# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/41 "2003-09-04T19:31:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > **But a scapegoat must be found. The question is, which is the correct scapegoat?** Commies! No, Negroes! Wait a second: Al-Qaeda! Shit. What’s the right answer? ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/42 "2003-09-04T19:37:11Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Skeptico** _ > > \*\*Another conveniently ignored fact is that **AIDS is mainly a gay disease** Wow - lots of homos in Africa these days… :rolleyes: Esprix ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/43 "2003-09-04T19:37:22Z")
> [@](#): > > “Help me, I’m poor” - no money. “I have AIDS” - here’s billions of dollars. Which one would your government choose? Which explains why South Africa’s government has been standing in the way of all efforts to provide more aid? (Piltdown was a poor example because the majority of paleontologists never accepted it. Galileo is a poor example because he was not voted down (except to the extent that he actually was in error) by any scientific voices.) BTW: > [@](#): > > This thread was moved because it was assumed that the question of whether HIV causes AIDS is either already “known” or cannot be determined from the facts. The thread was moved because it was incorrectly placed in the Forum for discussions of Staff Reports and there is no Staff Report on the topic. It is, therefore, regardless of **Dex** ’s personal views _inappropriate for the Forum on Staff Reports_. (And claiming that their _should_ have been such a report ignores the salient fact that such reports are created from the overflow to Cecil’s in-box, and the lack of a report may indicate nothing more than that Cecil has not been the recipient of the question.) ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/44 "2003-09-04T19:39:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by astro \* > \*\*You need to concentrate less on making my points for me and more on constructing a more cogent argument. … > > If you have a cite of a real scientist doing AIDS research that has made this claim please post it. The assertion that AIDS researchers, or the government, or AIDS organizations are making this “no link” claim is not even a straw man it’s just plain nuts. \*\* I shudder to think that you consider your cries of “Straw man” and “Not mainstream” to be “points.” Re: other probable causes of AIDS, [here is a good place to start.](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/riskhypothesis.htm) In case you’re interested. ---
**Author:** ![Roger\_Mexico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f6c823/32.png) [@Roger\_Mexico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roger_Mexico)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/45 "2003-09-04T19:47:37Z")
Interesting theory, Bosda. I like these genetic bottleneck theories about human evolution. Only one problem: they found 0% incidence of the delta 32 gene in India and East Asia, where plague has been endemic for thousands of years. You would think that there would be a high incidence of delta 32 in E. Asia due to survivors of the plague. Supposedly the plague reached Europe from Asia via the Silk Road, Crimea, and Genoa. Is it possibly a different strain of Y. pestis that infected Europe? ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/46 "2003-09-04T19:59:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > Which explains why South Africa’s government has been standing in the way of all efforts to provide more aid? Thabo Mbeki is taking all sorts of heat for not doing the easy thing, and you seem unable to come up with any reason for him to do so. Here’s one: dosing people with toxins to cure an imaginary disease may be a bad idea. > [@](#): > > (Piltdown was a poor example because the majority of paleontologists never accepted it. This statement is so mistaken and bizarre it’s hard to know where to begin. So I won’t. Suffice to say Piltdown was touted _by virtually the entire evolutionist community_ as our ancestor for almost 40 years. If that’s the work of a tiny minority, we’d be most interested in your conspiracy theory. Perhaps the deluded few controlled all the major scientific journals? But that’s a whole new thread. > [@](#): > > Galileo is a poor example because he was not voted down (except to the extent that he actually was in error) by any scientific voices.) Uh … where do you think the initial opposition came from? It was the secular academia in general, the Aristotleians, and so on. When they couldn’t shut him up, they dragged the Catholic Church into it … wait, you mean to tell me you’re just now learning this? Obviously, Cecil has not been doing his job. > [@](#): > > BTW:The thread was moved because it was incorrectly placed in the Forum for discussions of Staff Reports and there is no Staff Report on the topic. There was indeed a question on the accuracy of HIV tests. Search for it. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/47 "2003-09-04T20:15:26Z")
psst, **trueskeptic** a “true skeptic” is just as skeptical of the dissenting POV as he/she is of the mainstream POV. The “true skeptic” follows the mass of the evidence to the proper conclusion. You are not doing this. You are blindly grasping onto the coattails of dissenters, even when the overwhelming mass of evidence demonstrates that the dissenters are wrong. I I suggest you ask the mods for permission to change your user ID, as the one you currently have is inapt. Sua ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/48 "2003-09-04T20:46:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > **Thabo Mbeki is taking all sorts of heat for not doing the easy thing, and you seem unable to come up with any reason for him to do so. Here’s one: dosing people with toxins to cure an imaginary disease may be a bad idea. > This statement is so mistaken and bizarre it’s hard to know where to begin. So I won’t. Suffice to say Piltdown was touted _by virtually the entire evolutionist community_ as our ancestor for almost 40 years. If that’s the work of a tiny minority, we’d be most interested in your conspiracy theory. Perhaps the deluded few controlled all the major scientific journals? But that’s a whole new thread.** You keep making assertions that are patently and ludicrously false. There was a great deal of controversy and skepticism at the time about the veracity of the Piltdown bones. The discovery fo Piltdown II quieted many of the initial critics, but many were still unconvinced by the fabricated evidence despite a deliberate and involved attempt to scam them. [The Piltdown Man](http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html) > [@](#): > > The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible – two were not. > > It should be remembered that, at the time of Piltdown finds, there were very few early hominid fossils; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were clearly fairly late. It was expected that there was a “missing link” between ape and man. It was an open question as to what that missing link would look like. Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor. > > This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart’s discovery of Australopithecus, the Peking man discoveries, and other Homo erectus and australopithecine finds. Piltdown man did not fit in with the new discoveries. None the less, Sir Arthur Keith (a major defender of Piltdown man) wrote in 1931: > > It is therefore possible that Piltdown man does represent the early pleistocene ancestor of the modern type of man, He may well be the ancestor we have been in search of during all these past years. I am therefore inclined to make the Piltdown type spring from the main ancestral stem of modern humanity… > In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by and large, simply ignored. It was carried in the books as a fossil hominid. From time to time it was puzzled over and then dismissed again. The American Museum of Natural History quietly classified it as a mixture of ape and man fossils. Over the years it had become an anomaly; some prominent authors did not even bother to list it. In Bones of Contention Roger Lewin quotes Sherwood Washburn as saying > > “I remember writing a paper on human evolution in 1944, and I simply left Piltdown out. You could make sense of human evolution if you didn’t try to put Piltdown into it.” > Finally, in 1953, the roof fell in. Piltdown man was not an ancestor; it was not a case of erroneous interpretation; it was a case of outright deliberate fraud. ---
**Author:** ![Roger\_Mexico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f6c823/32.png) [@Roger\_Mexico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roger_Mexico)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/49 "2003-09-04T21:58:46Z")
There should be a staff report on competing theories of AIDS causation. I will request one. But going back to the OP, which was that the HIV test is bogus, I can certainly back up what I said earlier about the circularity between the test and the definition of AIDS. “When Duesberg challenged the HIV hypothesis in 1987, the epidemiological evidence depended essentially upon a correlation between antibodies to HIV and a diagnosis of AIDS. This was a circular argument since, after 1984, sero\_positivity to HIV mandated a diagnosis of AIDS in patients with a scheduled range of diseases, whether or not they were in risk groups. In 1989, a formidable defence of the epidemiological consensus was presented by the Royal Society of London in a Symposium (Cox, Anderson & Hillier, 1989) of invited papers which analysed the epidemic of AIDS to date in the UK and made predictions about its incidence through 1992. These analyses and predictions, like those of a preceding official Report (UK Dept. of Health and the Welsh Office, 1988), rested upon assumptions not only that HIV was the essential cause of AIDS in all its forms but also that all who were sero\_positive would get AIDS which would then cause epidemics of tens of thousands of cases by heterosexual transmission in the general population of the UK.” [http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/gsgenetica.htm](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/gsgenetica.htm) One alternative hypothesis of AIDS causation is the Drug-AIDS hypothesis, advanced chiefly by Duesburg: [http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrdrugaids.htm](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrdrugaids.htm) Duesburg is no crackpot, and contibuted much to the field of retroviruses, the class of virus which HIV belongs to. "Duesberg’s work was a giant step for the field of retrovirology. The field grew rapidly, and Duesberg was one of the kings. Through this work, Duesberg was also able to map the structure of certain oncogenes, genes believed to cause cancer. For this work he was inducted into the National Academy of Sciences, a prestigious club of scientists who serve as an advisory board to the president of the United States. Being a member of such an elite club helps ensure funding, and somewhat guarantees publishing privileges in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Impressed with his work, the National Cancer Institute, under the National Institutes of Health, the primary funding body of all medical research, awarded Duesberg an Outstanding Investigative Grant-one of a handful awarded by the NIH, a high honor for any researcher." [http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/pubs/prism/may95/hiva.htm](http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/pubs/prism/may95/hiva.htm) Duesburg’s ideas are very good, and present a valid scientific challenge to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. I really don’t understand the ignorant knee-jerk reactions you get when you question the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. Another issue that should not be overlooked is Gallo’s unscientific and unethical behavior in trying to nail down the patent for the HIV test: [http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/jcpatent.htm](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/jcpatent.htm) [http://www.aegis.com/law/journals/1995/GALLO003.html](http://www.aegis.com/law/journals/1995/GALLO003.html) More about the bogus correlation between HIV and AIDS: "The 100% correlation between HIV and AIDS is an artefact of the definition of AIDS. AIDS is not a disease but a categorization of previously known diseases and conditions all of which have well established causes that have nothing to do with HIV. For example, tuberculosis is caused by the tubercule bacillus, Mycobacteria tuberculosis. TB is a serious health threat to impoverished people and nations and takes the lives of millions of people worldwide every year. TB existed prior to its inclusion as an AIDS-defining illness in 1987 and prior to the 1900s. Since 1987, people with TB who test positive on an “HIV test” will recieve a diagnosis of AIDS, while people with TB who test negative will receive a diagnosis of TB. This same criteria for AIDS applies to the other 27 AIDS-defining illnesses. To further clarify, cervical cancer and candida are AIDS-defining illnesses that are commonly found among people in various non-AIDS risk groups. I’m not sure of cervical cancer stats, but about 30% of all Americans are thought to suffer from chronic candida (John Hightower, MD “The Yeast Connection”). Yeast infections in HIV-negative labeled persons are called yeast infections, while the same infection caused by the same condition – a bacterial imbalance – is called AIDS in a person who tests positive. Cervical cancer in a woman who tests positive is AIDS, while the same cancer in a negative-testing woman is cervical cancer. Since the 28 AIDS-defining illnesses are only defined as AIDS when they happen to people who test HIV positive, it’s clear why there’s a 100% correlation between HIV and AIDS. Diseases called AIDS can only be called AIDS when they happen in someone labeled positive although they can and do occur in people who test negative. This circular logic renders the argument “HIV causes AIDS because it’s present in 100% of AIDS cases” meaningless." [http://www.sumeria.net/aids/correlation.html](http://www.sumeria.net/aids/correlation.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/50 "2003-09-04T22:23:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Roger\_Mexico \* > \*\*Interesting theory, Bosda. I like these genetic bottleneck theories about human evolution. Only one problem: they found 0% incidence of the delta 32 gene in India and East Asia, where plague has been endemic for thousands of years. You would think that there would be a high incidence of delta 32 in E. Asia due to survivors of the plague. Supposedly the plague reached Europe from Asia via the Silk Road, Crimea, and Genoa. Is it possibly a different strain of Y. pestis that infected Europe? \*\* Incorrect reasoning, **Mex**. Mutations appear _randomly_ , not where they’re needed. If no delta 23 mutation randomly occurred in East Asia, then it won’t appear there until croos breeding carries the gene east. Contrarywise, delta 23 was no benefit to Europeans until the Black Death, and now HIV, showed up. ---
**Author:** ![kflanaga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/74df32/32.png) [@kflanaga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kflanaga)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/51 "2003-09-04T22:34:40Z")
I had the extreme “privilege” of hearing Dr. Duesberg speak at graduate school several years ago. If he was putting his best data forward, then there is no way that he is right. Any self-respecting high school science student could see the flaws in his data. For example, his primary evidence was a graph showing that over the past twenty years the use of drugs (in particular “poppers” among male homosexuals) has increased, and (OMG!) so has AIDS. Therefore poppers cause AIDS. During the question and answer session one of the virologists in the audience wisely pointed out that one could easily show the same correlation with home computer usage, but that doesn’t mean that microsoft is to blame for AIDS. Mullis is a one-trick pony crackpot (read his self-agrandizing book some day) and Duesberg is a dangerous lunatic. I would believe the other side of the issue based on not being on the side of these guys! ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/52 "2003-09-04T22:55:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. \*\* Back in the early '80s in the days of GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency), when the initial cases were being followed in homosexual males, there was a flurry of activity to track down the causative agent(s). These included various recreational drugs/substances used in the gay community, as well as other infectious agents commonly infecting gays, such as cytomegalovirus. _None of these hypotheses panned out_ under investigation. By the way, there is an extraordinarily good correlation between a doubter claiming his work is being suppressed by the scientific community, and the likelihood that the doubter is a flaming quack. We see this all the time in the promotion of various alternative drugs and therapies, i.e. for cancer. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/53 "2003-09-04T23:15:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > **Re: other probable causes of AIDS, [here is a good place to start.](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/riskhypothesis.htm)** You misspelled “shitty.” ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/54 "2003-09-05T02:14:26Z")
OK **Roger\_Mexico** and **trueskeptic**. Both of you have brought it up: cervical cancer/TB/candidiasis by itself is just cervical CA/TB/candidiasis. CC/TB/C with HIV is AIDS. First a word about AIDS-defining infections. Many of them (pneumocystis pneumonia or PCP, Kaposi’s, toxoplasmosis, cryptococcal meningitis) are next-to-never seen in immunocompotent people. Even candidiasis is never seen as floridly as in AIDS. It is even given a special name (IIRC), oral hairy leukoplakia. TB is an interesting case. It is surely endemic around the planet, but the vast majority of people who are infected with TB (I convert a TB test, so I have been infected) encapsulate the mycobacteria in a lymph node and never develop active TB. The chance of converting to active TB stands at IIRC 20% over a lifetime for HIV- individuals. For HIV+, this goes up to 20% per year. Secondly, there is a direct link with the HIV-induced diminishment of CD4+ T-cells and the opportunistic infection. I am not really sure of the diagnostic criteria out there, but one would probably assume someone with cervical cancer or candidiasis or active TB and is known HIV+ and noncompliant on meds has probably developed AIDS. But the second step, at least in the USA, would be to test the viral load and the CD4+ T-cell count. And if that person is still immunocompotent by T-cell count (\>200), that person doesn’t have AIDS. ---
**Author:** ![Roches](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bc8723/32.png) [@Roches](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roches)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/55 "2003-09-05T03:37:06Z")
trueskeptic: If AIDS is “relegated mostly to a certain group”, then please explain why 54% (i.e. ‘most’; see ref. 1) of annual new infections in the United States are estimated to occur in people of African descent. That is, since you have already covered why AIDS is mostly a gay disease, I would like you to explain why it is also a black disease (with respect to new infections; there are more current AIDS cases among whites than blacks, but the latter are still disproportionately represented). I’m asking this because it’s generally more difficult to defend an argument based on race than one based on sexual orientation. Arguments fundamentally based on prejudice are rather more transparent when made about race than about sexual orientation, where prejudice is still widely acceptable. **On PCR and Kary Mullis:** The actual observed error rates in PCR range between 2.1 x 10^-4 to 1.6 x 10^-6 (2), depending on the polymerase used. The original _Taq_ polymerase from _Thermophilus aquaticus_ has been largely superseded by polymerases with higher fidelity rates where high fidelity is necessary. The probability against generating the HIV or O.J. Simpson genome by random error (or even a smaller sequence like an HIV antibody) is incalculably large. Kary Mullis is rather a strange person, to say the least. He inexplicably spent his Nobel prize award within a few years, and, if I recall correctly, supports himself mostly with book royalties and speaking engagements. He has sort of the image of a ‘rebel scientist’, which probably explains why he supports the theory that AIDS is not caused by HIV. Incidentally, Mullis is not a virologist, immunologist or epidemiologist; he is about as qualified to speak about HIV/AIDS as Linus Pauling was to speak about Vitamin C and the common cold. **The definition of AIDS** The current CDC definition of HIV infection has been in place since 1999, and may be found [here](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4813a2.htm). Note that both virological (checking for the presence of viral material) and immunological (checking for antibodies) testing is possible. The definition of AIDS consists of an HIV-positive status, as defined above, and either a low CD4+ T-lymphocyte count/percentage or a diagnosis of one or more of 26 [clinical conditions](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm) considered to be opportunistic. Note that the 26 diseases on the list are either extremely uncommon among non-immunocompromised individuals (e.g. Kaposi’s sarcoma) or have special conditions to differentiate them from diseases which occur in those with intact immune systems (e.g. _recurrent_ pneumonia, _invasive_ cervical cancer). I’ve seen the argument about cervical cancer used before; if you read the link above carefully, you’ll see that the type of cervical cancer related to AIDS diagnosis is quite specifically a preventable form occuring in immunocompromised individuals. Thus, AIDS is not a disease of definition. It requires either the observation of an opportunistic disease or a very low CD4+ lymphocyte count. The reduction of a certain type of lymphocyte implies a viral causative agent which attacks CD4+ lymphocytes specifically, not a purported general immunosuppression “caused by anal sex”. Nor by recreational drugs, for that matter. Both “recreational drugs cause AIDS” and “gay sex causes AIDS” are _obviously_ moralistic beliefs, tantamount to the belief that “demonic possession causes AIDS”. (1) [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm) (2) [http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~pnh/papers/TIBS/aug95.html](http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~pnh/papers/TIBS/aug95.html), and references therein. ---
**Author:** ![Priam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/77aa72/32.png) [@Priam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Priam)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/56 "2003-09-05T04:41:06Z")
_raises an eyebrow_ Listen… even if someone published multiple peer-reviewed papers stating clearly that anal sex caused or contributed to the contraction of AIDS, it still doesn’t make AIDS a gay disease. Plenty of people on both sides of the gender line go at the sodomy like crazed teenagers. Whats more, _they have for centuries_. Obviously for most of that time a person with AIDS or HIV would’ve just died with very little study done as to the cause, but surely we would’ve picked up on _something_ being wrong in some people before the late 70s/early 80s (forget when the first possible case was noted exactly) rolled around! Some doctor would’ve published some kind of teensy study about this curious condition, or mentioned it around to his colleagues for discussion. Anal sex, after all, was surely being done pretty often behind the white picket fences of the 50s and early 60s Lucys and Rickys, not to mention the gay community was also around back then. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/57 "2003-09-05T05:02:33Z")
Also on Kary Mullis… First, a quote from a discussion of Mullis from: [HIV, AIDS, and the Distortion of Science](http://www.aegis.com/topics/mdelaney.html) > [@](#): > > Other denialists like Kary Mullis have raised similar questions about viral load tests, but these concerns are likewise misleading. Mullis, because he won a Nobel Prize for his early work in the development of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, is probably the second most recognized denialist scientist after Duesberg. PCR is one of the mechanisms used to quantify viral load. While Mullis asserts that PCR was never meant to be used in the way it is to determine viral load, his theoretical concerns **cannot contradict the empirical evidence from one of the largest and longest running AIDS studies: the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS)**. Through the MACS, John Mellors and his colleagues have followed several thousand HIV-positive people over periods ranging from three to more than 10 years and found a profound and predictable relationship between viral load levels, CD4+ cell counts, and the risk of HIV disease progression or death. [emphasis mine] Let’s remember also that this famed denialist – or “skeptic” (according to **"true"skeptic** ) – firmly believes in alien abductions and in magical extradimensional travel on the “astral plane”. Yep, that’s some kind of “skeptic”, all right. A skeptic of reality. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/58 "2003-09-05T05:06:35Z")
**trueskeptic** , you’re no skeptic at all (is that you, “Elder” Death?) You and **Roger\_Mexico** aren’t skeptics and you aren’t dissenters: you’re simply deniers of fact and of the **conclusive** evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Denialists such as yourselves merely _play_ at science, and you play at it poorly. You don’t actually employ it honestly. Among your games are: using evidence very selectively; ignoring counter-evidence; picking and choosing statements and misstatements made by a one or two researchers which don’t accurately reflect the scientific concensus; using long-debunked arguments; making bald assertions contrary to fact (i.e., lying), etc. I have no objection at all to considering rival hypotheses or theories if the research behind them is intellectually honest and meets appropriate standards for quality of evidence. The AIDS denialists such as yourselves and those you have cited simply have not achieved such standards. We **true** skeptics don’t have to be puppets to official orthodoxy to know that HIV causes AIDS and that the counter-evidence is disingenuous, pathetically weak, and highly misleading. Cites? You want cites? You got 'em! [Answering the AIDS Denialists: CD4 (T-Cell) Counts, and Viral Load](http://www.aids.org/immunet/atn.nsf/page/a-341-02) [Answering the AIDS Denialists: AIDS Treatment Improves Survival](http://www.aids.org/immunet/atn.nsf/page/a-350-01) [Answering the AIDS Denialists: Is AIDS Real?](http://www.aids.org/immunet/atn.nsf/page/a-356-06) [HIV, AIDS, and the Distortion of Science](http://www.aegis.org/topics/mdelaney.html) [The Controversy over HIV and AIDS](http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/cohen.shl) (AAAS articles address deniers’ arguments at length, particularly Duesberg’s) [The Relationship Between the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome](http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/hivaids.htm) [MACS and WIHS Studies Provide Overwhelming Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS](http://www.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/focuson/hiv00/MACS+WIHS.htm) [HIV, AIDS and the reappearance of an old myth](http://www.unaids.org/EN/resources/faq/faq_myths.asp) [Dissident Scientists and Government Conspiracies: A Look at Alternative AIDS Theories](http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?page=pr-02-10&doc=2098.3d50) [Proof Positive: How African Science Has Demonstrated That HIV Causes AIDS](http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0027/schoofs.php) [South Africa HIV dispute: Time to Stop and Think](http://www.aegis.org/pubs/atn/2000/ATN34002.html) [A Step Back in Time: AIDS Dissenters Cannot Delete 20 Years of Research and Experience](http://www.iapac.org/Text/Jul20001000.htm) [HIV Causes AIDS: Proof Derived from Koch’s Postulates](http://www.aegis.com/pubs/beta/2000/BE000403.html) [AIDS Denialists Hype – When junk science turns lethal](http://www.actupny.org/alert/denialists2.html) [Bad science: They once thought HIV was harmless. Now, they say, AIDS has forced them to reconsider.](http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/17/hiv.html) [On not using condoms: AIDS denialists, not dissenters](http://www.xtra.ca/site/toronto2/arch/body627.shtm) [HIV Doesn’t Cause AIDS? Who Says?](http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2000-06-02/cols_aboutaids.html) [Tails Between Their Legs: AIDS Denialists Lose Ground](http://www.projinf.org/news/00_04actuppr.html) [HIV is the Only Cause of AIDS: The Potential for Journalism to Impact the Public Health](http://www.aegis.com/pubs/beta/2000/BE000402.html) [THE AIDS HERESIES: A Case Study in Skepticism Taken Too Far](http://www.skeptic.com/03.2.harris-aids.html) The bizarre desperation of denialists would simply be amusing if it weren’t for the fact that their fear and hatred of honesty and scientific integrity is actually **KILLING PEOPLE!** There’s no small amount of blood on the denialists’ hands, **"true"skeptic**! ---
**Author:** ![T.Mehr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/59 "2003-09-05T11:07:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. \*\* What on earth are the **immune-system-destroying effects of anal sex**? I’m feeling fine. (And so is she.) The virus is simply spread by exchanging body fluids. Unprotected anal sex is one risk, sharing a needel is another. Of course certain groups are more at risk because of their behavior. So are smokers more at risk for lung cancer. Why I criticized **Skepticos** comment is that pointing out that a lot of the patients are gay adds nothing to the question discussed here. It’s simply looking for someone to blame. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/60 "2003-09-05T11:38:19Z")
See! Intelligent and rational analysis of the “HIV != AIDS” claims. I told you we could do it. I agree that most of the Denialists are iffy, if not outright crackpots. But what about the idea that HIV is normally present in the human population at low levels? That argument would suggest that cases of AIDS are caused by HIV, but having HIV in the body alone doesn’t necessarily cause AIDS. There are plenty of diseases that are caused by commonly non-pathological bacteria and viruses that run amuck for some reason – might AIDS be one of them? **T. Mehr** : It’s been shown that introducing foreign proteins directly into the bloodstream impairs immune functioning. Anal sex is especially good at delivering foreign proteins into the bloodstream – unless condoms are worn, of course. And historically anal sex has also been associated with popper use, which further impairs the immune system. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403.md?page=4)