Slashdot Mirror

"The problem with the global warming enthusiasts is their monomanic focus on western "life-style" issues is that they are concentrating on areas that, even if implemented, will have little or no effect on the issue at hand, namely warming. This focus seems to come from the standard left-leaning political camp where all problems are caused by western consumers, and all solutions are centered around decreasing our standards of living."

I think that's a pretty gross generalization. I know most people who deny climate change think it's some sort of grand communist conspiracy amongst the liberal scientists who want to send us back to living in Teepees, pooping in holes, etc.

And if you don't believe in global warming, it's real easy to find a bunch of ignorant hippies to make fun of for trying to recycle their sandals - and, yes, some of them probably WOULD like to go back to living in Teepees.

But it seems to me that the scientists I know are more interested in figuring out how to continue living the way we do in a sustainable way while at the same time saving lives and reducing our energy dependence on countries run by "people who don't like us".

The scientific consensus for global warming is overwhelming. I always get a laugh when someone posts a link to some article purporting to show climate change isn't really happening. Climatologists have thought of all these things, trust me. When you spend 6 years getting a PhD in something you tend have a lot of time to work out all the possibilities. While there is no controversy anymore, you will always be able to find people (even scientists) who disagree.
For example, AIDS is not caused by a virus.
  http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/controversy.htm
Look at that list of scientists! Clearly the debate is still out on this one as well. One of the things that people often do in the media who deny climate change is to frame it as a debate. They often name "actual scientists" who doubt global warming.
It's real easy, you just get a list of important sounding people and come up with a couple of reasonable (on the surface) sounding arguments and the general public can be fooled into thinking anything is a debate.

On the other hand ....

CC.

Oh, here's some Mullis for you too.

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/books.htm

Here are some books that explain the position. Complex arguments cannot always be explained in soundbite analysis.

Good questions. You could try reading this for more info:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

It's a complex issue - good luck, and thanks for not being rude!

To be honest that would be ok. I wouldn't die. A doctor once did this on Spanish TV 5 years ago and he's perfectly alright. I know that will sound crazy to you.

Try reading this:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

Mmm, 'nother rude one.

HIV does NOT satisfy Koch's postulates without a circular argument that is subtle but very evident in the reasoning. I doubt you've had the correct training to actually realise this though. I have an extensive training in public health experiments - things are much more subtle than you realise - and an IQ of 154.

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

Absolutely not. I'm an committed atheist and not an idiot.

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

Your argument is circular and unscientific.

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

AIDS seems likely to be caused by many 'lifestyle' choices. Particularly exsessive drug taking (such as methyl and ethyl nitrates).

You could read this for more information.

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

And, thanks, I am pretty smart.

Debilo - thanks for your open minded response. If you give the following link a good read and think I think you will see why there are problems with the hypothesis. Dr Robert Gallo essentially hijacked the research with a non-peer reviewed hypothesis which became mainstream overnight by the NYT.

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

Well among the crackpots are Kary Mullis, who won a nobel prize for inventing the polymerase chain reaction (used for "viral load" calculations), and David Rasnick, who makes protease inhibitors (an HIV therapy).

So you see, even the people whose research forms the core of the HIV/AIDS theory are claiming that their work is being misused.

Some other dissenters, as per http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data2/citations.htm

Dr. Charles Thomas, former Harvard and Johns Hopkins Professor
Dr. Roger Cunningham, Director of the Centre for Immunology at SUNY Buffalo
Dr. Richard Strohman, former (emeritus) professor of UC Berkeley
Dr. Alfred Hässig, former (emeritus) professor at the University of Bern
Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, former director of virology at Max-Planck Institutes
Dr. Walter Gilbert, 1980 nobel prize winner in chemistry
Dr. Andrew Herxheimer, former (emeritus) professor at UK Cochrane Centre
Dr. Steven Jonas, medical professor at SUNY Stony Brook
Dr. Etienne de Harven, professor at the University of Toronto
Dr. Harry Rubin, professor at UC Berkeley

I've left out the math professors, the law professors, the science journalists, etc. The people I listed are all in the medical field.

They are just going to kill a harmless little retro-virus.

AIDS is a whole 'nother thing entirely.

http://www.virusmyth.net/

There's an ocean of difference between being thought nuts and being nuts. Challenging conventional thinking practically guarantees the former, in our age of deadly conformity. However, I find no evidence for anything other than solid scientific research in his book. Dr. Batmanghelidj is certainly not alone in questioning orthodox theories about AIDS.

I couldn't help but notice that very few of his papers had anything in them that indicated that they were actually published by a journal other than his own.

The fact that his Foundation chooses to make additional research available under their own banner, in addition to the several papers in independent journals, does not prove it is all hokum. It is not as if peer reviewed journals have a clean slate, given the continual trickle of hoax results (recently Korean Hwang Woo-Suk, Bell Labs' Henrik Schon) so I am not sure that your point is as strong as you may think.

Dr Batmanghelidj was certainly well aware of the disinterest of industry in his findings; imagine if the popular conception that chemicals should be the universal first resort were rejected in favour of treating chronic dehydration as a first step! That his views are commercially unpalatable (like those of AIDS iconoclasts) is hardly commentary on the quality of his research.

I stop to defend the man because I am tired of the same perennial kneejerk "if this guy has the answer why haven't we seen it on CNN?" reactions to any idea that slightly tweaks our age's mental enslavement. Let's ask the two questions: Does he have any kind of medical answer (hundreds of his patients are convinced he does)? And if so, we can move on to the next important question: Why are independent thinkers so carefully hidden from view and meticulously discredited in the public media?

Let people assess it for themselves, try his therapies, and perhaps add to the rather impressive roster of testimonials he offers in his book!

Will people in $10 white lab coats say/do anything for $300,000 of tax money from the N.I.H. ? The mythology of the so-called HIV - which looks like a :cabbage" one day - a "pine tree" the next day, and a "frog" the next. More smoke and mirrors here? An animation yet!

Here's an interview with the supposed discoverer of so-called HIV, Luc Montagnier: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/dtinterviewlm.h tm

On the other hand here's the protocol discussed at the Pasteur Institute (that no one follows?)

"The Rules of Isolation

The rules for isolation of a retrovirus were thoroughly discussed at the Pasteur Institute, Paris, in 1973, and are the logical minimum requirements for establishing the independent existence of HIV. They are:

1.Culture of putatively infected tissue.

2. Purification of specimens by density gradient ultracentrifugation.

3. Electron micrographs of particles exhibiting the morfological characteristics and dimensions (100-120 nm) of retroviral particles at the sucrose (or percoll) density of 1.16 gm/ml and containing nothing else, not even particles of other morphologies or dimensions.

4. Proof that the particles contain reverse transcriptase.

5. Analysis of the particles' proteins and RNA and proof that these are unique.

6. Proof that 1-5 are a property only of putatively infected tissues and can not be induced in control cultures. These are identical cultures, that is, tissues obtained from matched, unhealthy subjects and cultured under identical conditions differing only in that they are not putatively infected with a retrovirus.

7. Proof that the particles are infectious, that is when PURE particles are introduced into an uninfected culture or animal, the identical particle is obtained as shown by repeating steps 1-5.

"

You know the old "scientific method" approach before calling research - scientific

Not so fast. The HIV=AIDS myth is likely the greatest blunder in scientific history. Here is the full text of the NIH document you refer to (which is anonymous and NOT peer reviewed) along with the dissident refutation of each point (with references). Also, do some reading at http://virusmyth.net/ and then comment. (the text below can be also seen at http://www.healtoronto.com/nih/ with diagrams and charts) "The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS", is a document that was created by the Office of Communications and Public Liaison of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/National Institutes of Health (NIAID/NIH): www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm (November 1994, updated on November 29, 2000). It is the most comprehensive document we know of to attempt to answer the many arguments that HIV does not cause AIDS. In the following rebuttal we argue that the NIAID/NIH document is seriously flawed for both failing to respect the standards of scientific discourse and failing to provide credible evidence to support its fundamental claims. Science is normally advanced through publications that: are signed by its authors; include a comprehensive list of citations; include contact information for at least one author; are modifiable only through additional publications (including errata); are open to rebuttal through published letters in the same journal; are peer reviewed; rely largely upon other peer-reviewed literature to back up their assumptions. The NIAID web page has none of these characteristics. On the contrary: it is anonymous; citations are restricted to the protagonist case; it changes occasionally without warning or explanation; it has no forum for those who disagree with parts of it to respond; it gives no information about the review process, if any, used to validate it; prejudges the issue by labelling the dissident case as "myth" and the protagonist case as "fact"; fails to detail the dissident case in the same details as the protagonist case. This rebuttal limits itself to revealing the fallacy of the key assertions made in the NIAID/NIH document: (A) that "HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS"; (B) that "modern culture techniques have allowed the isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all HIV-seropositive individuals" and that a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been clearly identified; (C) that so-called HIV antibody tests, when positive, indicate specific "antibodies that indicate HIV infection." That is, such antibodies are caused by HIV infection and nothing else. Here we present evidence that all the various "HIV tests" (antibody, antigen, PCR (viral load) or by "modern culture techniques") have never been validated by the only possible standard of viral purification, nor has a unique AIDS-causing retrovirus ever been properly identified. Without the unequivocal gold standard of viral purification all the correlations put forward in the NIAID/NIH document as evidence that HIV causes AIDS have no solid foundation. A point of clarification: This rebuttal draws largely on two major critics of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis: Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al. (known as the "Perth Group") and Peter Duesberg. On one essential point they hold fundamentally opposing views; Peter Duesberg accepts the isolation of HIV and the antibody tests as proof of infection (albeit with a harmless passenger virus) while the Perth Group does not. Readers might like to read The Last Debate (1999) which the Perth Group wrote to compare and contrast their views to those of Peter Duesberg. You can find Duesberg's defence of his position here. A/ CLAIMS THAT KOCH'S POSTULATES HAVE BEEN FULFILLED NIAID: "HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS." The following is a short summary showing how HIV fails Koch's Postulates: EPIDEMIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION: Koch's Postulate #1. The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease (NIAID/NIH). NIAID: "..

Well what about this stuff (these guys are respectable, so WTF??): http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/controversy.htm

* Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry:

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document." (Sunday Times (London) 28 nov. 1993)

* Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. Robert Koch Award 1978:

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." (Letter to Süddeutsche Zeitung 2000)

* Dr. Serge Lang, Professor of Mathematics, Yale University:

"I do not regard the causal relationship between HIV and any disease as settled. I have seen considerable evidence that highly improper statistics concerning HIV and AIDS have been passed off as science, and that top members of the scientific establishment have carelessly, if not irresponsible, joined the media in spreading misinformation about the nature of AIDS." (Yale Scientific, Fall 1994)

* Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley:

"It is not proven that AIDS is caused by HIV infection, nor is it proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)

* Dr. Richard Strohman, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley:

"In the old days it was required that a scientist address the possibilities of proving his hypothesis wrong as well as right. Now there's none of that in standard HIV-AIDS program with all its billions of dollars." (Penthouse April 1994)

* Dr. Harvey Bialy, Molecular Biologist, former editor of Bio/Technology and Nature Biotechnology:

"HIV is an ordinary retrovirus. There is nothing about this virus that is unique. Everything that is discovered about HIV has an analogue in other retroviruses that don't cause AIDS. HIV only contains a very small piece of genetic information. There's no way it can do all these elaborate things they say it does." (Spin June 1992)

* Dr. Roger Cunningham, Immunologist, Microbiologist and Director of the Centre for Immunology at the State University of New York at Buffalo:

"Unfortunately, an AIDS 'establishment' seems to have formed that intends to discourage challenges to the dogma on one side and often insists on following discredited ideas on the other." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)

* Dr. Gordon Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Public Health, University of Glasgow:

"AIDS is a behavioural disease. It is multifactorial, brought on by several simultaneous strains on the immune system - drugs, pharmaceutical and recreational, sexually transmitted diseases, multiple viral infections." (Spin June 1992)

* Dr. Alfred Hässig, (1921-1999), former Professor of Immunology at the University of Bern, and former director Swiss Red Cross blood banks:

Category 1:
60.8%: men from unprotected homosexual contact or shared-IV drug usage
7.2%: females engaging in shared-IV drug usage
= 68% idiots

Category 2:
11.9%: men from unprotected heterosexual contact
18.9%: females from unprotected heterosexual contact
= 30.7% people who should be using protection from the idiots in Category 1

And as for Africa (home to 2/3 of the world's AIDS population), there is even more evidence of blatant ignorance, even amongst government officials. The Internet also keeps its share of idiot-run websites denying the link between HIV and AIDS.

I'd say idiots are both the primary cause of AIDS transmission, and are also the disease's primary victims. That's pretty uncontroversial when you look at the evidence.

But I have much more sympathy for the idiots in Africa (who have no chance to get a decent education) than I do for idiots in the U.S. and the industrialized world who know better.

You can read more Kary Mullis stuff here http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

I'm merely quoting a 10k word interview.

Wikipedia doesn't really tell me much: "The normal ligands for this receptor, RANTES, macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-1-beta and MIP-1-alpha, are able to suppress HIV-1 infection in vitro" Ooooooook...

I don't care about it, just a weird bunch of links a friend gave me, I've read the last one. It seemed interesting, so I gave slashdot those links.

What do you say about not sleeping / eating being a reason for immunodeficiency? Just being up 15 hours I can feel my body breaking down.

The only reason I just gave links (which I got from another place) is because not having something good enough written. I've got this, a shitty re-writing from the last link (which is insanely long).

People that have HIV are said to eventually get AIDS, and there was made a treatment for this: AZT. This treatment is the same to cure cancer: the way this works is by killing all cell production in the body, so the cancer breaks down (because it's just a part of your body, cells growing wrong) hopefully before you do. This is essentially what AIDS does, and the AZT treatment is much more intense than for cancer patients.

HIV doesn't really do anything, it's a "retrovirus".

"The retrovirus basically seems to be a squatter virus, it doesn't want to kill anybody in the house, it just wants to move in" *

When you found viruses before, was when you looked for a disease, so that's why it took so long to find HIV.

There's 25 diseases that's been in existance for a long time, which are all clumped into as AIDS.

HIV kills far less cells than what are re-created all the time by the body - 0.1% in a day - during the same time the body has regenerated 30%. Hepatitis kills 100%, flu 30%.

For other diseases, if they can spread by (in most ways), it's basically 50% divided between genders, for AIDS it's 80% males, 20% females. Which he says corresponds to the same percentage as heavy drug users.

It's said HIV takes 10 years to "start working". It's not that for any disease. Either when a doctor doesn't know stuff about a disease, they either say it's "slow to start working" or "kills the immune system", HIV is said to be both. In the interview, he explains the "10 year period" as the amount of time of heavy drug abuse which would be needed to tottally fuck up your body.

"Virtually all heterosexuals with AIDS are long-term cocaine and heroin users. And orally consumed drugs, which includes to some degree cocaine, but mainly the ones that are used by the gays as aphrodisiacs, or to facilitate anal intercourse, like the nitrite inhalants, ethyl-chloride inhalants, Quaaludes, PCP, LSD, Ecstasy, and all of the combinations of things that they're using"

If you're on heavy drugs, then you don't feel the need to sleep or eat - and this is the highest reason for immune deficiency (AIDS) in the world.

There are a lot of other real nasty sexually transmitted diseases - fungus for one, you don't want see illustrations of that.

As for retroviruses:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/tour/step11.htm

http://www.truthbeknown.com/aidslinks.htm

http://www.harmonikireland.com/print.php?topic=HIV

http://curezone.com/dis/1.asp?C0=24

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/bginterview.htm

There are a lot of other real nasty sexually transmitted diseases - fungus for one, you don't want see illustrations of that.

As for retroviruses:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/tour/step11.htm

http://www.truthbeknown.com/aidslinks.htm

http://www.harmonikireland.com/print.php?topic=HIV

http://curezone.com/dis/1.asp?C0=24

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/bginterview.htm

There are a lot of other real nasty sexually transmitted diseases - fungus for one, you don't want see illustrations of that.

As for retroviruses:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/tour/step11.htm

http://www.truthbeknown.com/aidslinks.htm

http://www.harmonikireland.com/print.php?topic=HIV

http://curezone.com/dis/1.asp?C0=24

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/bginterview.htm

The HIV virus has never been isolated, there is at least 2 reward ($20,000: The Huw Christie Memorial Prize and the 1000 The Jody Wells Memorial Prize>)
$20,000 reward for the first person to succeed in doing so.

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classicalvirology."
Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.

PETITION OF SUPPORT

In science, no theory should be immune from challenge, and debate over an issue affecting millions of lives should never be declared over. I support South African President Thabo Mbeki's intention to investigate the definition, causation, treatment and prevention of "AIDS".

The HIV virus has never been isolated, there is at least 2 reward ($20,000: The Huw Christie Memorial Prize and the 1000 The Jody Wells Memorial Prize>)
$20,000 reward for the first person to succeed in doing so.

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classicalvirology."
Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.

PETITION OF SUPPORT

In science, no theory should be immune from challenge, and debate over an issue affecting millions of lives should never be declared over. I support South African President Thabo Mbeki's intention to investigate the definition, causation, treatment and prevention of "AIDS".

The HIV virus has never been isolated, there is at least 2 reward ($20,000: The Huw Christie Memorial Prize and the 1000 The Jody Wells Memorial Prize>)
$20,000 reward for the first person to succeed in doing so.

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classicalvirology."
Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.

PETITION OF SUPPORT

In science, no theory should be immune from challenge, and debate over an issue affecting millions of lives should never be declared over. I support South African President Thabo Mbeki's intention to investigate the definition, causation, treatment and prevention of "AIDS".

The HIV virus has never been isolated, there is at least 2 reward ($20,000: The Huw Christie Memorial Prize and the 1000 The Jody Wells Memorial Prize>)
$20,000 reward for the first person to succeed in doing so.

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classicalvirology."
Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.

PETITION OF SUPPORT

In science, no theory should be immune from challenge, and debate over an issue affecting millions of lives should never be declared over. I support South African President Thabo Mbeki's intention to investigate the definition, causation, treatment and prevention of "AIDS".

"FFS, who was the retard who modded this rot up. "

Why is this rot?

Granted, the folks at Virusmyth http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/group.htm may be charter members of the tin-foil hat brigade or mad about losing money for a pet project or just upset that they're not on somebody's 'A' list. I'm not a biologist, or in a related field, but the articles look reasonable to me.

You could also check out the link provided by irishkev in post #10970546
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131414 &threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=99&tid=14&mode=thre ad&cid=10970546

http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/questioning/ultim ate_question.html

I don't understand why we need this. What's wrong with AZT (besides the fact that it kills everyone who takes it?)

And will the new HIV vaccine also kill everyone who takes it? Just curious.

azt on trial

Interesting, but is it relevant? VIRUSMYTH http://www.virusmyth.net/ has people with some impressive credentials making some interesting claims that HIV and AIDS are not related; and that HIV doesn't exist.

Because HIV is a harmless retrovirus that's been with us for generations and is a scapegoat for bad medicine and chemical poisoning from drugs?

Virus Myth

Just for fun, here's a photo of the virus: http://www.avert.org/pictures/hivvirus6.htm

Interesting, I wonder what the whole "virus isolation" thing is all about. I'm by no way an expert in this field, but it said something to me when noone was able to pick up the cash for the isolation of the virus. Are the requirements for isolating the virus as defined on that page BS or what?

Yeah, its interesting/amusing what gets classified as an epidemic. AIDS is an epidemic where there are ~ 42 million people living with it (tested positive for the HIV virus, not necessarily sick or whatever), and ~ 3.1 million people die from it annually.

TB is _not_ an epidemic, but it infects an estimated 8.7 million people a year and kills 2 million a year despite widespread control efforts.

Some 6600 people have contracted SARS worldwide, and that _is_ an epidemic.

Influenza (flu) is said to be a seasonally epidemic kinda thing where about 20,000 people die a year, but thats not scary enough for the news (although they pushed it last winter in the US a little). Its not too exciting, because most (90%) of the people that die are over 65. It was a "big epidemic" in 1918 when 500,000 people died from it.

AIDS is the best. Its an untreatable/uncurable disease that is supposedly spread by contact with fluids such as blood or sex goo. We've all been told that "AIDS does not discrimiate", but it does! In the US, its mostly black gay men (and some IV drug users) that get it, whereas in Africa its black heterosexual women that get it. After 20 years and I'm guessing millions if not billions of dollars in research have not even provided any kind of explanation of AIDS nor has the virus even been isolated.

here is some more causes of death info, here is more death info. Its interesting because the last link because it puts wars, random human-to-human violence, drowning, traffic accidents, and diarrhea above AIDS.

Also, I belive that suicide is somewhere in the top 20 causes of death _across all age groups_ in the US, but noone cares about that.

Still "potential cure" is a long ways from cure. Last I checked, there were still some Nobel Prize Winners questioning the scientific validity of the theory that HIV is the only cause of AIDS.

You know, your words are so true and so right yet so hard to take seriously from one of the less than 3 individuals in the western world who believes the HIV virus does not cause AIDS.

I don't know why you were modded Insightful, because there was nothing insightful about your post. But I guess I'll feed the troll:

Here is a list of scientists and doctors who are part of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis.

You probably want to read this, then.

But, then, here's the article I've been looking for all day. This has more than enough information that a specific example is not needed: The AIDS Dilemma.

You probably want to read this, then.

But, then, here's the article I've been looking for all day. This has more than enough information that a specific example is not needed: The AIDS Dilemma.

Rather than ask questions, there's a whole site dedicated to this. There are literally hundreds of papers there and links to even more books about the topic. It's not just Duesberg, though he's the loudest. It's dozens of well-respected scientists and biologists.

And this is all explained in one paper by Duesberg: Can Epidemiology Determine Whether Drugs or HIV Cause AIDS? (which was published in a peer-reviewed journal)

Rather than ask questions, there's a whole site dedicated to this. There are literally hundreds of papers there and links to even more books about the topic. It's not just Duesberg, though he's the loudest. It's dozens of well-respected scientists and biologists.

And this is all explained in one paper by Duesberg: Can Epidemiology Determine Whether Drugs or HIV Cause AIDS? (which was published in a peer-reviewed journal)

Peer-reviewed journals? That's all you want?

Enjoy.

(The journal each article was in is at the top of each article's page.)

The short of it is that one egocentric and famous researcher at the NIH said it was "HIV" that caused it and everyone followed his lead.

Duesberg follows another mishap like this (yes! It's happened before!) in Japan where an anti-diarrheal drug was causing, yep, diarrhea! Thirty years later they figured it out. Why? They were looking for a viral cause and not a chemical one. They kept prescribing the drug to people with the symptoms and scratched their heads as they got worse and died. AIDS and AZT prelude.

Scientific specialization is the root of all scientific evils, and this is one more reason why.

And since the top poster was modded down, I'll link to virusmyth.net again. Great site, and it's what started me on the long road to a violent wake up.

That first one, the HIV->AIDS deniers, is scary in a funny way. I've always figured the best way to get rid of the people who offer awards for "proof" that HIV exists is to offer them $50 to sleep with someone who tests HIV positive.

It would be interesting to concoct a related reward for "proof" that Bigfoot exists; although I'm not so sure about the counter-offer, money for sleeping with a sasquatch.

I have a relative who is really into the Bigfoot scene. The Bigfoot believers are quite committed. They make a lot of mistakes because of that, though. What is really interesting to me is how so many of the same thought errors get made in radically different areas of human belief.

Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World is an interesting investigation of the entire phenomenon.

It is a terribly complex mental exercise to absorb all of the information in modern life and make intelligent decisions. The fact is that there are far too many claims to investigate for anybody to examine all of them with the necessary care. So we have to rely on the consensus of experts to make decisions. And the organizations necessary for consensus have the same flaws as all human hierarchal bodies.

Here are some of the various brands of kooky ideas that I have come across:

The AIDS Myth The medical analysis is surprisingly deep. A lot of qualified people have weighed in on this idea.
Carbohydrates not calories. They claim that our genes are still adapting to the modern high-carbohydrate diet, and that is why so many of us are so fat. (Enter Atkins.)
Democracy is not good government
Global Warming. Discussed on Slashdot a number of times
Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare Joe Sobran thinks that the Earl of Oxford wrote everything attributed to Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon.
Race and IQ Probably true, but kooky nonetheless.
Multiregional Evolution You can find most of Wolpoff's papers that are cited here somewhere online. I recommend "Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution" and "Modern Human Ancestry at the Peripheries: A Test of the Replacement Theory." Wolpoff is kooky because there are very few anthropoligists left who will side with the Multiregional theory over the Out of Africa theory. (Wolpoff technically supports an Out of Africa theory, but that is how everyone refers to the debate.)

And here is one that I will actually advocate: Bohmian Mechanics It is about as kooky as you can get for a physicist, but I am convinced that it beats QM on the merits.

I also find it interesting that they use the word vaccine, when nobody really knows if HIV is a virus, or even exists. It's fascinating, but try it...go on google and type, say "polio virus image." You'll find dozens of scanning electron microscope images of the virus itself. Here it is attacking a cell...here it is with a special dye so you can see these structures...etc. Now try it with HIV. "HIV virus image." You'll find pictures of cultures that the author says are infected with HIV, and you'll find artists conceptions of the virus...but no actual virus.

It's never been isolated. It's difficult, but not THAT hard to isolate a virus. Get a culture going, put it in a centrifuge, spin it around, and things will seperate based on their densities. Do this for enough people who you know have the disease, and you'll find the criter they all have in common. Then culture it, and see what antibodies you find. You'd think with the hundreds of billions of dollars we've dumped into HIV research over 20 years, using the brightest minds in medicine, we'd have more than that.

All scientists have ever found are a bunch of non-specific antibodies, and when you test "HIV positive," all they're really saying is that you have several of these antibodies they think might result from HIV infection. None of the HIV tests (elisa, western blot) have ever even been approved by the FDA.

There are many scientists who doubt AIDS is actually caused by a virus, and may be something else entirely. Check virusmyth.net for more information. Also, this interview, with, among others, Dr. Peter Duesberg, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at UC Berkeley, makes some fascinating points about why AIDS may not be caused by a virus.

English probably isn't your favorite language, but it seems you're saying that only Mbeki believes in the AIDS virus?

That is precisely the opposite of what world newspapers claim- Mbeki is often attacked because he denies that HIV causes AIDS, even though all modern doctors have believed this since the 1980s.

Open mindedness is one thing. You are something else. Please stop helping me.

As usual, the response is mockery and invective, not dialog.

With regard to your sig, I happen to know some people who do HIV research. The hard kind, not the bullshit public health kind. They are not liable to be swayed by offers of money or other blandishments from the Eeeevile drug companies. And they are far from stupid.

And I happen to know some people who know that HIV is an orchestrated lie. See, I can make unsubstantiantiated claims, too!

The arguments cited by your web site are unscientific crap, and are getting a bunch of innocent people killed in Africa.

Yet you fail to indicate which arguments are "crap," you just dismiss them all with a sweep of your hand.

Evidence? There's a measurable, linear relationship between HIV virus load and the onset of full blown AIDS.

Are you discussing so-called "viral load"? There is quite a bit of criticism on this subject:

here
here

AIDS appears in the presence of HIV, does not appear in its absence.

You are merely quoting the definition of AIDS. How do you explain an HIV+ child born to two HIV- parents? How do you explain HIV+ children whose HIV mysteriously "goes away" as they get older?

You can even infect experimental animals and they get it. Transgenic mice, for example.

Yet you provide no evidence to back up your claim. Have other primates ever gotten HIV/AIDS?

That is known as Koch's Postulates of Pathogenicity. Look it up, it is the method used to identify and isolate pathogens so drugs can be made to fight them.

Has HIV been isolated? If so, who isolated it?

If your pet web site has anything substantive enough to pay attention to, you'll be able to prove at least one of the postulates

And interesting strategy: Find some criteria unrelated to the criticism and then declare that as reason enough to dismiss all the criticism as irrelevant. Furthermore, the web site is merely a collection of articles that have been written by many different scientists and journalists for many years. Your calling it my "pet" web site is an attempt to paint me as single-source.

If not, time to re-adjust your open mind.

I think, instead, that you should open yours. You've stated in no such uncertain terms that dissenting views of HIV/AIDS are beneath your contempt. Isn't this the very definition of closed-mindedness?

Remember, if you can't measure it, it ain't science.

I agree! I do not think that "HIV==AIDS" is science. I think it is money.

Open mindedness is one thing. You are something else. Please stop helping me.

As usual, the response is mockery and invective, not dialog.

With regard to your sig, I happen to know some people who do HIV research. The hard kind, not the bullshit public health kind. They are not liable to be swayed by offers of money or other blandishments from the Eeeevile drug companies. And they are far from stupid.

And I happen to know some people who know that HIV is an orchestrated lie. See, I can make unsubstantiantiated claims, too!

The arguments cited by your web site are unscientific crap, and are getting a bunch of innocent people killed in Africa.

Yet you fail to indicate which arguments are "crap," you just dismiss them all with a sweep of your hand.

Evidence? There's a measurable, linear relationship between HIV virus load and the onset of full blown AIDS.

Are you discussing so-called "viral load"? There is quite a bit of criticism on this subject:

here
here

AIDS appears in the presence of HIV, does not appear in its absence.

You are merely quoting the definition of AIDS. How do you explain an HIV+ child born to two HIV- parents? How do you explain HIV+ children whose HIV mysteriously "goes away" as they get older?

You can even infect experimental animals and they get it. Transgenic mice, for example.

Yet you provide no evidence to back up your claim. Have other primates ever gotten HIV/AIDS?

That is known as Koch's Postulates of Pathogenicity. Look it up, it is the method used to identify and isolate pathogens so drugs can be made to fight them.

Has HIV been isolated? If so, who isolated it?

If your pet web site has anything substantive enough to pay attention to, you'll be able to prove at least one of the postulates

And interesting strategy: Find some criteria unrelated to the criticism and then declare that as reason enough to dismiss all the criticism as irrelevant. Furthermore, the web site is merely a collection of articles that have been written by many different scientists and journalists for many years. Your calling it my "pet" web site is an attempt to paint me as single-source.

If not, time to re-adjust your open mind.

I think, instead, that you should open yours. You've stated in no such uncertain terms that dissenting views of HIV/AIDS are beneath your contempt. Isn't this the very definition of closed-mindedness?

Remember, if you can't measure it, it ain't science.

I agree! I do not think that "HIV==AIDS" is science. I think it is money.

They aren't rapidly silenced; they were repeatedly rebutted over the years.

I agree; I spoke out of turn. Though "dismissed," I think, is more accurate than "rebutted." I visited the link you posted and it contains statements like these: "These drugs do tend to depress all lymphocyte functions, but long-term users who are not HIV-positive show no signs of long-term declines in CD4 lymphocytes in all the comparative studies which have been performed (Schechter)." Well, which studies, and what, specifically do they say? If you read the Phase II AZT trials, then there is some startling revelations about what those "studies" showed.

Furthermore, Peter Duesberg and others have extensively argued their case in high-impact scientific magazines (Nature, Science, PNAS...).

Again, you are correct. This does not save them from being demonized. There is a quote which I will have to dig deep to find where a AIDS official basically stated, "If we can just through a few of these HIV deniers in jail then we could stop this movement really quickly."

Yes, there are other conditions that cause the immune system to weaken. "What is unusual and new about AIDS, and requires that we classify it as a new syndrome, is the development of immune deficiency as the result of the loss of CD4 lymphocytes in people who would not normally be expected to develop immune deficiency"

So does this mean that we've tested millions of Africans for the loss of CD4 lyphocytes and thus determined that it is AIDS and certainly not the other conditions which are causing their immune systems to weaken? What about the US sufferers of AIDS? The HIV test only tests for "HIV antibodies" and does not measure the level of CD4 lymphocytes.

What are the pandemic patterns you refer to? Some background on your side would be useful too.

I'm arguing that for a disease to be epidemic (which I understand as a worldwide epidemic) then it needs to follow certain criteria. The pattern of AIDS differs widely from Africa to USA to the UK. Does it meet the criteria of pandemic? AIDS was called an "epidemic" in the early 80s in the USA and effectively started the AIDS panic. The number of AIDS cases in the USA hardly makes AIDS an "epidemic," but massive funding ensued nonetheless.

HIV has been found in all the risk groups in which AIDS has appeared

Again, you are correct. If I may backpedal, the number of AIDS cases outside of "high risk groups" is negligable.

and no other factor has been shown to be associated with the distinctive depletion of CD4 lymphocytes in the same way

Again, who's doing the testing for "CD4 lymphocytes"? And who are the subjects?

According to this argument, it is a coincidence that HIV appeared at the same time in these different risk groups, and a coincidence that the presence or absence of HIV can be matched so closely with the development of AIDS in the different risk groups.

What HIV? I'm not convinced it exists.

However, those who accept the association between HIV and AIDS point out that HIV has failed to spread widely amongst heterosexuals in the developed world due to a lack of pathways for the virus.

Why, because heterosexuals don't have multiple sex partners and don't share needles? That's a weak argument.

It doesn't care of course, but cultural differences will naturally cause differences in the epidemics.

Like which cultural differences? People all over the world have sex.

Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have enabled researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few exceptions.

I don't know what a PCR test is, so I can't verify the validity of your claim. I notice that you admit to some exceptions. If these exceptions lead to a false positive, does that mean that the patient will be led to take highly toxic AIDS treatments?

(Bartlett, 1999; Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16).

1. Do you have a URL for this study?

2. Do you know that there is a one thousand pound reward to anyone who can isolate the virus?

Current HIV antibody tests have sensitivity and specificity in excess of 98% and are therefore extremely reliable

98% reliability applies to both those who are HIV- and HIV+. What happens to false positives? They are told they have a fatal disease and must take toxic AIDS therapies until they die from them. There is lots of criticism about the HIV test. Have you read it?

Progress in testing methodology has also enabled detection of viral genetic material, antigens and the virus itself in body fluids and cells.

Is this referring to "viral load"?

As with medications for any serious diseases, antiretroviral drugs can have toxic side effects. However, there is no evidence that antiretroviral drugs cause the severe immunosuppression that typifies AIDS, and abundant evidence that antiretroviral therapy, when used according to established guidelines, can improve the length and quality of life of HIV-infected individuals

I'm glad that you admit to the "toxic side effects" of "antiretroviral drugs" (I believe we were talking about AZT). What are these "toxic side effects," in particular? Isn't one of them "wasting"? Wasn't wasting an alleged side effect of AIDS?

In the 1980s, clinical trials enrolling patients with AIDS found that AZT given as single-drug therapy conferred a modest (and short-lived) survival advantage compared to placebo.

John Lauritsen used FOIA to read the FDA research about the AZT trials. You can find them here and here. I really dislike saying, "Just go read this paper," but I really want to hear your take on his findings.

Not true according to what I read, it occurs mostly in men.

Be more specific. What are the rates of KS among gay men who use poppers as compared to other men?

Because HIV is spread primarily through sex or by the exchange of HIV-contaminated needles during injection-drug use, it is not surprising that a majority of U.S. AIDS cases have occurred in men

What is surprising is that AIDS cases have remained confined to those high-risk groups despite the apocolyptic warnings of the HIV==AIDS industry that "everyone is at risk."

The CDC estimates that 30 percent of new HIV infections in the United States in 1998 were in women.

Estimates.

In Africa, HIV was first recognized in sexually active heterosexuals, and AIDS cases in Africa have occurred at least as frequently in women as in men.

Why would the patterns in Africa be so different from those in the US?

The diseases associated with AIDS, such as PCP and Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), are not caused by HIV but rather result from the immunosuppression caused by HIV disease. As the immune system of an HIV-infected individual weakens, he or she becomes susceptible to the particular viral, fungal and bacterial infections common in the community.

You didn't answer my question. The question was this: "What additions and subtractions have been made to the list in recent years, and why?"

I didn't try to demonize you and I didn't treat you badly;

I disagree.

you just like to play the victim.

And this is a demonstration of your high level of respect for me, by essentially calling me a whiner?

I found the "written by a bunch of crackpots and loons" bit particularly funny because you are the only one using those words.

Your attempts to indimidate me will fail. The reason I use those words is because that is how I am treated by most everyone when I want to discuss my point of view. No one wants to talk about my points, they would rather mock and insult me. I get the same response when I discuss my skeptical views of Christianity with Christians: mockery and invective.

You also seem to believe you know what I think, as you state several times when that is obviously false.

This after you accuse me of playing the victim. How would you know that I was deliberately playing the victim unless you knew what I was thinking? If I've said something that is out of line, please point it out to me and I will retract it.

In the epitome of righteous indignation, you say "And I get a "people like you" comment". That was actually a compliment to your skeptic attitude.

I believe you are genuinely pleased by the fact that I am skeptical. I also believe your comment was condescending.

It would be nice if you would just take the time to read what it says rather than assuming you're being attacked.

I'm not assuming aything, Mister "you like to play the victim." I don't think you believe I have anything of value to add to this discussion. You find me "funny" (an attempt to humiliate) and here you accuse me of being hasty and presumptuous.

I'm looking forward to hear from you again, if you can drop the poor victim attitude and stick to the arguments.

I'll drop anything that is out of line. Will you also drop your condescending and belittling attitude? It won't win any points with me.

I will add here that your treatment of me, while still disrespectful, is better than that of most people I've debated on this issue. You've pointed out several times in which I've stated things that are inaccurate. Even if our opinions are unchanged after our discussion, I don't think that I will walk away empty-handed.

They aren't rapidly silenced; they were repeatedly rebutted over the years.

I agree; I spoke out of turn. Though "dismissed," I think, is more accurate than "rebutted." I visited the link you posted and it contains statements like these: "These drugs do tend to depress all lymphocyte functions, but long-term users who are not HIV-positive show no signs of long-term declines in CD4 lymphocytes in all the comparative studies which have been performed (Schechter)." Well, which studies, and what, specifically do they say? If you read the Phase II AZT trials, then there is some startling revelations about what those "studies" showed.

Furthermore, Peter Duesberg and others have extensively argued their case in high-impact scientific magazines (Nature, Science, PNAS...).

Again, you are correct. This does not save them from being demonized. There is a quote which I will have to dig deep to find where a AIDS official basically stated, "If we can just through a few of these HIV deniers in jail then we could stop this movement really quickly."

Yes, there are other conditions that cause the immune system to weaken. "What is unusual and new about AIDS, and requires that we classify it as a new syndrome, is the development of immune deficiency as the result of the loss of CD4 lymphocytes in people who would not normally be expected to develop immune deficiency"

So does this mean that we've tested millions of Africans for the loss of CD4 lyphocytes and thus determined that it is AIDS and certainly not the other conditions which are causing their immune systems to weaken? What about the US sufferers of AIDS? The HIV test only tests for "HIV antibodies" and does not measure the level of CD4 lymphocytes.

What are the pandemic patterns you refer to? Some background on your side would be useful too.

I'm arguing that for a disease to be epidemic (which I understand as a worldwide epidemic) then it needs to follow certain criteria. The pattern of AIDS differs widely from Africa to USA to the UK. Does it meet the criteria of pandemic? AIDS was called an "epidemic" in the early 80s in the USA and effectively started the AIDS panic. The number of AIDS cases in the USA hardly makes AIDS an "epidemic," but massive funding ensued nonetheless.

HIV has been found in all the risk groups in which AIDS has appeared

Again, you are correct. If I may backpedal, the number of AIDS cases outside of "high risk groups" is negligable.

and no other factor has been shown to be associated with the distinctive depletion of CD4 lymphocytes in the same way

Again, who's doing the testing for "CD4 lymphocytes"? And who are the subjects?

According to this argument, it is a coincidence that HIV appeared at the same time in these different risk groups, and a coincidence that the presence or absence of HIV can be matched so closely with the development of AIDS in the different risk groups.

What HIV? I'm not convinced it exists.

However, those who accept the association between HIV and AIDS point out that HIV has failed to spread widely amongst heterosexuals in the developed world due to a lack of pathways for the virus.

Why, because heterosexuals don't have multiple sex partners and don't share needles? That's a weak argument.

It doesn't care of course, but cultural differences will naturally cause differences in the epidemics.

Like which cultural differences? People all over the world have sex.

Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have enabled researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few exceptions.

I don't know what a PCR test is, so I can't verify the validity of your claim. I notice that you admit to some exceptions. If these exceptions lead to a false positive, does that mean that the patient will be led to take highly toxic AIDS treatments?

(Bartlett, 1999; Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16).

1. Do you have a URL for this study?

2. Do you know that there is a one thousand pound reward to anyone who can isolate the virus?

Current HIV antibody tests have sensitivity and specificity in excess of 98% and are therefore extremely reliable

98% reliability applies to both those who are HIV- and HIV+. What happens to false positives? They are told they have a fatal disease and must take toxic AIDS therapies until they die from them. There is lots of criticism about the HIV test. Have you read it?

Progress in testing methodology has also enabled detection of viral genetic material, antigens and the virus itself in body fluids and cells.

Is this referring to "viral load"?

As with medications for any serious diseases, antiretroviral drugs can have toxic side effects. However, there is no evidence that antiretroviral drugs cause the severe immunosuppression that typifies AIDS, and abundant evidence that antiretroviral therapy, when used according to established guidelines, can improve the length and quality of life of HIV-infected individuals

I'm glad that you admit to the "toxic side effects" of "antiretroviral drugs" (I believe we were talking about AZT). What are these "toxic side effects," in particular? Isn't one of them "wasting"? Wasn't wasting an alleged side effect of AIDS?

In the 1980s, clinical trials enrolling patients with AIDS found that AZT given as single-drug therapy conferred a modest (and short-lived) survival advantage compared to placebo.

John Lauritsen used FOIA to read the FDA research about the AZT trials. You can find them here and here. I really dislike saying, "Just go read this paper," but I really want to hear your take on his findings.

Not true according to what I read, it occurs mostly in men.

Be more specific. What are the rates of KS among gay men who use poppers as compared to other men?

Because HIV is spread primarily through sex or by the exchange of HIV-contaminated needles during injection-drug use, it is not surprising that a majority of U.S. AIDS cases have occurred in men

What is surprising is that AIDS cases have remained confined to those high-risk groups despite the apocolyptic warnings of the HIV==AIDS industry that "everyone is at risk."

The CDC estimates that 30 percent of new HIV infections in the United States in 1998 were in women.

Estimates.

In Africa, HIV was first recognized in sexually active heterosexuals, and AIDS cases in Africa have occurred at least as frequently in women as in men.

Why would the patterns in Africa be so different from those in the US?

The diseases associated with AIDS, such as PCP and Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), are not caused by HIV but rather result from the immunosuppression caused by HIV disease. As the immune system of an HIV-infected individual weakens, he or she becomes susceptible to the particular viral, fungal and bacterial infections common in the community.

You didn't answer my question. The question was this: "What additions and subtractions have been made to the list in recent years, and why?"

I didn't try to demonize you and I didn't treat you badly;

I disagree.

you just like to play the victim.

And this is a demonstration of your high level of respect for me, by essentially calling me a whiner?

I found the "written by a bunch of crackpots and loons" bit particularly funny because you are the only one using those words.

Your attempts to indimidate me will fail. The reason I use those words is because that is how I am treated by most everyone when I want to discuss my point of view. No one wants to talk about my points, they would rather mock and insult me. I get the same response when I discuss my skeptical views of Christianity with Christians: mockery and invective.

You also seem to believe you know what I think, as you state several times when that is obviously false.

This after you accuse me of playing the victim. How would you know that I was deliberately playing the victim unless you knew what I was thinking? If I've said something that is out of line, please point it out to me and I will retract it.

In the epitome of righteous indignation, you say "And I get a "people like you" comment". That was actually a compliment to your skeptic attitude.

I believe you are genuinely pleased by the fact that I am skeptical. I also believe your comment was condescending.

It would be nice if you would just take the time to read what it says rather than assuming you're being attacked.

I'm not assuming aything, Mister "you like to play the victim." I don't think you believe I have anything of value to add to this discussion. You find me "funny" (an attempt to humiliate) and here you accuse me of being hasty and presumptuous.

I'm looking forward to hear from you again, if you can drop the poor victim attitude and stick to the arguments.

I'll drop anything that is out of line. Will you also drop your condescending and belittling attitude? It won't win any points with me.

I will add here that your treatment of me, while still disrespectful, is better than that of most people I've debated on this issue. You've pointed out several times in which I've stated things that are inaccurate. Even if our opinions are unchanged after our discussion, I don't think that I will walk away empty-handed.