# HIV Test bogus, says PCR inventor **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 3, 2003, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403 "2003-09-03T21:05:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/221 "2003-09-10T02:25:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sealamp \* > Edwino wrote: > “Please explain how someone could be PCR positive for HIV and uninfected.” > > Are you responding to the definitions of HIV-infected / -uninfected I quoted from the paper which you presented as evidence HIV causes AIDS? I never made a definition of HIV-infected / -uninfected in this thread. If you have a problem with the definitions I quoted, then you have a problem with the paper. So then why are you citing it to support your arguments? Did you actually read the paper? You noted that the paper used “clinical signs” of HIV as a classification of HIV infection. What the paper actually used was PCR positivity plus signs of HIV. So I asked for you to explain how someone can be PCR positive for a virus and not be infected with the virus. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/222 "2003-09-10T02:54:43Z")
To any lurkers who might still think these flagrant truth-denialists like **"true"skeptic** and **Roger\_Mexico** are being at all intellectually honest, fair, and rational, I urge you to compare their incredibly credulous and disingenuous rhetorical ploys with those of the so-called creation “scientists”. Exchange the technical terms and such between them, and they’re virtually identical! Creationists and denialists both rely entirely on haughty, complex, and deceptive pseudo-science, which can often easily fool non-scientists and non-specialists into falsely believing that their allegedly “scientific” views have some merit and should be considered as rough scientific equals with the mainstream scientific position. Creationists and denialists are both driven by personal, irrational, anti-science agendas, although of course they always deny this. Creationists and denialists both rely exclusively on long-outdated and/or completely debunked claims or research, and always utterly refuse to admit that those have been debunked. Instead, they bring up cites and quotations from the obsolete and long-debunked claims/research that favor their anti-science agendas over and over and over again as if they represent something new and credible that hasn’t already been thoroughly debunked (usually many times). Creationists and denialists both claim that mainstream science is dishonest, mindlessly monolithic, and is deliberately suppressing the “proof” of the “truth” of their bogus and anti-scientific assertions. Creationists and denialists refuse to debate fairly and honestly. They don’t reply honestly and rationally to the arguments and facts that devastate their assertions, but instead evade them by: deliberately misrepresenting what was said; by pumping up trivialities all out of proportion; by quoting statements out of context; by citing assertions made by people outside of the appropriate field of expertise; by comparing themselves with Galileo and such, and, of course, by lying outright, among other similarly fraudulent rhetorical tactics. If you think these denialists are sound and honest scientists, then you’ll probably think creationists are, too, and there’s probably nothing any of us can say that will change your minds. ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/223 "2003-09-10T03:20:29Z")
okay. I Have to admit that I got a little tired of the technical hair-splitting around the middle of page 3. so, in order to cut to the chase, I offer the following observations/challenges. Trueskeptic: If HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, what does? If HIV diesn’t cause AIDS, would you be willing to have yourself innoculated with live HIV virus? If, as has been pointed out, there are many people who test positive for HIV antibodies, yet do not present symptoms of aids, and there are people who test negative for HIV antibodies, yet present AIDS-like symptoms, does this mean that cigarette smoking doesn’t cause cancer, inasmuch as there are many smokers who do not develop cancer, and there are many non-smokers who do? ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/224 "2003-09-10T03:29:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Roger\_Mexico \* > \*\*Looks like you need to take Biology 101 and Logic 101. This latest rant of yours is so incoherent, I don’t know where to start. > > The HIV virus has never been isolated, so there is no way that Koch’s postulates can be satisfied…\*\* How many times are you denialists going to foist such blatant falsehoods upon us? From:[KOCH’S POSTULATES FULFILLED](http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/12.htm): > [@](#): > > Recent developments in HIV research provide some of the strongest evidence for the causative role of HIV in AIDS and fulfill the classical postulates for disease causation developed by Henle and Koch in the 19th century (Koch’s postulates reviewed in Evans, 1976, 1989a; Harden, 1992). Koch’s postulates have been variously interpreted by many scientists over the years. One scientist who asserts that HIV does not cause AIDS has set forth the following interpretation of the postulates for proving the causal relationship between a microorganism and a specific disease (Duesberg, 1987): > > [list=1] > [li]The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease.[/li][li]It must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture.[/li][li]It must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host.[/li][li]It must be found in the experimental host so infected.[/li][/list=1] **Recent developments in HIV/AIDS research have shown that HIV fulfills these criteria as the cause of AIDS.** > > 1. The development of DNA PCR has enabled researchers to document the presence of cell-associated proviral HIV in virtually all patients with AIDS, as well as in individuals in earlier stages of HIV disease (Kwok et al., 1987; Wages et al., 1991; Bagasra et al., 1992; Bruisten et al., 1992; Petru et al., 1992; Hammer et al., 1993). RNA PCR has been used to detect cell-free and/or cell-associated viral RNA in patients at all stages of HIV disease (Ottmann et al., 1991; Schnittman et al., 1991; Aoki-Sei, 1992; Michael et al., 1992; Piatak et al., 1993) (Table 3). > > (You’ll have to follow the link to see Table 3) > > 1. Improvements in co-culture techniques have allowed the isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease (Coombs et al., 1989; Schnittman et al., 1989; Ho et al., 1989; Jackson et al., 1990). > > 1-4) All four postulates have been fulfilled in three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated HIVIIIB in the laboratory (Blattner et al., 1993; Reitz et al., 1994; Cohen, 1994c). Two patients were infected in 1985 and one in 1991. All three have shown marked CD4+ T cell depletion, and two have CD4+ T cell counts that have dropped below 200/mm3 of blood. One of these latter individuals developed PCP, an AIDS indicator disease, 68 months after showing evidence of infection and did not receive antiretroviral drugs until 83 months after the infection. In all three cases, HIVIIIB was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced, and shown to be the original infecting strain of virus. > > In addition, as of Dec. 31, 1994, CDC had received reports of 42 health care workers in the United States with documented, occupationally acquired HIV infection, of whom 17 have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors (CDC, 1995a). These individuals all had evidence of HIV seroconversion following a discrete percutaneous or mucocutaneous exposure to blood, body fluids or other clinical laboratory specimens containing HIV. > > The development of AIDS following known HIV seroconversion also has been repeatedly observed in pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases (Ward et al., 1989; Ashton et al., 1994), in mother-to-child transmission (European Collaborative Study, 1991, 1992; Turner et al., 1993; Blanche et al., 1994), and in studies of hemophilia, injection drug use, and sexual transmission in which the time of seroconversion can be documented using serial blood samples (Goedert et al., 1989; Rezza et al., 1989; Biggar, 1990; Alcabes et al., 1993a,b; Giesecke et al., 1990; Buchbinder et al., 1994; Sabin et al., 1993). > > In many such cases, infection is followed by an acute retroviral syndrome, which further strengthens the chronological association between HIV and AIDS (Pedersen et al., 1989, 1993; Schechter et al., 1990; Tindall and Cooper, 1991; Keet et al., 1993; Sinicco et al., 1993; Bachmeyer et al., 1993; Lindback et al., 1994). > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Roger\_Mexico \* > \*\*These irrational arguments, and ambushed’s claims that I am somehow “anti-science” when I am in fact applying more rigourous scientific standards than you and him, disqualifies you from any further discussion on this topic. \*\* Your “standards” are **NOT** “more rigorous”! Your “standards” simply consist of **ignoring** all sound, credible research and data and instead obsessing on obsolete, debunked, crackpot pseudo-science. This has **always** disqualified you from being taken seriously here, but it sure hasn’t kept you from continuing to deny the truth loudly and desperately. ---
**Author:** ![sealamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ec8ea/32.png) [@sealamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sealamp)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/225 "2003-09-10T03:44:45Z")
Edwino wrote: “You noted that the paper used “clinical signs” of HIV as a classification of HIV infection. What the paper actually used was PCR positivity plus signs of HIV. So I asked for you to explain how someone can be PCR positive for a virus and not be infected with the virus.” Edwino, here is the quote again from the paper: "Definitions HIV-infected children were those who were seropositive by ELISA and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive on at least two occasions, or were PCR positive on one occasion and had clinical features of AIDS as defined by the revised World Health Organization (WHO) clinical case definition for pediatric AIDS with the modification of persistent or severe lower respiratory tract infection as a major sign (11). However, for the purposes of comparing clinical features in the HIV-infected and uninfected groups, the 1986 WHO definition was used (12). Uninfected children were HIV seronegative with at least one PCR negative test, or HIV seropositive with at least two negative PCR tests, or those who subsequently seroreverted (on two different blood samples) and had at least one negative PCR. Indeterminate cases were HIV seropositive with only one PCR negative test and had no symptoms of AIDS." Apparently these kids took multiple PCR tests in some instances. I guess PCR tests aren’t 100 percent accurate so they do them more than once. And in cases where there was just one PCR positive they needed to also have clinical symptoms to be admitted to the HIV-infected group. Does that answer your question? ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/226 "2003-09-10T03:45:11Z")
**trueskeptic** and **Roger\_Mexico** : Like **OliverH** , I feel I am not really accomplishing anything here. Every time I address one point, it is ignored and two more invalid points are brought up in its place. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no current peer reviewed literature for the HIV dissent crowd. 15 year old papers are worthless. 5 year old papers are next to worthless. You scream isolation. Isolation of HIV is routine. You claim it isn’t a retrovirus because it doesn’t “look” like one. I claim it is a retrovirus because it makes reverse transcriptase (which is the defining feature of retroviruses). You come up with a out-of-the-blue quotation that reverse transcriptase occurs “everywhere in nature.” This, to my knowledge, is false. Yes, there are thousands of interspersed repeats of retroviral origins in the genome. Last I check, exactly one made a functional protein (syncytin from HERV-W). There is no endogenous reverse transcriptase activity anywhere except from infectious retroviruses, and I challenge you for a citation. We go in circles about the ELISA. Stop with it already. We already know it is a crap test. But it works. Today you come with nitpicking the dilution of sera. Nearly every antibody test out there depends on a dilution series (to calculate a titer), and 1:300 is not a big dilution when 1:10,000 dilutions are considered positive in some tests, namely influenza. You don’t like PCR assays, so you produce one study from 1992 or 1997 or whatever that shows it non-reproducible. Never mind the 20 or 30 other studies which have found it reproducible. > **[Ultrasensitive quantitative PCR to detect RNA viruses - PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12958501/?dopt=Abstract)** > > Ultrasensitive quantitative PCR to detect RNA viruses > **[Sources and magnitude of intralaboratory variability in a sequence-based...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12843019/?dopt=Abstract)** > > We assessed the intralaboratory reproducibility of a system for sequencing human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) protease (PR) and reverse transcriptase (RT) by using replicate subanalyses of 46 plasma samples collected from HIV-1-infected,... > **[Real-time PCR assay of individual human immunodeficiency virus type 1...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12734258/?dopt=Abstract)** > > In the course of infection, human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) mutates, diverging into a "swarm" of viral quasispecies, and the predominance of CCR5- or CXCR4-utilizing quasispecies is strongly associated with the pattern of disease... > **[Evaluation of the Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Ultrasensitive...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12467784/?dopt=Abstract)** > > In this preliminary study, we evaluated the performance of the Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Ultrasensitive Test (CAP; Roche Molecular Systems, Branchburg, NJ) for automated specimen preparation and quantitative detection of human... (4 since December!) I have always sung about the protease inhibitors and their utter revolution of the field of HIV medicine. The only rebuttal you have produced to date is a possibly slanted account of comments made in a question and answer session from a Gordon Conference in 1996, before protease inhibitors went into widespread clinical usage. This is not science. This barely qualifies as a conspiracy theory. I’ll monitor this debate and I will answer directed questions. I will not reply to blocks of text copied and pasted from [aliveandwell.org](http://aliveandwell.org), [virusmyth.org](http://virusmyth.org), or any other slanted HIV dissent site. I will respond to questions raised in the primary literature and because I am feeling generous, I’ll accept stuff from Duesberg and pals’ reviews published in the scientific journals. That amounts to well over 100 papers, so we shouldn’t be short on discussion topics. Many (like the _J Biosci_ artcile) are available free. If you want to debate science, we will debate science. Science, above everything, is the practice of evaluating all data with an unbiased eye. To be a scientist, one must approach a set of data without any preconceived notions, and make up one’s mind based on the data. The data must be left to speak for themselves. The HIV dissent are most emphatically not doing this. They use 4 papers, plus a couple of other contrary findings in isolated reports scattered throughout an ocean of good science to support a very mechanistically tenuous hypothesis. They add to this a large amount of obfuscation and distortion. One report on PCR shows it may or may not be reproducible, never mind the 30 others which show that it is. ELISA cannot be used to rule in HIV but it is quite good at ruling out HIV. The HIV dissenters claim that it is worthless by only looking at the rule-in capability. When all else fails, they cry academic dishonesty and resort to character smears. This is exactly the course of the creationist people. Sometimes they harp on pieces that evolution people are actively debating. Sometimes they obfuscate and distort the science. Usually, it brings no support for the alternate hypothesis or creationism, but to them any attack on evolution must validate creationism. The HIV people do the same: the ELISA is bad, so drugs cause AIDS. AZT has nasty side effects and was originally designed as an anti-cancer drug, so drugs or malnutrtion causes AIDS. Like **ambushed** says. Creationists are idiotic and at worst diminish people’s understanding of science and rot the educational system with their faith presented as science. HIV dissenters do much worse. From the Foo Fighters (convinced by Maggione) telling young fans not to get tested for HIV to Thabo Mbeki and two years of failing to endorse free AZT even for pregnant women, they are directly responsible for people’s deaths. So unless you come back here with science, not virusmyth or [aliveandwell.org](http://aliveandwell.org), I will ignore you, and I encourage others to do likewise. Like Gallo, Ho, and Montagnier, I will not bring more publicity to your rantings. Without our postings, this thread will hopefully fade away before it puts wrongminded ideas into impressionable people’s heads. All actions have consequences and I will let you live with the blood on your hands. ---
**Author:** ![sealamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ec8ea/32.png) [@sealamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sealamp)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/227 "2003-09-10T04:07:06Z")
Edwino wrote: “You noted that the paper used “clinical signs” of HIV as a classification of HIV infection. What the paper actually used was PCR positivity plus signs of HIV. So I asked for you to explain how someone can be PCR positive for a virus and not be infected with the virus.” I’m kind of puzzled by your response (forgot to mention this in the other post). I wrote: “But I did find that the definition of “HIV-infected” used to group the children INCLUDED checking clinical measures of bad health in some cases. Thus one is not justified in pointing at worse health in the HIV-infected group and saying HIV is the reason. (Which the study wasn’t trying to argue anyway.)” And I then went on to give the quote. Note the word INCLUDED above (caps added for emphasis this time). So your statement: "You noted that the paper used “clinical signs” of HIV as a classification of HIV infection. What the paper actually used was PCR positivity plus signs of HIV. " is unnecessary. I knew and wrote the definition before. What is your point? You ask “So I asked for you to explain how someone can be PCR positive for a virus and not be infected with the virus.” This question is irrelevant to our discussion. What matters is that the researchers in the study you cited felt it necessary to have clinical signs of HIV infection given only one PCR positive result to put the kid in the HIV-infected group. And since they did that they biased the sample of the HIV-infected group torwards being unhealthy. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/228 "2003-09-10T07:46:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Roger\_Mexico \* > \*\*Looks like you need to take Biology 101 and Logic 101. This latest rant of yours is so incoherent, I don’t know where to start. > \*\* Looks like you need a literacy 101, since the fact that your reading comprehension is lacking is not an argument. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The HIV virus has never been isolated, so there is no way that Koch’s postulates can be satisfied: > \*\* And your history is sorely lacking, too. Otherwise you would realise that Koch wrote his postulates before the advent of molecular biology. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > 1. The specific organism should be shown to be present in all cases of animals suffering from a specific disease but shold not be found in healthy animals. \*\* Hogwash. Diseases have been well-demonstrated to go dormant, a time during which they are extremely hard to detect > [@](#): > > \*\* > 2. The specific microorganism should be ISOLATED from the diseased animal and grown in pure culture on artificial laboratory media. \*\* Outdated. The genome has been isolated. > [@](#): > > \*\* > 3. This freshly isolated microorganism, when inoculated into a healthy laboratory animal, should cause the same disease seen in the original animal. \*\* So you’re advocating experiments on humans. You volunteer? > [@](#): > > \*\* > What part of ISOLATED do you not understand? The whole HIV-AIDS hypothesis is a house of cards; you pull out the ISOLATION card and the whole house collapses. \*\* Your ignorance of molecular biology is not an argument. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Without a pure virus, the ELISA assay has no specificity, which is why it cross-reacts with dozens of other diseases, and random proteins in dog sera. \*\* False. But thanks for telling us you don’t have the slightest idea how antibodies are produced. > [@](#): > > \*\* > How do you know the reverse transcripase activity or “retroviral particles” are not of human origin or contaminants? You don’t, because you have never isolated the virus and satisfied Koch’s postulates. \*\* Since you seem oblivious of that fact: THE HUMAN GENOME HAS BEEN DECODED, IF IT WAS HUMAN, IT WOULD BE ENCODED IN THERE. > [@](#): > > \*\* > All of your claims are debunked in these 2 articles. Read them if you want to know what is going on: \*\* Yeah, right. Like your claim that postulating an HIV-AIDS connection was illegal in Germany. These articles debunk nothing, since they contain no data whatsoever, but merely outdated rants by people who are not actively following the field anymore. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Your last statement is complete nonsense: “There is absolute no excuse for citing data you knew to be unreliable, and it invalidates any and all complaints you raise about an alleged lack of isolation of the virus.” > First of all, I did not know any data to be unreliable, you have given no evidence that it is unreliable. Second, what the F\*\*K does that have to do with the failure of AIDS scientists to isolate a virus? \*\* Thanks for proving that your only argument is dishonesty. You claimed that the court decision showed it was illegal to postulate an HIV-AIDS connection. Such is impossible as per the german constitution. No court has the authority to do so. Second, you knew you lacked expertise in German law. As such, there was no means for you to verify the accuracy of the data. That IS unreliable by any standards. > [@](#): > > \*\* > These irrational arguments, and ambushed’s claims that I am somehow “anti-science” when I am in fact applying more rigourous scientific standards than you and him, disqualifies you from any further discussion on this topic. \*\* You are not applying scientific standards of any kind, and frankly, I doubt that you ever published anything, because your methods of data acquisition befit a propaganda minister, not a scientist. You have been unable to produce any current, accurate data, and are only capable of citing personal opinions that have not been reviewed by anyone else, all the while lacking the expertise of assessing their accuracy yourself. Your claims have repeatedly been debunked, but you simply ignore any evidence to the contrary. You are not applying rigorous scientific standards. You are applying demagogic standards. ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/229 "2003-09-10T14:27:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*Hello? Remember that paper on HIV genome sequence I pointed you to? I already proved it wrong. \*\* OliverH, first let me apologize for my tone in some of my posts last night. After a while it’s hard not to start dishing it out. The paper you sent me to was a link with an image purporting to be of an HIV sequence, with information on the sources. I don’t remember whom I asked the question: which version of HIV is it? since there’ve been disagreements about its length; and how do we know it’s even HIV, given it’s never been isolated - I know, a sore point here. > [@](#): > > PCR is used in sequencing. Given the repeated sequencing of the HIV genome, from numerous clones, and given the continuous use of PCR in HIV tests, it is evident that the method, as used today, is very much reliable. I am not disputing PCR itself, but how it is used. **Even if HIV has been isolated, it has never been used as a gold standard** for any HIV diagnostic test, including PCR. bDNA uses QC-PCR as a gold standard; QC-PCR uses PCR as a gold standard; regular PCR uses antibody tests as a gold standard, and antibody tests use each other. Does this strike you as a scientific method? > [@](#): > > You made a claim, you prove that it is valid today. I prefer newer studies because the methodology is constantly being refined, and methods available 5 years ago are extremely crude to methods being used today in many fields of molecular biology. As such, unreliability of a method used 5 years ago is a non-argument. The results of their study cannot be dismissed simply because “newer” results are available. What is needed - and perhaps this is included in the newer studies - is an explanation of the flaws in the older study. > [@](#): > > The theory of relativity is constantly being tested, and new publications confirming its predictions are constantly being published. I didn’t say older papers were invalid, I said they had to be corroborated by newer data, and as such, your implications, as usual, lack any basis in fact. My point is that fundamental flaws that were pointed out twenty years ago don’t go away just because they are ignored and not pointed out again every month. And the complaint that these criticisms are not published in enough peer-reviewed literature is self-fulfilling, since the industry considers them nuts. (cough - SMON - cough) ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/230 "2003-09-10T14:36:43Z")
To any lurkers who might still think these flagrant truth-denialists like **"ambushed** are being at all intellectually honest, fair, and rational, I urge you to compare their incredibly credulous and disingenuous rhetorical ploys with those of the so-called SMON “scientists”. Exchange the technical terms and such between them, and they’re virtually identical! SMONers and ambushed both rely entirely on haughty, complex, and deceptive pseudo-science, which can often easily fool non-scientists and non-specialists into falsely believing that their allegedly “scientific” views have some merit and should be considered as rough scientific equals with the mainstream scientific position. Both are driven by personal, irrational, anti-science agendas, although of course they always deny this. SMONers and ambushed both rely exclusively on claiming any criticisms have been completely debunked, and always utterly refuse to admit that their own have been debunked. Instead, they bring up cites and quotations which repeat the same errors and that favor their anti-science agendas over and over and over again as if they represent something new and credible that hasn’t already been thoroughly debunked (usually many times). SMONers and ambushed both claim that questioning their science is dishonest, mindlessly monolithic, and is deliberately suppressing the “proof” of the “truth” of their bogus and anti-scientific assertions. They refuse to debate fairly and honestly. They don’t reply honestly and rationally to the arguments and facts that devastate their assertions, but instead evade them by: deliberately misrepresenting what was said; by pumping up trivialities all out of proportion; by quoting statements out of context; by citing assertions made by people outside of the appropriate field of expertise; by screaming “You think you’re Galileo!” and such, and, of course, by lying outright, among other similarly fraudulent rhetorical tactics. * * * Hmmm. Didn’t take much to correct your post. ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/231 "2003-09-10T14:58:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bizzwire \* > \*\*okay. > Trueskeptic: > If HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, what does? Answered previously; [some theories here](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/riskhypothesis.htm). > [@](#): > > If HIV diesn’t cause AIDS, would you be willing to have yourself innoculated with live HIV virus? Yes (and nothing else, please ;)) > [@](#): > > If, as has been pointed out, there are many people who test positive for HIV antibodies, yet do not present symptoms of aids, and there are people who test negative for HIV antibodies, yet present AIDS-like symptoms, does this mean that cigarette smoking doesn’t cause cancer, inasmuch as there are many smokers who do not develop cancer, and there are many non-smokers who do? \*\* 1. Is the claim “there are many smokers who do not develop cancer” true? Anyone? 2. Cigarette smoking is different because it is a risk factor rather than an allegedly killer retro/virus that … er … only sometimes kills. After a long time. Mostly. Well, if we could find it without multiplying some unknown DNA millions of times, the picture would be clearer. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/232 "2003-09-10T16:01:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > \*\*\*\*My point is that fundamental flaws that were pointed out twenty years ago don’t go away just because they are ignored and not pointed out again every month. And the complaint that these criticisms are not published in enough peer-reviewed literature is self-fulfilling, since the industry considers them nuts. (cough - SMON - cough) \*\* Your _quite deliberate_ obtuseness was never more in evidence than in this gem of a quote. It exposes the fact (as if it was not screamingly evident already) that: 1: You really have no _true_ comprehension of what you are posting about 2: You have no cogent notion of how research in the hard sciences is conducted and the process whereby research hypotheses, theories and paradigms are evaluated and accepted, corrected or discarded. 3: You are essentially relying on rhetorical babble at this point and edwino and OliverH have the patience of saints. Your insanely silly arguments predicated on obsolete research are being dis-assembled like tinker toys by thread respondents llike edwino and OliverH who have the scientific background to deconstruct the asininity of flogging decade+ old studies in a field where the base of knowledge and power of diagnostic procedures are evolving so fast that 3 years ago is horse and buggy days, 5 years ago is the relative middle ages, and 10 years ago is the age of the dinosaurs. And you’re banging the drum about questions asked 10 and 20 years ago that you deem to be insufficiently answered? Each anthropology or geology article in Scientific American does not preface the introduction with the newsflash that the earth _really is_ more than 6000 years old. It’s simply accepted that new methods and understandings have rendered the old notions non-operational. In the modern process of conducting scientific research it is (common sensically) generally considered a waste of time, effort and resources to go back and spend a significant effort deconstructing old hypotheses and theories where new research discoveries, using more powerful methods and hardware to yield more accurate results, have rendered the old hypotheses essentially irrelevant by generating more relevant and accurate information about the process of the disease being investigated. The old, less accurate or inaccurate hypotheses and theories are simply considered to be either irrelevant, or to have been corrected and superceded by new information and more powerful and accurate theories and paradigms. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/233 "2003-09-10T16:15:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > \*\* > The paper you sent me to was a link with an image purporting to be of an HIV sequence, with information on the sources. I don’t remember whom I asked the question: which version of HIV is it? \*\* Given in the text. > [@](#): > > \*\* > since there’ve been disagreements about its length; \*\* As I already showed you, the genomes of HIV 1 and HIV 2 indeed differ in length. > [@](#): > > \*\* > and how do we know it’s even HIV, given it’s never been isolated - I know, a sore point here. > \*\* It’s funny how patients infected with HIV 1 and HIV 2 happen to have this strange DNA in them which clearly isn’t human, but rather viral, encodes the proteins used in protein-based HIV tests, with closely related, but distinct genomes. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I am not disputing PCR itself, but how it is used. Even if HIV has been isolated, it has never been used as a gold standard for any HIV diagnostic test, including PCR. \*\* The gold standard for protein based tests nowadays more often than not is a purified protein, or even a purified recombinant protein, which has never seen the organism it originally comes from. > [@](#): > > \*\* > bDNA uses QC-PCR as a gold standard; QC-PCR uses PCR as a gold standard; regular PCR uses antibody tests as a gold standard, and antibody tests use each other. \*\* Precisely how do you suppose a DNA based test uses a protein based test as a gold standard? > [@](#): > > \*\* > The results of their study cannot be dismissed simply because “newer” results are available. What is needed - and perhaps this is included in the newer studies - is an explanation of the flaws in the older study. \*\* Again, I don’t think you are familiar with how scientific publication works. Newer studies don’t specifically point out flaws in older ones. They provide THEIR data and show how it fits in the context of other available data. It is up to the authors of the older data to show that their conclusions are not invalidated by the newer data, because their conclusions have to be able to **predict** the new data. If data is generated that contradicts a previous study, that study is **by definition** considered inferior pending demonstration that it doesn, in fact, explain the newer data. > [@](#): > > \*\* > My point is that fundamental flaws that were pointed out twenty years ago don’t go away just because they are ignored and not pointed out again every month. \*\* And my point is that flaws pointed out for experiments done twenty years ago are rendered moot when new methods have confirmed the old results. > [@](#): > > \*\* > And the complaint that these criticisms are not published in enough peer-reviewed literature is self-fulfilling, since the industry considers them nuts. (cough - SMON - cough) \*\* Again, the example of Stanley Prusiner proves you wrong. His claims were much, \*\*much[/b more radical than Duesberg’s. Where Duesberg merely claims there might be compund different sources for AIDS than a virus, he is still assuming standard ways of pathogenicity. Prusiner did something else: It was commonly accepted that replicating pathogenicity, at its base, always required a nucleid acid. A virus has nucleic acids, bacteria have nucleic acids. Bang, there comes Prusiner and claims that proteins alone can adopt pathogenicity and replicate. Such a claim was totally outrageous, since people didn’t see a way how a protein could ‘replicate’ or increase the number of pathogenic molecules. Yet Prusiner’s data was solid. He DID get published. And even though some critics were still howling, he was awarded the Nobel Prize. Nowadays, only a few years later, prions are pretty much generally accepted, and a lot of researchers who, ten years ago, vehemently denied such a thing could exist, jumped onto the bandwaggon. ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/234 "2003-09-10T16:21:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by astro \* > \*\*Your _quite deliberate_ obtuseness was never more in evidence than in this gem of a quote. It exposes the fact (as if it was not screamingly evident already) that: > > 1: You really have no _true_ comprehension of what you are posting about > > 2: You have no cogent notion of how research in the hard sciences is conducted and the process whereby research hypotheses, theories and paradigms are evaluated and accepted, corrected or discarded. > > 3: You are essentially relying on rhetorical babble at this point and edwino and OliverH have the patience of saints. Thanks for your vacuous, babbling reply. It’s interesting that this discussion seems to have taken on a religious tenor for you, thus your canonization of edwino and OliverH. Your frothing emotionalism, however, serves little to advance the discussion, whereas St. edwino and others have actually proferred some interesting rebuttal material. You are, of course, welcome to simmer down and attempt some semblance of rational inquiry. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/235 "2003-09-10T16:22:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > \*\* > > 1. Is the claim “there are many smokers who do not develop cancer” true? Anyone? > \*\* As long as we say “There are many smolers who do not develop smoking-related cancer”, I’d say yes. Atleast inasmuch as it is never diagnosed. Technically, if you’re a man and beyong 65, chances are pretty high that you have cells in your prostate that technically qualify as ‘cancer’, but don’t grow quickly enough to be reason for any concern, and are totally unrelated to smoking. The biggest ‘cause’ of cancer is old age. > [@](#): > > \*\* > 2. Cigarette smoking is different because it is a risk factor rather than an allegedly killer retro/virus that … er … only sometimes kills. After a long time. Mostly. Well, if we could find it without multiplying some unknown DNA millions of times, the picture would be clearer. \*\* A virus in and of itself is also’ only a risk factor’. A virus does not automatically lead to an infection, it all depends on the dosage, the type of contact etc. At the same time, cigarette smoke isn’t ‘only a risk factor’. The substances in cigarette smoke DO damage DNA. However, it needs to damage the right areas in the right DNA to actually push you towards cancer. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/236 "2003-09-10T16:51:17Z")
Interesting new papers relating the issue of new tests (and virus isolation): Am J Clin Pathol. 2003 Aug;120(2):268-70. ``` A modified ultrasensitive assay to detect quantified HIV-1 RNA of fewer than 50 copies per milliliter. Piwowar-Manning EM, Henderson TA, Brisbin L, Jackson JB. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 600 N Wolfe St, Carnegie Bldg, Room 415, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. ``` We compared the sensitivity and specificity of versions 1.0 and 1.5 and a modified version 1.5 of the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR ultrasensitive RNA assay (Roche, Indianapolis, IN) by using a virus stock dilution series and plasma samples from HIV-1-infected and uninfected subjects. The modified assay was linear and consistently positive down to 12 copies per milliliter vs 25 copies per milliliter for the other 2 assays. Versions 1.0, 1.5, and modified 1.5, respectively, detected 9 (23%) of 39, 11 (28%) of 40, and 43 (61%) of 71 replicates of a 4-copy-number and 11 (28%) of 40, 17 (46%) of 37, and 88 (90%) of 98 replicates of a 10-copy-number standard. Of 44 patient samples with undetectable levels using version 1.0, 32 (73%) had detectable levels on the modified assay, and 5 (25%) of 20 had detectable levels on version 1.5. None of the assays detected HIV-1 RNA in HIV-1 antibody-negative samples. The modified version 1.5 of the RNA assay is more sensitive for detecting HIV-1 RNA in significantly more patients than are versions 1.0 and 1.5. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003 Jul 1;33(3):349-55. ``` Development of a new less-sensitive enzyme immunoassay for detection of early HIV-1 infection. Rawal BD, Degula A, Lebedeva L, Janssen RS, Hecht FM, Sheppard HW, Busch MP. Blood Centers of the Pacific, San Francisco, California 94118, USA. ``` The sensitive/less-sensitive (S/LS) enzyme immunoassay (EIA) testing strategy for discriminating “early” from “longstanding” HIV infection has been widely applied for detecting recent seroconverters and estimating HIV incidence rates. The originally developed assay (3A11-LS EIA; Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL) involved performance of LS EIAs using a bead-based assay that required specialized equipment and reagents of limited availability. In contrast, 96-microwell-based EIAs are more universally applied for HIV serodiagnosis throughout the world. The authors report development and preliminary validation of an LS protocol using an EIA in a 96-well format: the Vironostika HIV-1 MicroElisa System (Vironostika-LS EIA; Bio Merieux, Raleigh, NC). The results with samples from recent HIV-1 seroconverters, persons with longstanding HIV-1 asymptomatic infection, patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy, and AIDS patients show a high degree of correlation between the Vironostika-LS EIA and 3A11-LS EIA. The authors also demonstrate that the Abbott 3A11-LS EIA and Vironostika-LS EIA performed comparably on HIV-1-positive samples from persons infected with non-B HIV-1 subtypes. These results support the potential use of the Vironostika-LS EIA for detection of recent HIV-1 infections for incidence projections and for other epidemiologic, clinical, and molecular surveillance applications. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/237 "2003-09-10T16:57:53Z")
Another one: J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Apr;41(4):1594-9. ``` Performance characteristics of the TRUGENE HIV-1 Genotyping Kit and the Opengene DNA Sequencing System. Kuritzkes DR, Grant RM, Feorino P, Griswold M, Hoover M, Young R, Day S, Lloyd Jr RM Jr, Reid C, Morgan GF, Winslow DL. Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado, USA. dkuritzkes@partners.org ``` The TRUGENE HIV-1 Genotyping Kit and OpenGene DNA Sequencing System are designed to sequence the protease (PR)- and reverse transcriptase (RT)-coding regions of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) pol. Studies were undertaken to determine the accuracy of this assay system in detecting resistance-associated mutations and to determine the effects of RNA extraction methods, anticoagulants, specimen handling, and potentially interfering substances. Samples were plasma obtained from HIV-infected subjects or seronegative plasma to which viruses derived from wild-type and mutant infectious molecular clones (IMC) of HIV-1 were added. Extraction methods tested included standard and UltraSensitive AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR, QIAGEN viral RNA extraction mini kit, and QIAGEN Ultra HIV extraction kit, and NASBA manual HIV-1 quantitative NucliSens. Sequence data from test sites were compared to a “gold standard” reference sequence to determine the percent agreement. Comparisons between test and reference sequences at the nucleotide level showed 97.5 to 100% agreement. Similar results were obtained regardless of extraction method, regardless of use of EDTA or acid citrate dextrose as anticoagulant, and despite the presence of triglycerides, bilirubin, hemoglobin, antiretroviral drugs, HIV-2, hepatitis C virus (HCV), HBV, cytomegalovirus, human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 (HTLV-1), or HTLV-2. Samples with HIV-1 RNA titers of \>or=1,000 copies/ml gave consistent results. The TRUGENE HIV-1 Genotyping Kit and OpenGene DNA Sequencing System consistently generate highly accurate sequence data when tested with IMC-derived HIV and patient samples. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/238 "2003-09-10T17:01:32Z")
And as far as treatment effectivity is concerned: AIDS. 2003 May 2;17(7):1089-92. ``` Dynamics of viral load rebound in plasma and semen after stopping effective antiretroviral therapy. Liuzzi G, D'Offizi G, Topino S, Zaccarelli M, Amendola A, Capobianchi MR, Perno CF, Narciso P, Antinori A. National Institute for Infectious Diseases L. Spallanzani, Rome, Italy. ``` A rebound in the plasma and seminal viral load was detected in 12 patients after the interruption of effective highly active antiretroviral therapy. The viral rebound was generally higher in plasma, although the highest level observed during interruption was higher in semen in two patients. The reintroduction of therapy was followed by an overall decrease in HIV-RNA in plasma and semen. One to 2 months after restarting treatment, four out of seven patients showed undetectable HIV-RNA in semen. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/239 "2003-09-10T17:07:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > \*\*Thanks for your vacuous, babbling reply. It’s interesting that this discussion seems to have taken on a religious tenor for you, thus your canonization of edwino and OliverH. > > Your frothing emotionalism, however, serves little to advance the discussion, whereas St. edwino and others have actually proferred some interesting rebuttal material. You are, of course, welcome to simmer down and attempt some semblance of rational inquiry. > :rolleyes: \*\* Let’s take a trip to a few days ago where you started out here - > [@](#): > > - \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > If AIDS is relegated mostly to a certain group, be it gays, funnel cake makers, or blue mimes, then it suggests that the cause may be other than advertised. Some theories involve the use of “recreational drugs” in the gay community which produce similar symptoms. Others involve the immune-system-destroying effects of anal sex, etc. So it is important. Your agenda is as transparent as is your apparent inability to grasp the current relevant data regarding the disease process being discussed. Your desperate and disengenous handwaving exercises to distract attention from the point that you have no real clue or understanding what you posting about and referencing, are becoming so frantic you are about to take flight. You present the distasteful sight of a cornered, poo flinging con man, oddly compelling to observe and yet reasonable people are compelled to keep their distance for fear of spatter. ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/240 "2003-09-10T18:37:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*Interesting new papers relating the issue of new tests (and virus isolation): > > Am J Clin Pathol. 2003 Aug;120(2):268-70. > > ``` > A modified ultrasensitive assay to detect quantified HIV-1 RNA of fewer than 50 copies per milliliter. > > Piwowar-Manning EM, Henderson TA, Brisbin L, Jackson JB. > > Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 600 N Wolfe St, Carnegie Bldg, Room 415, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. > > ``` > > …\*\* Thanks, O., certainly some food for thought. Might be a while to get back to you on these. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403.md?page=13)