Commies! No, Negroes! Wait a second: Al-Qaeda! Shit. What’s the right answer?
Wow - lots of homos in Africa these days…
:rolleyes:
Esprix
Which explains why South Africa’s government has been standing in the way of all efforts to provide more aid?
(Piltdown was a poor example because the majority of paleontologists never accepted it. Galileo is a poor example because he was not voted down (except to the extent that he actually was in error) by any scientific voices.)
BTW:
The thread was moved because it was incorrectly placed in the Forum for discussions of Staff Reports and there is no Staff Report on the topic. It is, therefore, regardless of Dex’s personal views inappropriate for the Forum on Staff Reports. (And claiming that their should have been such a report ignores the salient fact that such reports are created from the overflow to Cecil’s in-box, and the lack of a report may indicate nothing more than that Cecil has not been the recipient of the question.)
I shudder to think that you consider your cries of “Straw man” and “Not mainstream” to be “points.”
Re: other probable causes of AIDS, here is a good place to start. In case you’re interested.
Interesting theory, Bosda. I like these genetic bottleneck theories about human evolution. Only one problem: they found 0% incidence of the delta 32 gene in India and East Asia, where plague has been endemic for thousands of years. You would think that there would be a high incidence of delta 32 in E. Asia due to survivors of the plague. Supposedly the plague reached Europe from Asia via the Silk Road, Crimea, and Genoa. Is it possibly a different strain of Y. pestis that infected Europe?
Thabo Mbeki is taking all sorts of heat for not doing the easy thing, and you seem unable to come up with any reason for him to do so. Here’s one: dosing people with toxins to cure an imaginary disease may be a bad idea.
This statement is so mistaken and bizarre it’s hard to know where to begin. So I won’t. Suffice to say Piltdown was touted by virtually the entire evolutionist community as our ancestor for almost 40 years. If that’s the work of a tiny minority, we’d be most interested in your conspiracy theory. Perhaps the deluded few controlled all the major scientific journals? But that’s a whole new thread.
Uh … where do you think the initial opposition came from? It was the secular academia in general, the Aristotleians, and so on. When they couldn’t shut him up, they dragged the Catholic Church into it … wait, you mean to tell me you’re just now learning this? Obviously, Cecil has not been doing his job.
There was indeed a question on the accuracy of HIV tests. Search for it.
psst, trueskeptic
a “true skeptic” is just as skeptical of the dissenting POV as he/she is of the mainstream POV. The “true skeptic” follows the mass of the evidence to the proper conclusion.
You are not doing this. You are blindly grasping onto the coattails of dissenters, even when the overwhelming mass of evidence demonstrates that the dissenters are wrong. I
I suggest you ask the mods for permission to change your user ID, as the one you currently have is inapt.
Sua
You keep making assertions that are patently and ludicrously false. There was a great deal of controversy and skepticism at the time about the veracity of the Piltdown bones. The discovery fo Piltdown II quieted many of the initial critics, but many were still unconvinced by the fabricated evidence despite a deliberate and involved attempt to scam them.
There should be a staff report on competing theories of AIDS causation. I will request one. But going back to the OP, which was that the HIV test is bogus, I can certainly back up what I said earlier about the circularity between the test and the definition of AIDS.
“When Duesberg challenged the HIV hypothesis in 1987, the epidemiological evidence depended essentially upon a correlation between antibodies to HIV and a diagnosis of AIDS. This was a circular argument since, after 1984, sero_positivity to HIV mandated a diagnosis of AIDS in patients with a scheduled range of diseases, whether or not they were in risk groups. In 1989, a formidable defence of the epidemiological consensus was presented by the Royal Society of London in a Symposium (Cox, Anderson & Hillier, 1989) of invited papers which analysed the epidemic of AIDS to date in the UK and made predictions about its incidence through 1992. These analyses and predictions, like those of a preceding official Report (UK Dept. of Health and the Welsh Office, 1988), rested upon assumptions not only that HIV was the essential cause of AIDS in all its forms but also that all who were sero_positive would get AIDS which would then cause epidemics of tens of thousands of cases by heterosexual transmission in the general population of the UK.”
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/gsgenetica.htm
One alternative hypothesis of AIDS causation is the Drug-AIDS hypothesis, advanced chiefly by Duesburg:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrdrugaids.htm
Duesburg is no crackpot, and contibuted much to the field of retroviruses, the class of virus which HIV belongs to.
"Duesberg’s work was a giant step for the field of retrovirology. The field grew rapidly, and Duesberg was one of the kings. Through this work, Duesberg was also able to map the structure of certain
oncogenes, genes believed to cause cancer. For this work he was inducted into the National Academy of Sciences, a prestigious club of scientists who serve as an advisory board to the president of the
United States. Being a member of such an elite club helps ensure funding, and somewhat guarantees publishing privileges in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Impressed with his work, the National Cancer Institute, under the National Institutes of Health, the primary funding body of all medical research, awarded Duesberg an Outstanding Investigative Grant-one of a handful awarded by the NIH, a high honor for any researcher."
http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/pubs/prism/may95/hiva.htm
Duesburg’s ideas are very good, and present a valid scientific challenge to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. I really don’t understand the ignorant knee-jerk reactions you get when you question the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. Another issue that should not be overlooked is Gallo’s unscientific and unethical behavior in trying to nail down the patent for the HIV test:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/jcpatent.htm
http://www.aegis.com/law/journals/1995/GALLO003.html
More about the bogus correlation between HIV and AIDS:
"The 100% correlation between HIV and AIDS is an artefact of the definition of AIDS. AIDS is not a disease but a categorization of previously known diseases and conditions all of which have well established causes that have nothing to do with HIV. For example,
tuberculosis is caused by the tubercule bacillus, Mycobacteria tuberculosis. TB is a serious health threat to impoverished people and nations and takes the lives of millions of people worldwide every year. TB existed prior to its inclusion as an AIDS-defining illness in 1987 and prior to the 1900s.
Since 1987, people with TB who test positive on an “HIV test” will recieve a diagnosis of AIDS, while people with TB who test negative will receive a diagnosis of TB. This same criteria for AIDS applies to the other 27 AIDS-defining illnesses.
To further clarify, cervical cancer and candida are AIDS-defining illnesses that are commonly found among people in various non-AIDS risk groups. I’m not sure of cervical cancer stats, but about 30% of all Americans are thought to suffer from chronic candida (John Hightower, MD “The Yeast Connection”).
Yeast infections in HIV-negative labeled persons are called yeast infections, while the same infection caused by the same condition – a bacterial imbalance – is called AIDS in a person who tests positive. Cervical cancer in a woman who tests positive is AIDS, while the same cancer in a negative-testing woman is cervical cancer.
Since the 28 AIDS-defining illnesses are only defined as AIDS when they happen to people who test HIV positive, it’s clear why there’s a 100% correlation between HIV and AIDS. Diseases called AIDS can only be called AIDS when they happen in someone labeled positive although they can and do occur in people who test negative. This circular logic renders the argument “HIV causes AIDS because it’s present in 100% of AIDS cases” meaningless."
Incorrect reasoning, Mex.
Mutations appear randomly , not where they’re needed.
If no delta 23 mutation randomly occurred in East Asia, then it won’t appear there until croos breeding carries the gene east.
Contrarywise, delta 23 was no benefit to Europeans until the Black Death, and now HIV, showed up.
I had the extreme “privilege” of hearing Dr. Duesberg speak at graduate school several years ago. If he was putting his best data forward, then there is no way that he is right. Any self-respecting high school science student could see the flaws in his data. For example, his primary evidence was a graph showing that over the past twenty years the use of drugs (in particular “poppers” among male homosexuals) has increased, and (OMG!) so has AIDS. Therefore poppers cause AIDS. During the question and answer session one of the virologists in the audience wisely pointed out that one could easily show the same correlation with home computer usage, but that doesn’t mean that microsoft is to blame for AIDS.
Mullis is a one-trick pony crackpot (read his self-agrandizing book some day) and Duesberg is a dangerous lunatic. I would believe the other side of the issue based on not being on the side of these guys!
Back in the early '80s in the days of GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency), when the initial cases were being followed in homosexual males, there was a flurry of activity to track down the causative agent(s). These included various recreational drugs/substances used in the gay community, as well as other infectious agents commonly infecting gays, such as cytomegalovirus. None of these hypotheses panned out under investigation.
By the way, there is an extraordinarily good correlation between a doubter claiming his work is being suppressed by the scientific community, and the likelihood that the doubter is a flaming quack.
We see this all the time in the promotion of various alternative drugs and therapies, i.e. for cancer.
You misspelled “shitty.”
OK Roger_Mexico and trueskeptic.
Both of you have brought it up: cervical cancer/TB/candidiasis by itself is just cervical CA/TB/candidiasis. CC/TB/C with HIV is AIDS.
First a word about AIDS-defining infections. Many of them (pneumocystis pneumonia or PCP, Kaposi’s, toxoplasmosis, cryptococcal meningitis) are next-to-never seen in immunocompotent people. Even candidiasis is never seen as floridly as in AIDS. It is even given a special name (IIRC), oral hairy leukoplakia. TB is an interesting case. It is surely endemic around the planet, but the vast majority of people who are infected with TB (I convert a TB test, so I have been infected) encapsulate the mycobacteria in a lymph node and never develop active TB. The chance of converting to active TB stands at IIRC 20% over a lifetime for HIV- individuals. For HIV+, this goes up to 20% per year.
Secondly, there is a direct link with the HIV-induced diminishment of CD4+ T-cells and the opportunistic infection. I am not really sure of the diagnostic criteria out there, but one would probably assume someone with cervical cancer or candidiasis or active TB and is known HIV+ and noncompliant on meds has probably developed AIDS. But the second step, at least in the USA, would be to test the viral load and the CD4+ T-cell count. And if that person is still immunocompotent by T-cell count (>200), that person doesn’t have AIDS.
trueskeptic: If AIDS is “relegated mostly to a certain group”, then please explain why 54% (i.e. ‘most’; see ref. 1) of annual new infections in the United States are estimated to occur in people of African descent. That is, since you have already covered why AIDS is mostly a gay disease, I would like you to explain why it is also a black disease (with respect to new infections; there are more current AIDS cases among whites than blacks, but the latter are still disproportionately represented).
I’m asking this because it’s generally more difficult to defend an argument based on race than one based on sexual orientation. Arguments fundamentally based on prejudice are rather more transparent when made about race than about sexual orientation, where prejudice is still widely acceptable.
On PCR and Kary Mullis:
The actual observed error rates in PCR range between 2.1 x 10^-4 to 1.6 x 10^-6 (2), depending on the polymerase used. The original Taq polymerase from Thermophilus aquaticus has been largely superseded by polymerases with higher fidelity rates where high fidelity is necessary. The probability against generating the HIV or O.J. Simpson genome by random error (or even a smaller sequence like an HIV antibody) is incalculably large.
Kary Mullis is rather a strange person, to say the least. He inexplicably spent his Nobel prize award within a few years, and, if I recall correctly, supports himself mostly with book royalties and speaking engagements. He has sort of the image of a ‘rebel scientist’, which probably explains why he supports the theory that AIDS is not caused by HIV. Incidentally, Mullis is not a virologist, immunologist or epidemiologist; he is about as qualified to speak about HIV/AIDS as Linus Pauling was to speak about Vitamin C and the common cold.
The definition of AIDS
The current CDC definition of HIV infection has been in place since 1999, and may be found here. Note that both virological (checking for the presence of viral material) and immunological (checking for antibodies) testing is possible.
The definition of AIDS consists of an HIV-positive status, as defined above, and either a low CD4+ T-lymphocyte count/percentage or a diagnosis of one or more of 26 clinical conditions considered to be opportunistic.
Note that the 26 diseases on the list are either extremely uncommon among non-immunocompromised individuals (e.g. Kaposi’s sarcoma) or have special conditions to differentiate them from diseases which occur in those with intact immune systems (e.g. recurrent pneumonia, invasive cervical cancer). I’ve seen the argument about cervical cancer used before; if you read the link above carefully, you’ll see that the type of cervical cancer related to AIDS diagnosis is quite specifically a preventable form occuring in immunocompromised individuals.
Thus, AIDS is not a disease of definition. It requires either the observation of an opportunistic disease or a very low CD4+ lymphocyte count. The reduction of a certain type of lymphocyte implies a viral causative agent which attacks CD4+ lymphocytes specifically, not a purported general immunosuppression “caused by anal sex”.
Nor by recreational drugs, for that matter. Both “recreational drugs cause AIDS” and “gay sex causes AIDS” are obviously moralistic beliefs, tantamount to the belief that “demonic possession causes AIDS”.
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm
(2) http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~pnh/papers/TIBS/aug95.html, and references therein.
raises an eyebrow
Listen… even if someone published multiple peer-reviewed papers stating clearly that anal sex caused or contributed to the contraction of AIDS, it still doesn’t make AIDS a gay disease. Plenty of people on both sides of the gender line go at the sodomy like crazed teenagers. Whats more, they have for centuries. Obviously for most of that time a person with AIDS or HIV would’ve just died with very little study done as to the cause, but surely we would’ve picked up on something being wrong in some people before the late 70s/early 80s (forget when the first possible case was noted exactly) rolled around! Some doctor would’ve published some kind of teensy study about this curious condition, or mentioned it around to his colleagues for discussion.
Anal sex, after all, was surely being done pretty often behind the white picket fences of the 50s and early 60s Lucys and Rickys, not to mention the gay community was also around back then.
Also on Kary Mullis…
First, a quote from a discussion of Mullis from: HIV, AIDS, and the Distortion of Science
Let’s remember also that this famed denialist – or “skeptic” (according to "true"skeptic) – firmly believes in alien abductions and in magical extradimensional travel on the “astral plane”.
Yep, that’s some kind of “skeptic”, all right. A skeptic of reality.
trueskeptic, you’re no skeptic at all (is that you, “Elder” Death?) You and Roger_Mexico aren’t skeptics and you aren’t dissenters: you’re simply deniers of fact and of the conclusive evidence that HIV causes AIDS.
Denialists such as yourselves merely play at science, and you play at it poorly. You don’t actually employ it honestly. Among your games are: using evidence very selectively; ignoring counter-evidence; picking and choosing statements and misstatements made by a one or two researchers which don’t accurately reflect the scientific concensus; using long-debunked arguments; making bald assertions contrary to fact (i.e., lying), etc.
I have no objection at all to considering rival hypotheses or theories if the research behind them is intellectually honest and meets appropriate standards for quality of evidence. The AIDS denialists such as yourselves and those you have cited simply have not achieved such standards. We true skeptics don’t have to be puppets to official orthodoxy to know that HIV causes AIDS and that the counter-evidence is disingenuous, pathetically weak, and highly misleading.
Cites? You want cites? You got 'em!
Answering the AIDS Denialists: CD4 (T-Cell) Counts, and Viral Load
Answering the AIDS Denialists: AIDS Treatment Improves Survival
Answering the AIDS Denialists: Is AIDS Real?
HIV, AIDS, and the Distortion of Science
The Controversy over HIV and AIDS (AAAS articles address deniers’ arguments at length, particularly Duesberg’s)
The Relationship Between the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
MACS and WIHS Studies Provide Overwhelming Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS
HIV, AIDS and the reappearance of an old myth
Dissident Scientists and Government Conspiracies: A Look at Alternative AIDS Theories
Proof Positive: How African Science Has Demonstrated That HIV Causes AIDS
South Africa HIV dispute: Time to Stop and Think
A Step Back in Time: AIDS Dissenters Cannot Delete 20 Years of Research and Experience
HIV Causes AIDS: Proof Derived from Koch’s Postulates
AIDS Denialists Hype – When junk science turns lethal
Bad science: They once thought HIV was harmless. Now, they say, AIDS has forced them to reconsider.
On not using condoms: AIDS denialists, not dissenters
HIV Doesn’t Cause AIDS? Who Says?
Tails Between Their Legs: AIDS Denialists Lose Ground
HIV is the Only Cause of AIDS: The Potential for Journalism to Impact the Public Health
THE AIDS HERESIES: A Case Study in Skepticism Taken Too Far
The bizarre desperation of denialists would simply be amusing if it weren’t for the fact that their fear and hatred of honesty and scientific integrity is actually KILLING PEOPLE! There’s no small amount of blood on the denialists’ hands, "true"skeptic!
What on earth are the immune-system-destroying effects of anal sex? I’m feeling fine. (And so is she.) The virus is simply spread by exchanging body fluids. Unprotected anal sex is one risk, sharing a needel is another. Of course certain groups are more at risk because of their behavior. So are smokers more at risk for lung cancer.
Why I criticized Skepticos comment is that pointing out that a lot of the patients are gay adds nothing to the question discussed here. It’s simply looking for someone to blame.
See! Intelligent and rational analysis of the “HIV != AIDS” claims. I told you we could do it.
I agree that most of the Denialists are iffy, if not outright crackpots. But what about the idea that HIV is normally present in the human population at low levels? That argument would suggest that cases of AIDS are caused by HIV, but having HIV in the body alone doesn’t necessarily cause AIDS.
There are plenty of diseases that are caused by commonly non-pathological bacteria and viruses that run amuck for some reason – might AIDS be one of them?
T. Mehr: It’s been shown that introducing foreign proteins directly into the bloodstream impairs immune functioning. Anal sex is especially good at delivering foreign proteins into the bloodstream – unless condoms are worn, of course.
And historically anal sex has also been associated with popper use, which further impairs the immune system.