# 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:** 8
**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 8, 2003, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/141 "2003-09-08T07:45:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **Jackmannii** \* > I did a PubMed search (using the extensive database provided by the National Center for Biotechnology Information) and could not find a “Journal of the InterAmerican Medical and Health Association” listed as a medical journal. > > Nor could I find in PubMed a single paper authored by Maurizio Moretti. Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t buy any of this HIV is not the cause of AIDS bullshit. But I did a PubMed search and found 8 papers by Moretti ML. Not the one cited by trusceotic, though… What kind of a PubMed do you use, anyway? ---
**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 8, 2003, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/142 "2003-09-08T09:54:02Z")
For those lurkers not intimidated by ambushed’s bizarre political agenda and rage-filled psychotic projections, here is a good resource for AIDS free-thinkers, those not brainwashed by the lone gunman theories of the AIDS industry: [http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/hivcont2.html](http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/hivcont2.html) And it looks like I will have to go into hiding. I am guilty of murder, according to ambushed, and there is a warrant out for my arrest: "A hornet’s nest of vituperation was stirred up when South African President Thabo Mbeki announced that AIDS-dissident, as well as AIDS-orthodox, voices will be heard at the XIII International AIDS Conference, to be held this July in Durban, South Africa. From all sides “AIDS experts”, journalists, and “treatment activists” joined in a chorus of denunciation directed at those nefarious infidels who blaspheme against the sacred doctrines and commodities of the AIDS Industry. Normally, open debate and free enquiry are regarded as fundamental components of Science. Not in the AIDS arena. Dr. Mark Wainberg, president of the International AIDS Society, called for jailing AIDS dissidents, whom he called “HIV deniers” (his explicit analogy to “Holocaust deniers”). Said Wainberg: “If we could succeed and lock a couple of these guys up, I guarantee you the HIV-denier movement would die pretty darn quickly.” [http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/aidsrealism.shtml](http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/aidsrealism.shtml) I guess the war on AIDS is just like the war on terrorism. You are either with us or against us. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/143 "2003-09-08T13:37:21Z")
**tomndebb** , I would agree with you that the Piltdown Man is not a good comparison to the HIV/AIDS regardless of how widely accepted it was - I don’t know that anyone is alleging widespread fraud here. Nonetheless, it would seem to me to be obvious that the scientific community frequently forms a consensus opinion about things which are poorly understood, and with regard to which scientific understanding does not yet justify the certainty with which it becomes accepted. You see examples of this in the medical/nutritional field all the time, the most recent and glaring example being the Atkins Diet. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Testy \* > If D’berg is so damn sure that HIV doesn’t produce AIDS then why doesn’t he just inject some? Put his body where his mouth is and try it out? I’m sure he has a pristine lifestyle and wouldn’t get AIDS. At least one HIV denialist has done so and is doing well, from the last I saw of it (that being the most recent SDMB debate on the subject). Apparently the counterclaim is that even according to the HIV-causes-AIDS theory, injecting yourself with HIV is extremely unlikely to cause AIDS. ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/144 "2003-09-08T13:49:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scule \* > \*\*Ok, let’s add a better retort: what he is saying is that HIV is infectious regardless of viral load levels. In other words, if one has HIV, one can infect others, regardless of the viral load level. \*\* No … not what he means at all, which would be apparent if you’d read the article. Apparently I have to quote: > [@](#): > > But did eliminating viral load make the patients healthier? Markowitz had nothing to say about this during his lecture. … > Markowitz’s smile vanished when I asked, During the 11 months on therapy, when their viral loads were undetectable, **did your patients do better, stay the same, or do worse? He didn’t say a word**. It was an embarrassing moment for the audience. > > I interrupted the uncomfortable silence by restating the question. Your patients should be doing better, right? **Again Markowitz was speechless.** He either didn’t know how his patients had done over the course of therapy (which is very unlikely) or they were not doing well-despite having HIV “viral loads” of zero. During this revealing silence the lecture was ended by the announcement of a coffee break. … > > … I was determined to get an answer to my question. I cornered him two more times. On both occasions I had to literally stop him from walking away. In each instance I repeated my question about the significance of all that non-infectious HIV. > > Both times he ran off without answering the question. > > Assuming that “viral load” testing accurately counted HIV, and that infectious dose testing accurately counted infectious HIV, I offered my 99.8% figure from the Ho/Markowitz paper as the fraction of circulating HIV that was non-infectious. > > Non-infectious HIV, then, is the source of RNA and proteins-including protease-from which the genetics and other characteristics of HIV are derived. > > – Q&A with Mellor > > … Now I had him. Since non-infectious viruses have no conceivable clinical relevancy, then neither could any data derived from them. > > What’s the significance of all the non-infectious HIV? I asked. I had no idea how he could work himself out of this corner, but even I was stunned by his response: **"The non-infectious particles [HIV] are pathogenic."** > > Now here was a first. I don’t think that anybody’s ever gone on record before proposing that non- infectious virus could cause disease. > > I sat there flabbergasted, noticing the murmur that had broken out. In my astonished state I realized there was nothing else to be said. … > > My God, I thought. Talk about a rich source of research opportunity. **The pathogenicity of non-infectious viruses.** Anybody familiar with the antibody response and the premise of vaccinations can appreciate the revolutionary nature (and implausibility) of this idea. > > My sense is that the audience did, given the intense murmuring, which continued even after the lecture had been dismissed. **On the way out of the room an Indian scientist grabbed my arm and asked, "Did you hear that?"** > > Indeed I had. AIDS was caused by a deadly army of viral corpses. My interpretation may be incorrect, but I don’t think Mellor meant to say what you think he meant to say. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/145 "2003-09-08T13:56:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sealamp \* > \*\*Edwino wrote: > I don’t think that’s what the abstract says. From the abstract I gather: > In this study they had 708 children who had clinical signs of HIV. They then looked for ELISA-seropositive children in that group. > The breakdown was 708 children = 438 seronegative + 270 seropositives. > PCR was then done on the seropositives: > The 270 seropositive = 136 seropositive and confirmed (“HIV-infected”) + 27 seropositive but unconfirmed (“seroreverters”) + 36 seropositive but unconfirmed (PCR negatives) + 71 seropositive but unconfirmed (“indeterminates”) > The children were divided into two groups: > 136 seropositive and confirmed (“HIV-infected”) and > 501 = 438 seronegative + 27 seropositive but unconfirmed (“seroreverters”) + 36 seropositive but unconfirmed (PCR negatives) > (note the 71 seropositive but unconfirmed (“indeterminates”) were left out of the study) > The study then proceeds to show statistically significant measures of bad health in the 136 “seropositive and confirmed (“HIV-infected”)” group compared to the 501 mixed (“HIV-uninfected”) group. > > Note that the 136 seropositive and confirmed (“HIV-infected”) is only 136/708 \* 100 percent = 19 percent. Which is what Roger\_Mexico said, and which is not 98 percent as you seem to be saying edwino. Good job, Roger! > > Here’s a flaw in the study: > Only 12.6 percent (=63/501\*100 percent) of the mixed “uninfected” group are seropositive. And of course all of those in the “HIV-infected” group are seropositive. Many dissenters argue that seropositiveness is correlated with non-HIV health risks. So this study does not address their arguments. A comparison of the > 136 seropositive and confirmed (“HIV-infected”) children with the 63 seropositive but “HIV-uninfected” children > would address such claims.\*\* First thing, a seroreverter is seropositive on presentation but then seronegative on a second test at some point later. This is pretty common in the infant age group tested. Maternal immunoglobulins are found in the child’s blood stream for up to 6 months. And we all know that anti-HIV immunoglobulin is not a depenable signal of infection (which is why it was confirmed by PCR here). So quite correctly, seropositivity with PCR negative is HIV-. The study asked a simple question. Does a clinical definition of pediatric AIDS, completely independent of HIV infection – established by a 1989 WHO panel for developing countries, where laboratory tests are unavailible – fit with confirmed HIV infection. They found that it only detected 23% of HIV cases in infants, but 98% of those who passed criteria were HIV+. All of the children were sick with sepsis, and admitted for HIV like symptoms. They were evaluated on several clinical parameters, including the ones in the 1989 WHO classification. Virtually all of the children showing clinical signs of AIDS (according to this 1989 definition) at admission were HIV+. Statistically significant differences were found on nearly all parameters between the HIV and control groups. The HIV children were sicker, required more therapy, smaller, and worse of on nearly all fronts than the non-HIV children. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/146 "2003-09-08T13:58:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Roger\_Mexico \* > \*\* > Look Edwino, I appreciate that you have kept this debate at a scientific level. But debating this is useless until a proper epidemiological study is done. I believe that HIV is just one factor in a complex multifactorial disease. We will just have to leave it at that. \*\* Too bad that being a factor in a complex multifactorial disease wouldn’t justify a single one of your claims. Sorry, but epidemiological studies wouldn’t provide a lot of useful arguments, since they in the end will boil down to statistics, and you will pick out those fact you like and ignore the rest. What matters is the characterisation of the disease on the molecular and cellular level, and the fact that some aspects are not fully understood proves precisely zero -other than that more research is warranted. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/147 "2003-09-08T14:10:40Z")
**IzzyR** HIV has a very poor rate of infection. Even from blood to blood contact, the rate is quite low. It is not very virulent, but virulence has nothing to do with severity of disease. So what we need is someone to establish HIV infection – convert an ELISA and confirm by PCR testing. I agree with you on the medical/nutritional community and their seizing on hypotheses. This, IMHO, is because it is difficult to do really good science in humans. The numbers, the time period, the variables to control and to counteract, take millions of dollars and decades to work out. I think the Atkins diet is a perfect example of the medical community correcting their mistakes. For a while, the Atkins diet was assumed to be bad for a number of reasons – its unmaintainability, its perceived unhealthiness, etc. – but once some good evidence came out, the medical/nutritional field did an about face. The same is true of estrogen replacement therapy. For forty years or so, doctors seized on the health benefits and menopause symptom relief of giving estrogen. They found that it lowered heart disease, osteoporosis, and some kinds of cancer (while acknowledging a mild rise some kinds of cancer). Only huge, longitudinal studies which took decades to complete managed to show that the benefit of estrogens vanished into the noise. Within a week or so, the entire medical community did an about-face and pretty much stopped routinely giving estrogen therapy. What Atkins and ERT shows is that the medical field is not entrenched in paradigms. They are willing to listen and believe contrary hypotheses. This is not the case in something as clear cut as HIV. AIDS started cropping up in the early 1980s. It was associated with HIV, and all of the epidemiology and molecular data pointed towards that. Moreover, when highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) came out in the mid-1990s, it completely reversed the course of the disease. We are not dealing with a multi-variable, hard-to-control, lifestyle influenced issue here (like diet and heart disease, hypertension, stress, or psychiatric disease). There is one variable to control for here – HIV infection. HIV infected people develop AIDS without HAART. AIDS is not the only endpoint, though. Before AIDS there is a characteristic slow decline in CD4+ T-cells. With HAART, both this decline and full-blown AIDS is reversed. There is no argument. ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/148 "2003-09-08T14:12:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by edwino \* > \*\ ***trueskeptic** > I will respond to your bit about HIV infection rates plateauing in 1982 later this evening, I’ve been busy. I’d just like to highlight one more thing before I get to that. > > From Jon Cohen’s _Science_ magazine [article](http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/266-5191-1647a.pdf), “Fulfilling Koch’s Postulates” (download in PDF format): > > I don’t understand how people argue against these types of data. \*\* Thanks, edwino. However, the rest of the article reports why Duesberg is skeptical. Oops, Roger\_mexico beat me to it. But here’s a way to shut Duesberg up: > [@](#): > > Duesberg said he would like to see an epidemiologic study to answer the question of whether HIV causes AIDS. The study he wants would compare two large groups of people matched for age, lifestyle, and “non–drug use” who differ only in HIV status. “If the HIV-positive group had significantly more AIDS-defining diseases. than the negative group, HIV could be the cause,” Duesberg says. But, he says, \*\*“there is not even one study in the vast AIDS literature that shows that an HIV-positive group of 20- to 50-year-old people who do not use drugs and do not have congenital diseases, like > hemophilia, have more AIDS diseases than an HIV-negative > control group.” \*\*Others contend that this study isn’t necessary. Now is what Duesberg asks so unreasonable? Why not give it to him and shut him up once and for all? ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/149 "2003-09-08T14:17:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > \*\*Thanks, edwino. However, the rest of the article reports why Duesberg is skeptical. Oops, Roger\_mexico beat me to it. But here’s a way to shut Duesberg up: > Now is what Duesberg asks so unreasonable? Why not give it to him and shut him up once and for all? \*\* Because he has already made it clear that he will ignore anything that would suggest he is wrong. You assume that he would indeed shut up, instead of pulling alleged flaws out of his hat. The only thing the study he calls for would show is a correlation, which by definition does not prove a causative connection. ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/150 "2003-09-08T14:26:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sealamp \* > \*\*ambushed: what does your article > “Tails Between Their Legs: AIDS Denialists Lose Ground” have to do > with whether or not HIV causes AIDS? It’s just a report about a > protest by “denialists” that got out of hand. Did you even read > the articles you want the other side to look at and rebut, or just > find provocative titles? \*\* Thus the moniker “ambushed.” ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/151 "2003-09-08T14:31:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cervaise \* > \*\*… > To everybody else: I submit, based on past experience, that the justification for arguing with ignorant “true believers” is not that we are trying to change their minds. It becomes painfully clear that they will obfuscate and ignore in order to support their ignorant, erroneous assertions, and that they will never give an inch. Rather, the point of the argument is to make sure that their bullshit is not left unanswered, lest any undecided observers happen across the thread and decide from the uncontradicted assertions that the position may have some merit. > > The question, therefore, is this: When do we decide that the argument has been sufficiently won to the degree that it’s clear to the hypothetical lurker that the true believers don’t know what they’re talking about? Obviously, there comes a critical juncture when we know we’re going around in circles, and the risk is that we get frustrated and abandon the discussion before fully pounding down the lid on the coffin of the true believers’ nonsense. Or, perhaps, that we succumb to frustration and get nasty (which I think I’m guilty of, and apologize for), meaning we lose the substance of our argument. > > So: When do we know that we’ve won, as far as making the point for somebody who’s reading but not participating, such that we can safely extricate ourselves from the cesspool of bullshit? \*\* I agree. It’s time the HIV-AIDS hypothesis/dogma was reevaluated. It’s clearly chugging along on “true believism” alone, and it has already cost so many lives. It’s time to bring science back to HIV junk science. I might have missed it, but does someone know of undisputed EMs of pure HIV, so we can know it actually exists? Otherwise the true believers are spending billions on a phantom. ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/152 "2003-09-08T14:35:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Roger\_Mexico \* > \*\*Where the hell is Trueskeptic? Tell him to come back here and hold up his thread. I cant do it alone! \*\* Ah, sorry, had a busy weekend. And actually you’re doing a better job than I ever could. It’s good to see some scientific defense of the HIV-AIDS theory from **edwino** , rather than the unproductive name-calling and millions of links to sites **ambushed** has apparently never even seen. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/153 "2003-09-08T14:43:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Roger\_Mexico \* > \*\*For those lurkers not intimidated by ambushed’s bizarre political agenda and rage-filled psychotic projections, here is a good resource for AIDS free-thinkers, those not brainwashed by the lone gunman theories of the AIDS industry: > > [http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/hivcont2.html](http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/hivcont2.html) > > And it looks like I will have to go into hiding. I am guilty of murder, according to ambushed, and there is a warrant out for my arrest: > > "A hornet’s nest of vituperation was stirred up when South African President Thabo Mbeki announced that AIDS-dissident, as well as AIDS-orthodox, voices will be heard at the XIII International AIDS Conference, to be held this July in Durban, South Africa. > > From all sides “AIDS experts”, journalists, and “treatment activists” joined in a chorus of denunciation directed at those nefarious infidels who blaspheme against the sacred doctrines and commodities of the AIDS Industry. > > Normally, open debate and free enquiry are regarded as fundamental components of Science. Not in the AIDS arena. Dr. Mark Wainberg, president of the International AIDS Society, called for jailing AIDS dissidents, whom he called “HIV deniers” (his explicit analogy to “Holocaust deniers”). > > Said Wainberg: “If we could succeed and lock a couple of these guys up, I guarantee you the HIV-denier movement would die pretty darn quickly.” > > [http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/aidsrealism.shtml](http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/aidsrealism.shtml) > > I guess the war on AIDS is just like the war on terrorism. You are either with us or against us. \*\* Roger, I think the problem is somewhat more profound. Reasonable people have to make assessments based on the preponderance of evidence. It may be that you are correct and that HIV is not a direct cause of AIDS, but given the overwhelming bulk of evidence from research scientists and epidemiologists who are directly involved in unraveling the mechanisms and symptomology of AIDS, the current model seems to nail down the HIV-AIDS link. The vast majority of people posting in this thread (including yourself), with a few notable and appreciated exceptions (edwino and QTM among them), are not medical doctors, epidemiologists or research scientists, but are essentially laymen arguing from authority. To reach the conclusion you do I have to make the assumption that thousands of intellectually aggressive scientists graduating at the top of their medical classes, with access to billions of dollars in corporate and governmental funding and the most powerful research tools and hardware that human science has at it’s disposal, and are otherwise competent to unravel the biological bases of disease based on the currently accepted paradigms, somehow become irrational, sheep like stumblebums when faced with the question of the how the HIV-AIDS relationship works. I would further have to assume that beyond these mainstream scientists being blinkeredly wrong, that a small group of scientists with an alternate point of view whose research _specific to this question_ is (quite frankly) not that well regarded scientifically or methodologically by the majority of their peers, are correct. In the normal course of events, assuming scientific good faith on the part of all parties, the more powerful and accurately predictive theories and their encompassing paradigms will out compete their rivals. In this context most scientists see the HIV-AIDS relationship as reasonably and pragmatically air tight from an epidemiological perspective vs. various other explanations. The problem here is that people with an agenda that has relatively little to do with the epidemiology of AIDS and everything to do with the perceived immorality of homosexual behavior, have latched onto this relatively obsolete contrarian research and make great sport of flogging other laymen with how wrong headed “big science” is on this issue, and that the problem would largely go away if those darn sodomites would just stop buggering each other and get with God. Take your choice of authorities Roger. Based on your responses to date it is evident neither you nor I have anything approaching the educational background operationally necessary to make a detailed scientific analysis of the data. In the end reasonable laymen have to make a decision as to which group is more reasonably likely to be correct on this issue. I vote for the mainstream researchers based on the bulk of evidence to date. Beyond this, and quite frankly simply based on my lifetime observation of how these mainstream vs. fringe contrarians tussles generally pan out over time, 99.99 percent of the time over the past 40 years or so the scientific fringe contrarians were wrong. Place your bets as you see fit. ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/154 "2003-09-08T14:48:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > \*\*Ah, sorry, had a busy weekend. And actually you’re doing a better job than I ever could. It’s good to see some scientific defense of the HIV-AIDS theory from **edwino** … \*\* Oh, and **Roches** , as well. Didn’t mean to leave you out. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/155 "2003-09-08T14:51:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > \*\*I agree. It’s time the HIV-AIDS hypothesis/dogma was reevaluated. It’s clearly chugging along on “true believism” alone, and it has already cost so many lives. > > It’s time to bring science back to HIV junk science. I might have missed it, but does someone know of undisputed EMs of pure HIV, so we can know it actually exists? Otherwise the true believers are spending billions on a phantom. \*\* Yeah, probably they sequenced the genome of a phantom. It is telling who denialists only accept evidence they like and don’t even want to see any evidence they don’t like. But yes, everyone knows the Institut Pasteur is a bunch of charlatans. ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/156 "2003-09-08T15:08:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by edwino \* > \*\*I’m not really sure what your point is – I asked specifically if AIDS rates had dropped off because of less unprotected anal sex, amyl nitrite abuse, AZT, or reductions of any one of your risk factors. \*\* Since rates of venereal diseases have continued to increase and far surpass cases of AIDS, it’s probably nothing to do with “safe sex” … there are so many known immunosuppressing factors, including psychological ones, it’s hard to know which is primarily responsibel … however, re: AZT, some patients stopped taking it without telling their doctors, so it’s possible that education about the flaws of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis saved some of them. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/157 "2003-09-08T15:14:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > \*\* however, re: AZT, some patients stopped taking it without telling their doctors, so it’s possible that education about the flaws of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis saved some of them. \*\* Some (undocumented) patients stopped taking AZT (according to what you heard) without telling their doctors (as far as you heard), so it’s possible (if you disregard evidence) that the education about the (alleged) flaws of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis saved some of them (on the other hand, it might have called thousands more, but you don’t give a rodent’s posterior about them) ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/158 "2003-09-08T15:17:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by edwino \* > I agree with you on the medical/nutritional community and their seizing on hypotheses. This, IMHO, is because it is difficult to do really good science in humans. The numbers, the time period, the variables to control and to counteract, take millions of dollars and decades to work out. I think the Atkins diet is a perfect example of the medical community correcting their mistakes. Very true. Still, at the point in time at which the medical community had not yet corrected their mistakes, they were very much in the position that an HIV deniar would claim they are in today with regards to HIV. IOW, it is theoretically possible that the scientific community will yet reverse itself with regards to the HIV issue, providing yet another perfect example of the medical community correcting their mistakes. In which case, the only difference between Atkins and HIV will be timing. Now I see that in your final paragraph you provide differences between HIV & the other examples. The question is if those who dismissed Atkins as a dangerous quack were any less confident because of the factors you cite (i.e. the lack of good evidence)? Possibly within the bowels of the medical community they were, but the perception I got was of great certainty. I guess all I’m saying is that from the perspective of the ignorant layman, such as myself, the mere fact that there is currently a broad consensus in the medical community that HIV causes AIDS is not as convincing as one might think it should be. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/159 "2003-09-08T15:22:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\* > I guess all I’m saying is that from the perspective of the ignorant layman, such as myself, the mere fact that there is currently a broad consensus in the medical community that HIV causes AIDS is not as convincing as one might think it should be. \*\* That there is a consensus is only half the relevant information. The question is what it is built on, and what evidence the dissenters have for their ideas. ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/160 "2003-09-08T15:37:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Roches \* > \*\*The “poppers theory” is absolutely ancient, dating back to the first few cases in NYC. … I don’t believe that ‘poppers’ could be a factor in AIDS or the cause of Kaposi’s sarcoma. \*\* Whether a theory is “ancient,” as Einstein’s are by comparison, is not the issue. [The Poppers-KS Connection](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/jlpoppers.htm): "The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) sponsored a high-level meeting, “Technical Review: Nitrite Inhalants”, held outside Washington, DC on the 23rd and 24th of May, 1994. … "Robert Gallo, as unofficial voice of the AIDS Establishment, disclosed important revisions in the AIDS- paradigm. **It is now necessary to consider co-factors. No longer is HIV believed to cause KS by itself; at most it may aggravate KS after it has been caused by something else.** No longer is HIV believed to kill T- cells; whatever damage it allegedly does, it does indirectly. … "The toxicities of the volatile nitrites were well known before the advent of AIDS. In 1980 Thomas Haley, one of America’s leading toxicologists, published a two-page summary of nitrite toxicities, with 115 references listed. … "Nitrite causes a loss of tone of the vascular bed and pooling and trapping of blood in the veins of the lower extremities, resulting in marked arteriolar constriction and the induction of anoxemia in vital tissues, causing death… The formation of methemoglobin by aliphatic nitrite interferes with oxyhemoglobin, causing anoxia of vital organs… The use of volatile nitrites to enhance sexual performance and pleasure can result in syncope and death by cardiovascular collapse.(5) "Also in 1980 appeared the first of several studies to demonstrate that the volatile nitrites are powerfully mutagenic.(6) (That is, they cause cells to mutate, they cause damage to the chromosomes.) This is cause for concern, as almost all known carcinogens are also mutagens. **"Subsequent studies, both in vitro and in vivo, have shown that poppers damage the immune system.** They cause two kinds of anemia: Heinz body hemolytic anemia and methemoglobinemia. They damage the lungs. They have the potential to cause cancer by producing deadly N-nitroso compounds in interaction with many common drugs and chemicals, including antihistamines, artificial sweeteners, and pain killers.(7) When the first cases of AIDS were identified in 1981, or the predecessor cases of GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency), poppers were high on the list of etiological suspects. Here, after all, was a drug used heavily and almost exclusively by the group of people getting sick. **Nevertheless, despite compelling epidemiological and toxicological evidence, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) hastened to exonerate poppers. They did so for two reasons, both of which were spurious.** First, the CDC found AIDS patients who had never used poppers; therefore, argued the CDC, poppers could not be the cause. The CDC’s assumption was that “AIDS” constituted a single, coherent disease entity with a single cause. Second, the CDC conducted a brief mice study in 1982-1983, and claimed to find “no evidence of immunotoxicity”. These results are contradicted by several other studies, which did find that the inhalation of nitrite fumes causes immune suppression in mice. The reasons for the negative findings of the CDC mice study were explained at the Gaithersburg meeting by one of the investigators, Daniel Lewis, about which more below." > [@](#): > > … HIV particles bind to a protein on the surface of some white blood cells called ‘CD4’. The RNA genome of HIV is then ‘reverse transcribed’\* into DNA, then integrated into the host’s DNA. A lot of detailed claims on that site, and some nice cartoons. Is there a paper which shows the discovery of this mechanism? > [@](#): > > or other drugs). Magic Johnson would have always been able to afford even the most extensive and costly HIV treatment regimens, which probably explains his remission. Just wondering, since all of the HIV tests warn that they do not prove the presence or absence of HIV, how did he know he was infected? > [@](#): > > This is a restatement of Occam’s razor, I guess. I don’t think it applies, though. There are many diseases which are known to be caused by viruses. It would seem that AIDS _not_ being caused by a bacterium, virus or even a prion would be a more elaborate theory than the theory that it is caused by a virus found in many of its victims. Has there finally been scientific proof of the existence of this virus? Or just “virus-like particles”? (Note: I think Duesberg believes HIV exists, though he doesn’t believe it causes AIDS.) I want to find out how far behind the curve I am. Never to old to learn. Thanks in advance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403.md?page=9)