support for this? I am sure that you guys have covered this in the past, but as a lowly guest I can’t search to make sure.
[/QUOTE]
It’s reasonable to say that because HIV/AIDS is not perfectly understood, there are scientific holes which open cracks just wide enough for the skeptics to gain a toehold.
This is true of almost any conspiracy theory. I would not waste time arguing with HIV/AIDS deniers. On average conspiracy believers are either unintelligent enough to understand the scientific data, or they have a disorder which is essentially a mild form of paranoia. It will be very frustrating convincing such an individual that the rest of the scientific/industrial/political/capitalist(you name the possible conspirators) cabal is not either in on the conspiracy, or duped by it.
Further complicating the AIDS issue, aside from the complexity of the HIV/AIDS pathogenesis itself is the relationship of natural host defenses and testing/definitional ambiguities. Suppose, as an example, that there are human genes which confer a natural immunity to HIV analgous to simian resistance to SIV. Until those genes are better defined, there will be even more confounding data showing healthy human hosts who are HIV-positive. That sort of data will only encourage HIV/AIDS deniers that they have had it right all along. In some African settings where HIV has existed for more than a generation, selection for such genes has already begun to occur, and until the entire host-pathogen relationship is clarified, clever deniers will always be able to find cracks from which to hang their billboards of doubt.
In the end you must decide if you are arguing with the Ignorant, the Stupid, or the Paranoid. Only the first can be cured.
Here:
"A total of 144 dog sera were tested on Chiron Western blot
strips. Of these, 72 sera (50%) reacted with one or more HIV
recombinant proteins (Table 1).”
They were, of course, immunoblot results - and they are significant evidence for HIV non-specificity.
[/QUOTE]
Not even in the slightest. Again, these data are evidence that the antibodies being used to detect HIV proteins were non-specific. Back in 1990, that is.
This is the conclusion that I draw from the data. Incidentally, it’s also the conclusion that the authors of the study draw from the data.
If their data were so important as to prove that HIV negative dogs test positive for HIV, and therefore disproves the HIV hypothesis of AIDS, don’t you think they might have mentioned that possibility in the Discussion section of the paper?
And probably published in a better journal?
In other words you’re drawing conclusions from a paper that the authors themselves didn’t draw.
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
I can tackle this one. I is a public television watcher. Those of subsaharan extraction are probably more likely to acquire HIV/AIDS than others, given the same behavior. This is because HIV specifically shuts down part of our immune system by locking onto a certain protein pattern in certain of our cells. Those without the pattern are much less likely to get AIDS.
Those with a different pattern are also much less likely to get bubonic plague, since it shuts down the immune system via the same method. The plague ravaged Europe and Asia: black Africa, not so much.
The proclivities for certain population segments to acquire HIV, which coordinate pretty well with how often the plague swept thru the area, which disables the immune system in the same way as AIDS, is pretty strong evidence.
[/QUOTE]
I’m curious. Are you saying that peoples that were genetically disinclined to be vulnerable to the plague are more inclined to be vulnerable to HIV/AIDS?
If so, do you have any idea why? This seems like one of those cool genetics/evolution things that you wish you had learned in school.
[QUOTE=Darth Sensitive]
I’m curious. Are you saying that peoples that were genetically disinclined to be vulnerable to the plague are more inclined to be vulnerable to HIV/AIDS?
If so, do you have any idea why? This seems like one of those cool genetics/evolution things that you wish you had learned in school.
[/QUOTE]
Its a mutation called Delta-32. If you have one copy you have resistance, if you have both you are immune. Its much more prolific in Europe as it is apparently the same gene that gave resistance/immunity to the black death in the 1300’s (and may have given resistance to smallpox).
