HIV Test bogus, says PCR inventor

[easy_e]

*Originally posted by bri1600bv *
I’m a little confused by the whole thing. Admittedly, I don’t know that much about biology etc.

Hmm, maybe this is the first hint that you don’t know jack. And maybe you should stay out of debates that involve knowledge of biology, biochemistry, and immunology.* Now, onto some of your points.

**The test for HIV is actually an anti-body test. Doesn’t this mean that your body has already fought it off?

** As tomndebanswered, the presence of antibodies that react to HIV only indicates that the body has recognized that HIV is foreign. If you were to die of smallpox (no, I’m not wishing death on you), you would be producing smallpox antibodies before you died.

Has it ever been demonstrated HOW HIV causes AIDS?

To keep it simple: HIV binds to the CD4 molecules of T-cells. Once inside, its reverse transcriptase converts in RNA genome into a DNA sequence. Its integrase integrates (hence the name) the HIV DNA into the host DNA. Though no gene is targeted, integrase goes after regions of host DNA that are highly bent, which usually indicates active genes.

The DNA sequence derived from the HIV codes for several HIV products. In a nifty bit of biochemistry, the same sequences, but parsed differently, codes for different products.

The products assemble, and leave the cell, destroying it in the process. Since T-cells are part of the immune response, destroyed T-cells, especially in large numbers, can lead to compromised immunity. For a while, the body just makes more T-cells and tries to fight the infection. But infected cells can lurk in the lymphatic system for years, evading detection. HIV also has one of the highest rates of mutation of any virus, which puts the immune system into a losing battle.

The end result is low T-cell counts, a compromised immune system, and susceptibility to opportunistic infections.

For example Karposi’s sarcoma is caused by HIV.

No, KS is not caused by HIV. It appears in AIDS patients (and in some other rare cases) because an AIDS patient has such a severely compromised immune system that they can’t fight it off.

**OK, fine, but why is Karposi’s sarcoma ONLY found in homosexuals?

**

Cite?

**What about the people who have HIV and never seem to get AIDS? Magic Johnson came out 13 years ago and said he had it. He’s healthy as a horse, and most of that time it was before the new anti-whatever cures out there.

**

Some people can have HIV in their bloodstream, but the HIV won’t lead to AIDS. This can be for several reasons, including, but not limited to:
-Due to the high mutation rate of HIV, some HIV particles will be non-infections.
-Due to random mutations in the human genome, some people have T-cells that are missing coreceptors HIV needs in order enter cells
-Beginning HAART before full-blown AIDS (like Magic Johnson, though he started out with some anti-HIV treatments, but not true HAART, 'cause it hadn’t been developed when he was first diagnosed). This not only keeps production of new HIV particles down, but helps “even the score” as it were, allowing the body’s natural defenses to recover and carry on the fight.

*For those keeping score at home, I just graduated this past May, majoring in biomedical engineering and biochemistry. Since both of those majors have a “bio” prefix, I had to take plenty of courses in zoology, biochemistry, chemistry, and physiology. In my last semester, I took a topics in medical biochemistry course in which the first 1/3 focused on HIV. We learned its reproductive cycle, how it works, and treatments against it. I’ve glossed over some details in this post because I don’t have my notes with me and because it’s dinnertime and I’m hungry.

[Tommyturtle]

Jeez…each side in discussion cite their cites and laypersons like me don’t know who to believe…some sound like they make sense then later someone else comes in and says the cite is biased or the study is flawed

How is someone like me to know who’s right?

I DO think the ones who seem so sure the conventional wisdom is correct have an uphill battle simply because if they are correct it seems to ME anyway the evidence should be pretty much 100% on their side…the fact that so many people have their doubts(people who have MUCH more knowledge of this subject too) makes me wonder

I do realize that AIDS seems to be in a unique situation [minor hijack] IS AIDS that unique? Are there other diseases that pose some of the same problems AIDS does? Not just the societal questions but the difficulty of absolutely IDing the causes of the disease…seems to ME anyway alot of uncertainty involved with AIDS[/minor hijack]

Tangentially about the anal sex thing…I always thought that a venereal disease is a venereal disease because it is so hard to spread thus needed intimate fluid exchanges to pass from one person to the next

Since the risk of anal tearing was much greater than vaginal tearing that just by the numbers of people who partake in anal sex…gays would be more vulnerable to this disease so when various groups make claims that appear to be false…saying heterosexuals are just as likely to get AIDS when just by the records of actual people who contracted AIDS contradict those claims it makes people like me doubt other things they say as a result

Kind of like those who make outrageous claims concerning marijuana make me doubt pretty much anything THEY say…their hearts might be in the right place but their minds?

As for the IV drug users…besides the spread through shared needles…I would suppose someone who is an addict might not be as careful in their sexual habits and any type of sexually transmitted disease they get could go untreated until they get open sores and that would make them more and more vulnerable to AIDS through even vaginal sex let alone anal

Someone earlier made mention about the heterosexual cases of AIDS in places like certain countries in Africa and saying the potential for the same here…since this never happened we have to ask why not? Could it be since birth control is much harder to get in a third world country the only other options are no sex, anal, or prostitutes. Each with their own reasons why it might not be such a hot idea(first one not realistic…second anal tearing…third do I HAVE to explain that one?)…in an industrial country like the USA where birth control is a 10 minute trip to a drug store could very well be why the heterosexual epidemic never happened over here

BTW I had read cases of people who had gotten AIDS through a transfusion during an operation years before and getting tested for whatever reason only then do they find out they have it…meantime they have had unprotected sex with their spouse for years but when their partner is tested they come up clean(I’ve seen the 500-1 chance of infecting someone heterosexually(presumably barring anal) elsewhere besides an earlier post in this thread before)…sorry no outside cite right now

I do NOT mean this post to be any type of blast against homosexuals nor do I want it used by others that way

I wouldn’t wish this disease on anyone

But until we recognize certain FACTS and not try to manipulate the data to promote whatever agenda someone has too many people will be regulated to spin control who are better served to work on eliminating AIDS

[sealamp]

Edwino - I found the article in the library and see the 98 percent you were referring to is not what I thought it was from the abstract. 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.) From the article the definitions are:

"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."

For those who think a conspiracy theory can only explain why the scientific community is barking up the wrong tree, read about SMON, a similar case where science was going in the wrong direction for over a decade and people were being killed by the very medication meant to help them:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/besmon.htm
Here’s the introductory paragraph:
“Blaming non-infectious diseases on infectious microbes has occurred many times before. Hidden in foreign-language materials and the footnotes of obscure sources lies the story of SMON, a frightening disease epidemic that struck Japan while the war on polio was accelerating in the 1950s. In many ways, SMON anticipated the later AIDS epidemic. For fifteen years the syndrome was mismanaged by the Japanese science establishment, where virtually all research efforts were controlled by virus hunters. Ignoring strong evidence to the contrary, researchers continued to assume the syndrome was contagious and searched for one virus after another. Year after year the epidemic grew, despite public health measures to prevent the spread of an infectious agent. And in the end, medical doctors were forced to admit that their treatment had actually caused SMON in the first place. Once the truth about SMON could no longer be ignored, the episode dissolved into lawsuits for the thousands of remaining victims.
This story has remained untold outside of Japan, ignored as being too embarrassing for the virus hunters. It deserves to be told in full here.”

Many of you call for a test of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis in which a dissident infects himself or herself with the virus. Although I hope you realize that a sample size of 1 is not going to prove anything scientifically, there is a rather vocal dissident who tested positive for HIV in 1992 and believes she was infected sometime from 1985 to 1989. She does not take any anti-HIV medications and is perfectly healthy. From her website it appears there are many others like her. See http://aliveandwell.org/

[edwino]

sealamp

2003 is not the 1950s. We have much better tools at our disposal, namely the entire field of molecular genetics.

Please explain how someone could be PCR positive for HIV and uninfected.

Roger_Mexico and trueskeptic

If you think that a virus needs to be isolated in order to show an antibody test works, you are mistaken. Protein purification is sloppy. Virus purification is even worse. The cleanest way to make an antibody against a protein is to clone the gene, transcribe/translate it in either an ectopic cell culture or an in vitro system, and use that to make the antibody (either monoclonal or polyclonal).

Let’s say you have your virus in a tube. a) How do you know it is your virus? b) How do you know it is pure? c) How do you know what is in that virus? These are three big questions which take years to answer. They cannot be answered in individual studies, and they haven’t. Having a pure virus means little. Having a picture means even less.

I don’t understand the fixation on isolation. First, HIV has been isolated hundreds of times, and can be part of the diagnositc algorithm. Second, morphology has little to do with classification. The reason HIV looks globular on EM is because it is surrounded by a phospholipid envelope. HIV emerges from the cell by taking a bit of cell membrane with it. What you see on EM is that cell membrane, which obscures the virus. This is pretty evident in pictures like this. (Sorry the image is massive).

I can’t possibly imagine how seeing “buds” on an EM gives any credence to the fact that HIV causes AIDS. How do we know HIV is a retrovirus if the morphology is obscured? By its behavior: Montagnier and Gallo are pretty clear. They fractionated T-cells from a patient with AIDS, and found a fraction which had reverse transcriptase activity. This enzyme is only found in retroviruses, and nowhere else in nature. This fraction had proteins similar with other human T-cell leukemia viruses, but was different in a number of respects. It was named HTLV-III, later HIV.

20 years of work led to better isolates, better culture conditions, better characterization of the structure, lifestyle, and lifecycle of the virus. The mechanism of HIV infection, propogation, and CD4 depletion was chronicled in tens of thousands of papers. This is how science is done. It is a big jigsaw puzzle being put together by thousands of highly intelligent people. If the puzzle starts out wrong, the pieces don’t all fit together and somebody notices. If there are errors in assembly along the way, they are corrected. HIV researchers have made errors, for instance in the efficacy of AZT monotherapy. Those errors were corrected, because others noticed.

20 years has also shown us that specific treatment of the retrovirus completely reverses the disease. Nobody could ask for better evidence than this.

About all of those papers listed and peer-review. 1) Drop out all of the letters, correspondence, commentaries, and reviews. Those aren’t peer reviewed. 2) Duesberg is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (from work he did on aneuploidy), so he is entitled to publish in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences without peer-review. 3) I do not see a single research article in a higher-tier journal. The only peer-reviewed journal I see up there is Genetica, which appears to be geared for fast review. I am in genetics, and I have never read or even heard of an article outside of HIV dissent in this journal. Its impact factor is extremely low and I would not hold it past them to publish provocative stuff just to get people to pick up a copy of the journal.

So, going through the list. E. Papdopulos-Eleopulos has absolutely no peer-reviewed primary research on HIV. 13 cites are listed in PubMed. Most of his/her stuff are reviews (8) and letters (3). There are two published in Medical Hypotheses, a journal devoted to publishing hypotheses that aren’t necessarily supported by any primary data.

R.S. Root-Bernstein has 11 cites. 4 are reviews, 2 are letters. The other 5 are published in either Med Hypotheses (3) or The Journal of Theoretical Biology (2) (need I say more).

G. T. Stewart has 16 cites. 2 reviews, 11 are letters or correspondence. The remaining 3 are policy, not research, articles.

Duesberg has 29 listed. 8 are reviews, 17 are comments and letters. The remaining 4 are the primary research that we so badly want. 1 is in PNAS (an epidemiologic study that has won a world of criticism), 2 in Genetica (one on AZT toxicity in cell culture, one is a re-analysis of the San Francisco Men’s Health Study). The last is a recently published article in J Biosci (which previously was the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of India) on the chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics. It is available free online. For all of the shooting at the HIV-AIDS community’s science, maybe I’ll shoot at this one. I bet it won’t be that hard.

So you have 3 peer reviewed research articles. 1 non peer reviewed primary article. Add 6 theoretical articles or hypotheses with or without primary data. That’s a helluva lot of noise for people who cannot seem to find much data to support their hypotheses. Or at least they are being “suppressed” by the “good old boy system” that keeps “genius thinkers” “down.” For all of the criticism of their science-by-news-conference that Gallo did (he published the results, peer reviewed, in Science in May 1983, BTW), the HIV dissent sure practices a lot of science-by-website.

Sticking HIV alone into PubMed brings back 130,208 hits. 16,507 of these are reviews. 10,404 of these are correspondence. 177 are in Medical Hypotheses, 55 in J Theor Biol. So we have 4 (including the PNAS one) versus 103,061 articles.

Next, about detection. We can, and have, gone round in circles about the ELISA. Your issues with the ELISA just don’t hold water. Every clinician out there knows that the ELISA gives huge false positive rates – it has horrible specificity. It is cheap, though, and it is very sensitive. That is why an ELISA positive by itself means next to nothing: it must be confirmed either by Western or by PCR. Don’t keep pointing out the false positive rates of ELISA in dogs or dialysis patients. We are quite aware of these, and that is why we don’t make clinical decisions based on it.

One other point. This has gone on too long, so I’ll be snappy. trueskeptic points out that HIV genomes are over 5% different, and the Perth group doesn’t believe they are all the same virus. This conveniently ignores the fact that reverse transcriptase has a very high error rate, so HIV has a high mutation rate. This one fact in itself explains many clinical aspects of the disease: why a triple replication blockade is necessary to prevent mutations for drug resistance, why >90% drug compliance is absolutely required to prevent resistance, why attenuated viruses for HIV vaccines may be a Very Bad Thing, why a vaccine is not easy to make work (a vaccine triggers antibodies against a specific viral antigen; all viruses with that antigen get killed; this puts strong selective pressures on viruses with mutations in the antigen), why HIV has such a low virulence. The list goes on, but I will stop.

[edwino]

More anecdotes, this time dissenters who developed AIDS, went on HAART, and got better:
http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/17/hiv.html

[edwino]

Duesberg’s J Biosci article has no new data in it, just a review of previous studies.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/jun2003/383.htm
I’ve only been through about 12 pages of it, but some of it is ludicrously bad. Correlation of graphs of cocaine seizure and overdose versus AIDS (as mentioned above). Nitrite inhalers used by 96% of people with AIDS or at risk for AIDS as measured in 1983 (I don’t see the point, how are you going to correlate that if you are not separating out disease from no disease?). AIDS doesn’t follow typical microbial curves (AIDS is by no means typical). Differences in growth curves for European, American, and African AIDS epidemics (again, we are not arguing that there are not societal factors here, just that it all centers around HIV). I’ll read the rest tomorrow.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by trueskeptic *
Since Gallo’s pronouncement that HIV causes AIDS was not peer reviewed, what do you think of that?

Methinks you are not quite aware of the extent of the peer review process. It doesn’t end with publication.

**
"Duesberg sent a letter to Nature arguing that the perfect correlation between drug use and AIDS confirmed, rather than refuted, the drug hypothesis. Maddox censored the letter and wrote an editorial “Has Duesberg a Right of Reply?” (Maddox, 1993). The editorial pointed out that the world’s oldest science journal could not afford an open scientific debate on the cause of AIDS because of the perceived dangers of infectious AIDS.**

Nice try. Too bad that there are plenty of journals out there, and that even high profile journals such as ‘Science’ are not beyond publishing controversial papers, even if they are probably bogus -as evidenced by the ‘bubble fusion’ papers.

“Help, help, I’m being suppressed!” is the usual pitiful excuse for people who don’t manage to get results of acceptable quality.

RE: Your list. yes, some of these are peer-reviewed journals. Do you read any of them on a regular basis? Because otherwise, your citations aren’t worth a lot. As mentioned above, peer review doesn’t end in publication, and how would you know they haven’t been debunked subsequently? The vast majority of them are horribly old.

**
Based on the above, it seems you would have to do the same. **

Yup. The difference being that I hold two pertinent graduate degrees and am doing cancer research at one of Germany’s top research institutions.

**
And there’s the crucial difference. I only follow where the facts lead. I don’t prefer them to be right, because it would mean that billions of dollars and perhaps thousands of lives have been wasted. **

That’s what you’d like to think. Unfortunately, you have no way of knowing what the facts are, and can only elect to believe one side or the other based on the message. Since bashing corporations and politicians seems a superior attitude for you, you choose to believe that side.

**
But let’s look at vice versa: every single researcher living on the AIDS dole now does need HIV-AIDS to be right … not just for the money, but for their conscience (and even personal safety). Hmmmm … which do you think would be more objective …? **

That is, in fact, wrong. A german professor researching AIDS is in no way dependent on HIV-AIDS being right. Given that neither his university nor the state have any right to tell him what to research, he can dump it at any time he pleases and still be funded.

**
But your claims are the very claims in dispute. Since the isolation procedures use and produce contaminated material, and HIV has not been isolated, how could its genome be decoded? If the genome has been decoded, why is there still no gol **

Um, I hate to tell you this, but you don’t need to isolate a virus to sequence the genome. I am sequencing fragments of your colon cells that I amplify out of your sh*t to screen for mutations common in colon cancer. I don’t need to isolate a single anything for that. All I need is to know a few fragment sequences of what I am looking for.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by Roger_Mexico *
**I did try to verify the case, but all the other references to it were in German or Italian. **

In other words, you cited it without any evidence of its veracity or actual existence.

**
A virus does need to be isolated to create a gold standard for an antibody assay. If you use a virus coat protein without isolating the virus, how do you know that the protein came from the virus? **

Because it isn’t human?

**
Which protein are you going to use, p24? It may interest you to know that 43% of dogs have been found to be positive for p24:**

So? What’s that supposed to show?
That the virus can survive in other species, at least in fragments?

**
I apologize if my rigourous training in chemistry has made me skeptical of the sort of hand-waving that passes for science in the world of AIDS. You see, in chemistry, you actually have to isolate something to prove it exists. **

Thanks, I hold a degree in chemistry. And you see, we’re not talking about molecules here, and if anything beyond a molecule is too complex for you to understand, I would suggest you stick to issues you can tackle.

**
And you think my conduct is unscientific? That is rather bizarre considering that many of the posters on this discussion have resorted to calling me and trueskeptic "life-hating, truth-hating, science-hating, intellectual-integrity lacking, homophobic, moralistic, loons, etc. etc. when we don’t automatically accept the dubious claims of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. **

Yes, your conduct is unscientific. Most prominently your all too willing acceptance of alleged court-cases without any proof as to their existence, without expertise in the legal system they allegedly happened in, and as such no expertise to even judge the probability of veracity. You used data the confidence of which you had no means of assessing, and which you knew you had gathered from biased sources. That IS unscientific to the extreme.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by trueskeptic *
**
Perhaps these problems - of isolation and just which sequence (length, etc) is representative - have been resolved? **

Um, it has been well-known for a considerable time that HIV replicates with an extremely high error-rate. That has, in fact, been one of the chief problems in coming up with a vaccine. Given the small size of a virus genome, a relatively high percentage is reached with a relatively small number of mutations.

The comment you cite, however, confuses sub-sequences and the entire genome, talking at one point about “sub-genomes” labeling them “genomes” in the next.

** (Although you may think they’re deluded, it would be decent to let these people know they’re living in the past, and would they please retract their papers.)

**

There is no need to retract their papers. It is evident that you are not familiar with scientific publication standards. Papers are retracted if the authors themselves realize within a short timeframe from publication that they have been mistaken and can’t replicate their data. Papers that are five years old are not retracted. They are by definition considered suspect unless replicated numerous times hence.

The knowledge of mankind doubles every five years. Citing papers that are beyond that timeframe is a very risky business that should only be done if one has full insight into publications in the field and is 100% sure the papers haven’t been debunked.

[Testy]

Thanks for that although I think it was more of a stunt than a serious test. As someone else pointed out, double-sticks with infected needles happen frequently and do not lead to infection. I was looking more for someone who deliberately filled a syringe with purified HIV and injected themselves. (I’m not sure what kind of maniac would do that but it is what I was lookin for.)

Thanks again

Testy

[ambushed]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**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**

Sure they are! Haven’t you been reading "true"skeptics’ and Roger_Mexico’s perverse and deeply anti-scientific ravings? For their ridiculous position, there’s really no other way for them to “explain” why every careful and legitimate medical scientist whose specialties are directly relevant are convinced that HIV causes AIDS! Thus they all resort to crackpot conspiracy rants like we’ve repeatedly seen from the denialists like "true"skeptic and Roger_Mexico.

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
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.

Can you cite your evidence, especially that this is “frequent” please?

Originally posted by IzzyR *
** You see examples of this in the medical/nutritional field all the time, the most recent and glaring example being the Atkins Diet.*

WHAT scientific consensus? All I’ve ever read from scientists is that there continues to be great controversy about Atkins’ claims, with much contradictory evidence!

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**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). **

Do you have a cite?!

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**Apparently the counterclaim is that even according to the HIV-causes-AIDS theory, injecting yourself with HIV is extremely unlikely to cause AIDS. **

I don’t think that’s correct. From what I understand, injecting yourself with very small amounts of HIV appears to be somewhat less likely to bring on AIDS within a window of several years, but a significant dose will quite certainly result in AIDS unless the person has the known immunity to HIV mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Scientists have long known that AIDS can have a very long incubation period of many years, which may well explain why this individual has yet to present with AIDS.

[ambushed]

*Originally posted by trueskeptic *
**As others here have guessed, I make a living on my illegal armadillo farm, where I closely follow mrc.org and try to devise ways to coyly expose myself as a conspiracy theorist bent on the clever plan of destroying druggies and gays by supporting the reintroduction of real science into AIDS research, thereby ultimately denying them access to miraculous, life-saving drugs. **

I’m not at all surprised that you’re far too evasive and disingenuous to even answer a simple question thruthfully.

[ambushed]

IzzyR,

Nevermind my request for a cite for the guy allegedly injecting himself with allegedly HIV-infected blood, since I see you’ve already provided some. I’m sure you’d agree, though, that there was nothing scientific or even reasonably credible whatsoever about this!

[ambushed]

*Originally posted by Tommyturtle *
**Jeez…each side in discussion cite their cites and laypersons like me don’t know who to believe…some sound like they make sense then later someone else comes in and says the cite is biased or the study is flawed

How is someone like me to know who’s right?

I DO think the ones who seem so sure the conventional wisdom is correct have an uphill battle simply because if they are correct it seems to ME anyway the evidence should be pretty much 100% on their side **

The evidence IS 100% on the side of legitimate science! These denialists crackpots are very dishonestly relying on obsolete claims which have since been disproved over and over again by far more rigorous and scientifically sound research than anything the denialists have ever done. They’re exactly like creationists and flat-earthers and they rely on exactly the same contemptibly dishonest rhetorical tricks and blatant evasions of mountains of overhwelming evidence against their abusrd, politically-motivated agendas.

[sealamp]

Edwino wrote:
“2003 is not the 1950s. We have much better tools at our disposal, namely the entire field of molecular genetics.”

My point is that it doesn’t take a conspiracy for the scientific community to be barking up the wrong tree. The technology may have changed since the SMON example I provided a link to above, but human nature hasn’t.

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?

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by sealamp *
**Edwino wrote:
“2003 is not the 1950s. We have much better tools at our disposal, namely the entire field of molecular genetics.”

My point is that it doesn’t take a conspiracy for the scientific community to be barking up the wrong tree. The technology may have changed since the SMON example I provided a link to above, but human nature hasn’t.
**

You are comparing apples and oranges: Namely, an incident in one single country which acted in a very isolated fashion with the global community of scientists.

Second, something very drastic has changed in the way we look at diseases: Prions. I doubt there is anyone nowadays willing to categorically rule out the ‘inconceivable’, because chances are that he’ll look like a moron in five years.

Lastly, you are comparing an incident involving technologies that used a whole lot of interpretation with modern genetic and proteomic sequences, which is like saying that because you can’t make sense out of an abstract painting, one should be careful to claim to be able to make sense out of any painting.

[IzzyR]

ambushed,

For their ridiculous position, there’s really no other way for them to “explain” why every careful and legitimate medical scientist whose specialties are directly relevant are convinced that HIV causes AIDS! Thus they all resort to crackpot conspiracy rants like we’ve repeatedly seen from the denialists like "true"skeptic and Roger_Mexico.

Maybe I’ve missed it - I’ve tended to skim many of the posts.

Myself, I don’t consider the possibility that it is a widespread conspiracy or fraud. Nonetheless, there are factors in the AIDS situation that would seem to be conducive to creating unwarranted consensus in the scientific community. These being the widespread publicity and early panic that accompanied the discovery of AIDS. These created pressure on the government and scientific community (which I understand to be somewhat intertwined these days through grants and the like) to DON’T JUST STAND THERE - DO SOMETHING!!! Attributing AIDS to HIV represented doing something, and offered the hope of progress and an eventual treatment and cure. Duesberg et all seem to be trying to fight something with nothing. “Something” has an enormous edge, especially in such circumstances.

And that’s only to get the ball rolling. Once consensus builds there is probably an inertia of sorts; as people go further and further down the beaten path it becomes harder and harder to toss out everything that has previously been done and start from scratch with new assumptions. Plus, as people like Duesberg and Mullis become increasingly demonized, it becomes easier and easier to dismiss them with a wave of the hand as obscure nutcases.

Having said all that, if I had to bet my house one way or the other you can be sure that I am going to go with the HIV theory. My argument here is that the mere fact of widespread scientific consensus, while certainly establishing the baseline view, is less than completely compelling.

Can you cite your evidence, especially that this is “frequent” please?

Well I cited Atkins, Edwino added hormone replacement therapy. I would also add the widespread promotion of various early-cancer detection tests, which increasingly seem to have been useless or harmful, according to recent studies. Much of the early (and widely publicized) conventional wisdom about cholesterol was based on incorrect or incomplete understanding. And so on.

WHAT scientific consensus? All I’ve ever read from scientists is that there continues to be great controversy about Atkins’ claims, with much contradictory evidence!

Within the past year or so there have been multiple studies which have consistently supported Atkins and undercut his detractors. This is not to say that every last one of his detractors have gone away, but scientific consensus is clearly shifting on this issue.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**
And that’s only to get the ball rolling. Once consensus builds there is probably an inertia of sorts; as people go further and further down the beaten path it becomes harder and harder to toss out everything that has previously been done and start from scratch with new assumptions. Plus, as people like Duesberg and Mullis become increasingly demonized, it becomes easier and easier to dismiss them with a wave of the hand as obscure nutcases.
**

The last such ‘nutcase’ just got the Nobel prize a few years ago. Sorry, but the “Help, help, I am being suppressed!” line doesn’t work. It’s old and people are real tired of hearing it. If Stanley Prusiner can push through against the establishment, so can Duesberg. The premise is, of course, that he has data to back up his claims.

[Roger_Mexico]

*Originally posted by OliverH *
**In other words, you cited it without any evidence of its veracity or actual existence.

Because it isn’t human?

So? What’s that supposed to show?
That the virus can survive in other species, at least in fragments?

Thanks, I hold a degree in chemistry. And you see, we’re not talking about molecules here, and if anything beyond a molecule is too complex for you to understand, I would suggest you stick to issues you can tackle.

Yes, your conduct is unscientific. Most prominently your all too willing acceptance of alleged court-cases without any proof as to their existence, without expertise in the legal system they allegedly happened in, and as such no expertise to even judge the probability of veracity. You used data the confidence of which you had no means of assessing, and which you knew you had gathered from biased sources. That IS unscientific to the extreme. **

So proteins are not molecules? Looks like you need to take Chemistry 101 again. The presence of antibodies to p24 in dogs shows that the HIV test is bogus. That should be obvious to you, even though you are apparently unaware that antibodies and proteins are molecules. The German court case definitely exists and is definitely relevant to the discussion, regardless of the quality of the translation of the article it was cited in. You said you were going to walk over to the court house and look it up? Well, please enlighten us.

If anyone has demonstrated unscientific bias, it is those who are unwilling to respond rationally to the scientific objections to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis.
Enough information has been posted here to cast doubt on the official version. And your irrational attacks only demonstrate the process by which premature consensus was initially arrived at.

We should change the name to the WMD virus. We know it’s here somewhere, and our intelligence is darn good!

“The failures of the past 15 years are fairly and squarely affixed to the five Montagnier and Gallo 1983 & 84 Science papers. That the titles of three of these papers contain the word “isolation”, and yet no such evidence was presented, must stand as a memorial to the demise of editorial integrity. The dissident cases - that HIV does not exist (Eleopulos), or, if it does exist, it does not cause AIDS (Eleopulos/Duesberg) - ultimately imply there will be devastating outcomes in terms of scientific credibility, including the failure of peer review, the demise of reputations of many experts and non-experts, the challenge to citizens’ trust in governmental, scientific and medical leaders, as well as an uncertain period of ignominy for the medical profession as a whole. Weaving a just resolution through this maze of socio-medico-legal bedlam will require the utmost perspicacity and tenacity from political leaders.”

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/HIVnotAIDS3.html

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by Roger_Mexico *
**So proteins are not molecules? Looks like you need to take Chemistry 101 again. **

Looks like you need to learn some basic literacy, cause I never said anything to the contrary. It’s just that viri don’t consist of one single protein.

**
The presence of antibodies to p24 in dogs shows that the HIV test is bogus. That should be obvious to you, even though you are apparently unaware that antibodies and proteins are molecules.**

Funny that it’s so obvious if you can’t explain how.

**
The German court case definitely exists and is definitely relevant to the discussion, regardless of the quality of the translation of the article it was cited in. You said you were going to walk over to the court house and look it up? Well, please enlighten us.
**

It is funny that it is relevant for whichever discussion it is cited in, regardless of the topic. Yes, I’ll go over there, as soon as my work schedule allows it.

**
If anyone has demonstrated unscientific bias, it is those who are unwilling to respond rationally to the scientific objections to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis.
Enough information has been posted here to cast doubt on the official version. And your irrational attacks only demonstrate the process by which premature consensus was initially arrived at. **

Irrational attacks why? Because you don’t like them? You haven’t been able to debunk a SINGLE ONE of my points, instead have been raising empty claims that you cannot even substantiate when asked to do so.

It is telling that you try to defend your citation of the court case, despite the fact that the way you brought it up lacks any and all justification. Quite obviously, the only criteria you accept for credibility are ‘confirms my opinion’ and ‘I like it’. 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.