"Conversations with Joan McKenna, a Berkeley physiologist, and Joseph Sonnabend, a New York physician, led me to comfortable ground. They considered AIDS to result from a variety of factors, which perfectly fit the various risk profiles that characterize nearly all AIDS patients: gay men in the “fast lane,” impoverished residents of developing nations, hemophiliacs, etc. Shifting to multiple, combined cases of immune suppression was a psychologically satisfying alternative to the failed hypothesis that pointed to a single cause, HIV. I remained comfortably among the ranks of the multi-factorialists for about five years. Although I did think that malnutrition could cause AIDS by itself, I resisted Duesberg’s proposal that street drugs, AZT, and clotting factor therapy could as well. Such a claim seemed as over-simplified as the HIV theory. However, Peter’s relentless logic and superb arguments eventually eroded my skepticism: for three years now I have become evermore convinced that he is right.
“It has taken me 15 years of curiosity, acceptance, doubt, study, understanding, new doubt, followed by new understanding, to come to terms with HIV/AIDS–and I’m a scientist, able to plow through the intimidating technical literature. No wonder the public has bought the contagious AIDS theory. The truth is guarded by experts and hidden by a thick forest of jargon, credentials, and all those papers. The fraud, incompetence and outright lies produced by the cult of HIV have already been documented.”
Another conveniently ignored fact is that AIDS is mainly a gay disease:
Cumulative Cases by Exposure Category (USA, through 2001):
Men who have sex with men 368,971
Injecting Drug Use 201,326
Men who have sex with men and inject drugs 51,293
Heterosexual contact 90,131
Looking at the raw numbers, it seems that 368,971 is four times as much as 90,131. But considering the TOTAL population of gay men vs heterosexuals, the truth is that gay men are much, MUCH more likely (much greater than just 4 times) to have AIDS than heterosexuals. Also consider that the sexual classification was provided by the patients themselves, and many in the “heterosexual” class are probably miscategorized (i.e. gay men lying to the doc).
The cite given above is not from some crackpot, but from the CDC itself - part of the NIH establishment - gasp!
There was also an european study showing that, statistically, a man would have to have around 500 vaginal intercourses with an HIV infected woman before he’d contract HIV (they collected data from prostitutes). (Sorry, I cannot find the cite at this moment).
David Rasnick has 4 papers when you search for his name and HIV in PubMed. One of them is on the HIV protease. The others are with Duesberg and pals about the HIV/AIDS conspiracy.
Broadening the search reveals a reasonable publication record, mostly focused on aneuploidy (and many collaborative papers here with Duesberg). This is Duesberg and Rasnick’s apparent primary field. There are a few publications on proteases in other species. Your phrasing makes it sound like he developed the HIV protease inhibitors. He did nothing of the sort, as far as I’m aware He is just one scientist who researched proteases. Again, argument from authority. Aren’t you going to address the multitude who signed the Durban Declaration?
I admitted that medicine is based on pragmatism. But I don’t think it falls to the level of circular reasoning. Let’s take it apart. 1) The vast majority of people who will develop the clinical picture of AIDS are HIV+. 2) The vast majority of people who are HIV+ will eventually, without antiretroviral therapy, develop the clinical picture of AIDS. 3) There is a small population of people with an AIDS-like clinical picture who are HIV-. and a small population who are HIV+ but have never developed AIDS, but the nature of HIV would lead us to predict this. 4) In all likelihood, HIV has a causitive role in AIDS. There is no circular reasoning here.
Let’s take #3 apart, as it is the HIV-deniers main ammunition. The anti-HIV people claim around 5000 people reported in the medical literature who have developed an AIDS-like clinical picture while being HIV-. This is a strikingly small number considering the total world population with AIDS (and this doesn’t even count the people who have died from AIDS opportunistic infections). No one has ever ruled out other illnesses that can cause an AIDS-like picture without HIV, and no one has ever said that all cases of acquired immune deficiency (or late presenting congenital immune deficiency) must depend on HIV infection, so I don’t see how this is particularly good ammunition. The converse, where there are many HIV+ people who never develop AIDS (long term nonresponders), has led to wide study of the cytokine receptors on the macrophage which HIV uses for infection. There are a number of well characterized polymorphisms in these that cause either partial or full resistance to HIV infection. So this does not diminish from the HIV/AIDS hypothesis either.
In the vast majority of cases, if one diminishes the HIV infection, the AIDS clinical picture resolves. If one discontinues therapy (or if the mutagenic virus develops resistance), the AIDS clinical picture returns.
Theories and paradigms will be assembled, disassembled and re-constructed as the available evidence dictates, especially in an evolving field like medicine where perfect information and perfect paradigms are an illusion and theoretical constructs are often incomplete by their nature. Science may be a cumbersome process, but it’s not a conspiracy and the tired paranoid natterings above do little to add gravitas to the contrarian arguments. Whether it’s a trigger or a incipient lever in a more complex process, the relationship of HIV and AIDS has both a pragmatic and categorical context as aptly illustrated by Edwino.
If you’re going to jump around shouting that the categorical HIV-AIDS paradigmatic context is possibly imperfectly understood many scientists will bob their heads up and down like pistons in agreement. If your argument is that the presence of HIV does not “cause” AIDS in a pragmatic symptomatic sense most scientists will look at you like you are the village idiot.
But a scapegoat must be found. The question is, which is the correct scapegoat? Is it a retrovirus no one has even isolated to this day?
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.
But a scapegoat must be found. The question is, which is the correct scapegoat? Is it a retrovirus no one has even isolated to this day?
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.
Unfortunately gays might have been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. In an effort to de-stigmatize AIDS, the disease was blamed on a harmless retrovirus, and otherwise healthy gays who tested positive were poisoned and killed by the very meds supposed to save them. So it is important. Were they needlessly killed - or pioneers?
At first you were making some semblance of rhetorical sense even if your sources were weak, now you’re just flinging poo at the walls in the vain hope that something will stick. It’s disappointing.
First, my apologies for almost-double postings. I must be doing something wrong when I do a preview.
The phrasing is as follows: “David Rasnick, protease inhibitor designer.” Does that really sound to you like he discovered them, or is that just a tactic to cast aspersions on me? Ironically, I hope it is the latter; the former would suggest that you tend to parse incorrectly, and all that entails regarding the fruitfulness of our discussion. I had hoped we could avoid such nastiness in the search for the truth.
How many papers do you need?
Almost everyone argues from authority, in a reasonable sense. Few of us would check the speed of light ourselves, or build rockets to the moon. The question is whether the argument holds water in light of the data. HIV=AIDS doesn’t seem to, but we’ll see. 2) Majority is a poor measure of who is right. See Piltdown Man, and Galileo’s secular enemies who tried to uphold the Ptolemaic model. More fruitful to ask why there is a majority. Answer: money. Those who oppose the dogma cannot get the mounds of money the others do. So why not bask in the comfort of believing what your fellow scientists do, and take the money? 3) No one here has addressed the few dissenters with any success. For example, let’s see your argument:
Now Mexico has explained this, but you still ignore it. AIDS has been defined as one of 30-odd already known conditions PLUS a positive HIV test (which can result from over 60 other conditions). In other words, cervical cancer+HIV positive=AIDS; cervical cancer+HIV negative=not AIDS. So this claim is itself at least ovoid, if not completely circular.
This is unprovable. And since the definition is circular (see 1), we profit nothing.
This was not predicted at all. It’s an observation which led to the alleged “prediction”, causing us to posit all kinds of supernatural powers to HIV.
Since AIDS has not blossomed into the apocalyptic heterosexual plague that was predicted, in in all likelihood HIV is not a cause, since it has not been shown to be cytotoxic.
If you count “AIDS in Africa”, which is diagnosed using a different standard altogether - mostly without the HIV test. Strangely, the symptoms are identical to those of diseases of poverty … now let’s think this through. “Help me, I’m poor” - no money. “I have AIDS” - here’s billions of dollars. Which one would your government choose?
Or another. “AIDS has nothing to do with behavior” or “Seems to have something to do with drug use and/or unsafe sexual practices” … which would you choose to announce?
Your replacement strawman is even less substantial than the first one. What mainstream AIDS researchers earth support this absurd contention? There may be open questions about the specific mechanisms of AIDS virology, but these silly, bordering on non-sensical, strawmen you keep erecting as representative of informed, mainstream scientific opinions about HIV and AIDS do little for your credibility or argument.
Thanks for your reasoned rebuttal :o We still haven’t heard your objections to that theory, which you simply write off as “Straw man”.
Also, let me disabuse anyone else of my concern for whether a view is “mainstream”: think “Piltdown Man.”
Truth is not decided by majority. Think “Nazi Germany.” Think “Galileo”. Think. Think. At least edwino has made an effort to answer some arguments.
Or let me write your reply for you:
Just a minor point. There are plenty of HIV tests out there that don’t use PCR. Western Blotting has been mentioned, which looks at proteins. In our lab, we also use a bDNA test, which involves signal amplification rather than target amplification.
"In the Western Blot the proteins are placed separately on a strip so it is possible to see which of the ten bands the patient’s serum will react. … Not all ten bands have to be positive in order for a person to be considered, “HIV positive”, however, and the combinations needed vary greatly from country to country. This fact alone sounds suspicious, **but this is only the beginning. **
Proffitt et al. describe the inconsistent guidelines for the reading of the Western Blot test:
Indeed, not even the interpretation guidelines in the brochures of each FDA-licensed manufacturer of HIV Western Blots are the same. However, the majority of the laboratories have accepted the recommendations of the ASTPHLD. … ( Proffitt 1993, page 208)
This first comment hardly inspires confidence that these interpretations are based on sound scientific principles, and explains why different countries have widely varying criteria for how to decide when a test is “positive” and when it is “indeterminate”. The most disturbing evidence they cite, however, is the rate of indeterminates that appear for Western Blots, even when the ELISA is negative. …
Problems may be encountered when an HIV Western Blot is done on someone at no identifiable risk of infection. For example, recent studies of blood donors in whom no risk of HIV infection could be ascertained, who were nonreactive on the ELISA, and for whom all other tests for HIV were negative, revealed that 20% to 40% might have an indeterminate Western Blot… (Proffitt 1993, page 209)
This means that any one of us, if given a Western Blot HIV antibody test, will have a 20% to 40% chance of having our serum react with proteins that are supposedly specific to HIV! Such a high rate of indeterminates on a test that supposedly determines life or death issues is outragiously high …"
You need to concentrate less on making my points for me and more on constructing a more cogent argument. Waving the Piltdown Man scam and Galieo’s political problems around as evidence that we need to be open minded about alternative explanations is fine so long as you are bringing something to the table other than handwaving.
With respect to this tidbit, possibly I’ve missed something momentous is in current AIDS research but I can’t recall any AIDS researcher putting forth the contention that there is not a direct and exceedingly obvious causal link between the body fluid swapping that can occur during anal sex and the possible tranmission of HIV.
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.