Slashdot Mirror

I'm a programmer affiliated with the med school of a very large private university, doing computational biology (I was a molecular bio major). I do not work on anything remotely AIDS-related

I'll keep this in mind.

It says so on that page you quoted, fairly close to the top- Duesberg tried to claim the award....And you didn't read the page before posting it, either. Shame.

Touche!

This is one of the things that bugs me; the HIV-is-bogus lobby can't even agree on this.

You raise a valid point here. Chalk one up to the "problems with the HIV-is-bogus skeptics' positions" scoreboard to match against the many chalkmarks on the "problems with the HIV==AIDS theory" scoreboard.

As for the genome, protein structures, etc., you could always do a Google search, but that would require an open mind.

Does the fact that I don't accept your opinions automatically make me closed-minded? How do you know it is not you who is closed-minded for not accepting mine? I hate it when people say, "Just go look it up, doofus." Why should I? Isn't it your ilk which puts forth the "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on you?

A few of the many, many structures are this

Snip. Forgive me for being so ignorant, but these pictures mean nothing to me. What should I make of them?

I don't see how that's clouding the language; you're making a big deal about the side effects but you don't appear to know much about pharmaceuticals or molecular biology.

Do I need to mention again that your attempts to intimidate me will fail?

I don't know anything about the actual external side effects, only the molecular ones, but I seem to recall it involves some sort of anemia.

If I may quote John Lauritsen, "It is a drug whose basic action is to terminate DNA synthesis, all of it. It is a random terminator of DNA synthesis, which is nothing less than the life process itself. Such a drug cannot possibly be beneficial. And so it is not surprising that AZT has many terrible toxicities-it causes the muscles to waste away, it causes excruciating muscular pain, it attacks the nervous system, it especially attacks the blood, it causes life-threatening anemia, violent headaches. And all of these are merely the short-term toxicities." (Emphasis mine.) Isn't it true that "wasting" was called one of the symptoms of "full-blown AIDS"? Wouldn't it be a tragedy if the wasting (as well as other so-called "AIDS symptoms") were caused by AZT instead of AIDS? Are you open-minded enough to consider this possibility? Isn't it also true that AIDS patients started getting better when they started taking the so-called "AIDS cocktail" (and STOPPED taking AZT)?

You can find the paper in which he wrote that here. You can find lots more articles about AZT here. AZT was shelved for being too toxic, then it was revived as the one and only treatment for the "epidemic" of "AIDS." Since you obviously know a lot more about molecular biology than I do, I'm interested in your take on these things.

I'll agree AZT is a nasty drug. But you didn't answer my question: what about other therapies that do appear to be successful?

You are assuming the point in dispute. What is the relation between amyl nitrate and KS? Lots of gay men with KS were assumed to have AIDS and given AZT. It turns out that KS may be caused by amyl nitrate ("poppers") which were extremely popular among gay men having promiscuous sex.

I would argue that "AIDS is (usually) cause by HIV", which is a good bit different, and I don't have an answer for what happened to those children. There are plenty of weird examples like that involving AIDS, but they don't mean existing hypotheses about the role of HIV are wrong, only that disease resistance and molecular biology are very complicated.

Sometimes I debate people who believe that the Bible is the word of God. When I point out a theological problem contained in scripture, a common answer from them is, "The ways of the Lord are mysterious." This is what you have done here with your, "disease resistance and molecular biology are very complicated."

The definition of AIDS used to include by necessity HIV infection. Now, apparently, it doesn't, and it seems like there is not agreement among the "HIV adherents" on this issue either! Nonetheless, many people were given AZT as the "only means to treat their fatal illness" and made to pay for it with their money and their lives.

And we knew that already. You can't use anecdotal evidence as proof of a broad generalization; it's just not statistically valid.

Agreed, and it still blows holes in the "HIV==AIDS" theory. Something has to give.

As a counter-example, how do you explain the 2.2 million Africans who died from AIDS last year, where they can't afford AZT and certainly aren't doing many poppers?

Where are the bodies? The web site shows images of children. Where are the 2.2 million corpses which should result from this "epidemic"? The header of the web page read, "AVERT is an international HIV and AIDS charity." "Charity" means "we get money from the HIV==AIDS hypothesis." Not exactly an objective source. And I believe AIDS is much more about money than it is about science or health.

A counter question to you is, "Why are the cases of KS (an 'AIDS disease') relegated only to a particular target group of HIV-infected persons?"

Did they have HIV and not get AIDS- either because of weird biology (my argument) or HIV's harmlessness (Duesberg's argument)- or did they not have HIV in the first place?

I believe they did not have HIV. I do not believe there is such a virus. Perhaps you will be the one to convince me of such. It will take more than you spouting off about how much more you know about molecular biology than I do.

If the latter, does this mean everyone who's tested positive for HIV does not have any such virus in them?

Would you like to talk about the so-called "99.9% accurate" HIV test?

So, the first problem here is that all you're able to do is nitpick.

My position of skepticism is not nitpicking.

The second problem is that your hypotheses, to be correct, require that there be a vast conspiracy on the part of the news media, the medical establishment, and the pharmaceutical companies to fabricate AIDS so that GlaxoSmithKline can boost its revenues.

It's Burroghs-Wellcome, not GlaxoSmithKline, and I seriously doubt that they're the only ones on the benefiting end of the gravy train. I think you grossly underestimate the power of money. All three of the news media, pharm companies, and medical researchers have much money to gain of the so-called "AIDS scare." Do you remember when Liberace died? Do you remember the news helicopter which followed the van carrying Liberace's corpse?

It's one thing to claim that Gallo acted inappropriately, but to extend this to accuse a vast number of AIDS researchers of falsifying data is sort of absurd.

I disagree.

You clearly haven't even bothered to do the most cursory sort of investigation, and you seem to have virtually no knowledge of biology beyond what you've read on the Virus Myth web page.

(As a quick note, your pointing out that my knowledge comes from the virusmyth web page is an attempt to paint me as getting my knowledge from a single source. The web page is actually a collection of articles from many different sources. You'll have to do better than this.)

I'll write it one more time. Maybe this time you'll start believing it: YOUR ATTEMPTS TO INTIMIDATE ME WILL FAIL. My knowledge or lack thereof of biology is not relevant. Consider the following questions:

1. Is it true that AIDS is called an "epidemic" despite the fact that it did not follow an epidemic pattern?
2. Is it true that many of the symptons of AIDS can be attributed to the use of AZT?
3. Is it true that amyl nitrate can be responsible for KS?
4. Is it true that AIDS research receives easily half as much funding as does cancer research even though the rate of AIDS cases is much, much less than one half the rate of cancer cases?

Now, tell me, how much knowledge of molecular biology do I need to ask those questions? How much do I need to understand the answers? How much do you need, for that matter, to attempt an answer? These are the reasons that cause me to have serious doubts about the whole "HIV==AIDS" (which, by your admission, is not always true) hypothesis specifically and the HIV industry (yes, it's an industry) in general.

Furthermore, if I am as slow and ignorant as you seem to be constantly apt to point out, then what good is it for you to post links to biology information that I'm sure not to understand? I have no way of knowing if it's bogus or not. Do you think that I should just take your word for it? My questions are not hard to answer. I don't believe you're too ingorant to answer them. Don't you think we'll find better dialog on a playing field where we can both play?

You seem like a smart person who has a lot of knowledge about things that I don't. Do my questions not interest you even slightly? Are you so loyal to your friends down the hall that you won't even stop to consider that they might be wrong?

Your condescending "You're just so ignorant" attitude stops now. Your attempts to intimidate me are more apt to make me distrust you than to doubt my own position of skepticism.

And I'm a bit peeved that you keep accusing everyone of working for pharmaceutical companies- heck, the assholes didn't even read my resume when I sent it to them last spring.

Hey we have something in common, we both think that pharm companies are assholes! ;) I propose that we try and find bridges instead of walls in our discussion. I think I may have a lot to learn from you. Perhaps you'd prefer email -- this has gotten really long.

I'm a programmer affiliated with the med school of a very large private university, doing computational biology (I was a molecular bio major). I do not work on anything remotely AIDS-related

I'll keep this in mind.

It says so on that page you quoted, fairly close to the top- Duesberg tried to claim the award....And you didn't read the page before posting it, either. Shame.

Touche!

This is one of the things that bugs me; the HIV-is-bogus lobby can't even agree on this.

You raise a valid point here. Chalk one up to the "problems with the HIV-is-bogus skeptics' positions" scoreboard to match against the many chalkmarks on the "problems with the HIV==AIDS theory" scoreboard.

As for the genome, protein structures, etc., you could always do a Google search, but that would require an open mind.

Does the fact that I don't accept your opinions automatically make me closed-minded? How do you know it is not you who is closed-minded for not accepting mine? I hate it when people say, "Just go look it up, doofus." Why should I? Isn't it your ilk which puts forth the "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on you?

A few of the many, many structures are this

Snip. Forgive me for being so ignorant, but these pictures mean nothing to me. What should I make of them?

I don't see how that's clouding the language; you're making a big deal about the side effects but you don't appear to know much about pharmaceuticals or molecular biology.

Do I need to mention again that your attempts to intimidate me will fail?

I don't know anything about the actual external side effects, only the molecular ones, but I seem to recall it involves some sort of anemia.

If I may quote John Lauritsen, "It is a drug whose basic action is to terminate DNA synthesis, all of it. It is a random terminator of DNA synthesis, which is nothing less than the life process itself. Such a drug cannot possibly be beneficial. And so it is not surprising that AZT has many terrible toxicities-it causes the muscles to waste away, it causes excruciating muscular pain, it attacks the nervous system, it especially attacks the blood, it causes life-threatening anemia, violent headaches. And all of these are merely the short-term toxicities." (Emphasis mine.) Isn't it true that "wasting" was called one of the symptoms of "full-blown AIDS"? Wouldn't it be a tragedy if the wasting (as well as other so-called "AIDS symptoms") were caused by AZT instead of AIDS? Are you open-minded enough to consider this possibility? Isn't it also true that AIDS patients started getting better when they started taking the so-called "AIDS cocktail" (and STOPPED taking AZT)?

You can find the paper in which he wrote that here. You can find lots more articles about AZT here. AZT was shelved for being too toxic, then it was revived as the one and only treatment for the "epidemic" of "AIDS." Since you obviously know a lot more about molecular biology than I do, I'm interested in your take on these things.

I'll agree AZT is a nasty drug. But you didn't answer my question: what about other therapies that do appear to be successful?

You are assuming the point in dispute. What is the relation between amyl nitrate and KS? Lots of gay men with KS were assumed to have AIDS and given AZT. It turns out that KS may be caused by amyl nitrate ("poppers") which were extremely popular among gay men having promiscuous sex.

I would argue that "AIDS is (usually) cause by HIV", which is a good bit different, and I don't have an answer for what happened to those children. There are plenty of weird examples like that involving AIDS, but they don't mean existing hypotheses about the role of HIV are wrong, only that disease resistance and molecular biology are very complicated.

Sometimes I debate people who believe that the Bible is the word of God. When I point out a theological problem contained in scripture, a common answer from them is, "The ways of the Lord are mysterious." This is what you have done here with your, "disease resistance and molecular biology are very complicated."

The definition of AIDS used to include by necessity HIV infection. Now, apparently, it doesn't, and it seems like there is not agreement among the "HIV adherents" on this issue either! Nonetheless, many people were given AZT as the "only means to treat their fatal illness" and made to pay for it with their money and their lives.

And we knew that already. You can't use anecdotal evidence as proof of a broad generalization; it's just not statistically valid.

Agreed, and it still blows holes in the "HIV==AIDS" theory. Something has to give.

As a counter-example, how do you explain the 2.2 million Africans who died from AIDS last year, where they can't afford AZT and certainly aren't doing many poppers?

Where are the bodies? The web site shows images of children. Where are the 2.2 million corpses which should result from this "epidemic"? The header of the web page read, "AVERT is an international HIV and AIDS charity." "Charity" means "we get money from the HIV==AIDS hypothesis." Not exactly an objective source. And I believe AIDS is much more about money than it is about science or health.

A counter question to you is, "Why are the cases of KS (an 'AIDS disease') relegated only to a particular target group of HIV-infected persons?"

Did they have HIV and not get AIDS- either because of weird biology (my argument) or HIV's harmlessness (Duesberg's argument)- or did they not have HIV in the first place?

I believe they did not have HIV. I do not believe there is such a virus. Perhaps you will be the one to convince me of such. It will take more than you spouting off about how much more you know about molecular biology than I do.

If the latter, does this mean everyone who's tested positive for HIV does not have any such virus in them?

Would you like to talk about the so-called "99.9% accurate" HIV test?

So, the first problem here is that all you're able to do is nitpick.

My position of skepticism is not nitpicking.

The second problem is that your hypotheses, to be correct, require that there be a vast conspiracy on the part of the news media, the medical establishment, and the pharmaceutical companies to fabricate AIDS so that GlaxoSmithKline can boost its revenues.

It's Burroghs-Wellcome, not GlaxoSmithKline, and I seriously doubt that they're the only ones on the benefiting end of the gravy train. I think you grossly underestimate the power of money. All three of the news media, pharm companies, and medical researchers have much money to gain of the so-called "AIDS scare." Do you remember when Liberace died? Do you remember the news helicopter which followed the van carrying Liberace's corpse?

It's one thing to claim that Gallo acted inappropriately, but to extend this to accuse a vast number of AIDS researchers of falsifying data is sort of absurd.

I disagree.

You clearly haven't even bothered to do the most cursory sort of investigation, and you seem to have virtually no knowledge of biology beyond what you've read on the Virus Myth web page.

(As a quick note, your pointing out that my knowledge comes from the virusmyth web page is an attempt to paint me as getting my knowledge from a single source. The web page is actually a collection of articles from many different sources. You'll have to do better than this.)

I'll write it one more time. Maybe this time you'll start believing it: YOUR ATTEMPTS TO INTIMIDATE ME WILL FAIL. My knowledge or lack thereof of biology is not relevant. Consider the following questions:

1. Is it true that AIDS is called an "epidemic" despite the fact that it did not follow an epidemic pattern?
2. Is it true that many of the symptons of AIDS can be attributed to the use of AZT?
3. Is it true that amyl nitrate can be responsible for KS?
4. Is it true that AIDS research receives easily half as much funding as does cancer research even though the rate of AIDS cases is much, much less than one half the rate of cancer cases?

Now, tell me, how much knowledge of molecular biology do I need to ask those questions? How much do I need to understand the answers? How much do you need, for that matter, to attempt an answer? These are the reasons that cause me to have serious doubts about the whole "HIV==AIDS" (which, by your admission, is not always true) hypothesis specifically and the HIV industry (yes, it's an industry) in general.

Furthermore, if I am as slow and ignorant as you seem to be constantly apt to point out, then what good is it for you to post links to biology information that I'm sure not to understand? I have no way of knowing if it's bogus or not. Do you think that I should just take your word for it? My questions are not hard to answer. I don't believe you're too ingorant to answer them. Don't you think we'll find better dialog on a playing field where we can both play?

You seem like a smart person who has a lot of knowledge about things that I don't. Do my questions not interest you even slightly? Are you so loyal to your friends down the hall that you won't even stop to consider that they might be wrong?

Your condescending "You're just so ignorant" attitude stops now. Your attempts to intimidate me are more apt to make me distrust you than to doubt my own position of skepticism.

And I'm a bit peeved that you keep accusing everyone of working for pharmaceutical companies- heck, the assholes didn't even read my resume when I sent it to them last spring.

Hey we have something in common, we both think that pharm companies are assholes! ;) I propose that we try and find bridges instead of walls in our discussion. I think I may have a lot to learn from you. Perhaps you'd prefer email -- this has gotten really long.

I find this dubious, and the NIH spends vastly more on cancer research: see their official funding page

You win points for actually linking to data, and what you say about the NIH is partly true. I wouldn't call twice the amount on cancer research to be "vastly more." I would call it twice as much. If it were one hundred times greater then I might accept "vastly more." Then again, consider the rate of AIDS cases verses the rate of cancer cases and the story changes. Also consider that you've only linked to funding done by NIH. Are they the only group funding AIDS research? So I don't think my statement is as dubious as you claim it to be.

Even Duesberg contends that HIV exists. The genome has been sequenced, the structures of the protease and reverse transcriptase have beeen solved.

I notice that you do not claim that the virus has been isolated. You claim it exists and attempt a sort-of ad verecundiam by sticking Duesberg onto it (even though you don't provide any evidence that Duesberg believes such a thing, so you could be making it up), but who cares what Duesberg thinks anyway? Either the virus has been isolated or it hasn't been. You could very well be making up your statements about protease structures and reverse transcriptase since you post no links to your claims.

There is a one-thousand pound reward offered to anyone who can isolate the alleged HIV virus. Are you prepared to claim it?

You people are more interested in dogma than science- just as bad as the creationists.

Not only is this a cheap-ass "you people" ad hominem, but it's really ironic that you'd accuse me of being "like a creationist" when all I am asking for is evidence and also in light of the the language coming out of the mouths of the HIV==AIDS adherents. Consider:

"Dr. Mark Wainberg, president of the International AIDS Society, called for jailing AIDS dissidents, whom he called 'HIV deniers' (his explicit analogy to "Holocaust deniers').

"Said Wainberg: 'If we could succeed and lock a couple of these guys up, I guarantee you the HIV-denier movement would die pretty darn quickly.'"

--John Lauritsen in AIDS REALISM VERSUS THE HIV HYPOTHESIS

As for AZT, everyone with more than a basic knowledge of biology and chemistry understands how dangerous it is- a brute force attack on reverse transcription (and, unfortunately, normal DNA replication). It's a particularly poor example, because the nasty side effects are obvious; why don't you try arguing against the therapeutic power of, say, Crixivan or d4t instead?

"Basic knowledge of biology." "Pretty poor example." "Crixivan." "d4t." You know what? Your efforts to indimidate me will fail. If you can spout off these condescending phrases and big words then you can also muster up the chutzpah to actually answer my questions. As is, your own words condemn you. Do you work for a big pharm company?

My bringing up AZT is certianly NOT a "particularly poor example." AZT was the AIDS therapy for years. It was a veritable gold mine for Burroughs-Wellcome during those years. Yes, the nasty side-effects are obvious, but trying to cloud them with language such as "brute force attack on reverse transcription" only makes your argument more suspicious, particularly in light of the questions that you've failed to answer. What, exactly, are the side effects of AZT? When and why was AZT shelved?

Here's a side story which helps my position and hurts yours. A while back, a major network aired a special about gay adoption. (As a gay adoptive parent, I was particularly interested.) They highlighted a gay couple who had taken in five foster children, four of which had HIV. A bit later in the show, the narrator explained that the HIV in these children "went away," a phenomenon that has "only been observed in children."

Under my (lack of) belief (specifically, that there is no such thing as HIV and it certainly does not cause the disease-with-the-ever-changing-definition "AIDS") this is easy to explain: the children were never given the poisons used to treat "AIDS" and thus never suffered from this alleged "epidemic."

How do you explain it under your belief system, you know, the one that dictates that HIV==AIDS?

I find this dubious, and the NIH spends vastly more on cancer research: see their official funding page

You win points for actually linking to data, and what you say about the NIH is partly true. I wouldn't call twice the amount on cancer research to be "vastly more." I would call it twice as much. If it were one hundred times greater then I might accept "vastly more." Then again, consider the rate of AIDS cases verses the rate of cancer cases and the story changes. Also consider that you've only linked to funding done by NIH. Are they the only group funding AIDS research? So I don't think my statement is as dubious as you claim it to be.

Even Duesberg contends that HIV exists. The genome has been sequenced, the structures of the protease and reverse transcriptase have beeen solved.

I notice that you do not claim that the virus has been isolated. You claim it exists and attempt a sort-of ad verecundiam by sticking Duesberg onto it (even though you don't provide any evidence that Duesberg believes such a thing, so you could be making it up), but who cares what Duesberg thinks anyway? Either the virus has been isolated or it hasn't been. You could very well be making up your statements about protease structures and reverse transcriptase since you post no links to your claims.

There is a one-thousand pound reward offered to anyone who can isolate the alleged HIV virus. Are you prepared to claim it?

You people are more interested in dogma than science- just as bad as the creationists.

Not only is this a cheap-ass "you people" ad hominem, but it's really ironic that you'd accuse me of being "like a creationist" when all I am asking for is evidence and also in light of the the language coming out of the mouths of the HIV==AIDS adherents. Consider:

"Dr. Mark Wainberg, president of the International AIDS Society, called for jailing AIDS dissidents, whom he called 'HIV deniers' (his explicit analogy to "Holocaust deniers').

"Said Wainberg: 'If we could succeed and lock a couple of these guys up, I guarantee you the HIV-denier movement would die pretty darn quickly.'"

--John Lauritsen in AIDS REALISM VERSUS THE HIV HYPOTHESIS

As for AZT, everyone with more than a basic knowledge of biology and chemistry understands how dangerous it is- a brute force attack on reverse transcription (and, unfortunately, normal DNA replication). It's a particularly poor example, because the nasty side effects are obvious; why don't you try arguing against the therapeutic power of, say, Crixivan or d4t instead?

"Basic knowledge of biology." "Pretty poor example." "Crixivan." "d4t." You know what? Your efforts to indimidate me will fail. If you can spout off these condescending phrases and big words then you can also muster up the chutzpah to actually answer my questions. As is, your own words condemn you. Do you work for a big pharm company?

My bringing up AZT is certianly NOT a "particularly poor example." AZT was the AIDS therapy for years. It was a veritable gold mine for Burroughs-Wellcome during those years. Yes, the nasty side-effects are obvious, but trying to cloud them with language such as "brute force attack on reverse transcription" only makes your argument more suspicious, particularly in light of the questions that you've failed to answer. What, exactly, are the side effects of AZT? When and why was AZT shelved?

Here's a side story which helps my position and hurts yours. A while back, a major network aired a special about gay adoption. (As a gay adoptive parent, I was particularly interested.) They highlighted a gay couple who had taken in five foster children, four of which had HIV. A bit later in the show, the narrator explained that the HIV in these children "went away," a phenomenon that has "only been observed in children."

Under my (lack of) belief (specifically, that there is no such thing as HIV and it certainly does not cause the disease-with-the-ever-changing-definition "AIDS") this is easy to explain: the children were never given the poisons used to treat "AIDS" and thus never suffered from this alleged "epidemic."

How do you explain it under your belief system, you know, the one that dictates that HIV==AIDS?

i wasn't ducking your questions as they weren't posed to me per se but posted in this forum. moreover, i was stating facts and not questions as you were.

And you still haven't answered the questions, you've only given me an excuse as to why you haven't. And don't try to turn this back on me.

you've picked up on some of the points that peter duesberg originally put out. thus i also wanted to raise the possibility that his motivation might be influenced by other personal factors other than the science

Don't try to pin this on Duesberg, either. He's not the only one who has questioned the HIV==AIDS mantra. And he's not the only one to suffer financially, emotionally, and physically from having the audacity to do so. AIDS is BIG MONEY.

(1) & (4) are semantic issues, right?

No, they are not.

Concering #1, the definition of epidemic is specific. The pattern of AIDS does not meet the criteria, yet it is called an "epidemic" anyway. Why is this?

the larger question you were posing prevoiusly was whether HIV caused an immunodeficiency that allowed secondary infections. i think the data is unequivocal on this point.

So the immunodeficiency "allowed" secondary infections? I suppose you've chosen this verb because you can't say "caused." In fact, you know that ALL of the secondary infections existed in absence of HIV before the alleged discovery of HIV. And the data is certainly not unequivocal.

as per what secondary infections occur in 'AIDS' caused by HIV-1, this has changed somewhat over time because people learned more about the disease and some of the early second infections became treatable and non-issues (thus saving lives).

You didn't answer my question. How many times has the list of secondary diseases changed? And, once you figure that out, can you form the list of these so-called secondary infections for each time the list changed? Wouldn't the contents of those lists be interesting? I find it to be very important since a diagnosis of AIDS has always been either a death sentence or "buy our drugs if you want to live" sentence. It's just ripe for abuse, isn't it?

as per question (2), i don't know what burroughs-wellcome does with its money but am generally suspicious of large drug companies. as per question

This might be my foot in the door! ;)

(3), supply whichever peter duesberg theory you want as this is one of his issues. he stopped scientifically publishing on HIV for the past 4-5 years, and has primarily gone back to his cancer work.

Weak, weak, weak. I can reference writings that are NOT by Duesberg that discuss the positive link between KS and amyl nitrate ("poppers"). Why do you keep trying to pin this on Duesberg? He's not the only opponent of the HIV==AIDS hypothesis. Is Duesberg your scapegoat?

do you have specific knowledge of this or perhaps have done any molecular biology research to back this up? HIV has been isolated numerous times. it's real. it's not so hard to do. you can in fact isolate just it's nucleic acid genome, put this into cells, and they will make the virus.

Wrongo Dongo, amigo. It is you that has to back up your claim that the virus has been isolated. You can't just assert that it has been isolated and then tell me that I have to disprove you. The easiest way for us to solve this is for you to link to the paper which describes the circumstances under which the HIV virus was isolated. Don't tell me to go to some website and dig around. Just link to the paper. There is a prize for anyone who can claim isolation of the HIV virus. Perhaps you'd like to claim it?

peter duesberg (again the leading scientific figure who used to question the HIV/AIDS link) has done the same exact experiment with other retroviruses. it's a pretty simple one.

Yes, let's bring it back to Duesberg again. This is not convincing.

No. Why are you so hung up on this company?

Because they are the manufacturer of AZT and have thus made millions off of the "AIDS epidemic."

I decided to professionally continue studying retroviruses after seeing a friend die of HIV-1 infection that progressed to AIDS while I was a grad student. Pretty sad as it was the year that these drugs called protease inhibitors were coming out experimentally and he was trying so hard to get in a protocol so he could get the meds.

One question: was your friend on AZT therapy?

I'm not going to get into a debate of whether you have or I have on this topic because I think you're coming at it with an open mind and willing to examine information or evidence as presented....

Flattery will get you nowhere.

I decided to put my own curiosity on the research bench and test things myself. It's no conspiracy. HIV kills CD4+ T cells. Stopping the virus saves these important immune cells and it prolongs life.

I'm not the slightest bit impressed. For all I know, you could be working for a pharmecutical company and lying about your job. The profit motive is certainly there for just such a fabrication, considering that AIDS has more money than God does, and the only thing which might stop the gravy train are those which actually question the bald and hollow assertions which support the HIV==AIDS house of cards. And your "stopping the virus" (through drugs, presumably) is the same line that the big AIDS drug manufacturers have been preaching since the alleged outbreak.

If you answer my questions you will gain more credibility with me.

1. When and for what reasons was AZT first shelved?
   
2. What are the symptoms of AZT poisoning?
   
3. What is the rate of HIV infection outside of the original "control groups" (specifically, I.V. drug users and promiscuous gay males)?
   
4. Under the current "HIV == AIDS" model, how is it explainable that a child acquire HIV in vitro but not develop AIDS?
   
5. If you test positive for HIV, then what is the probibility that the test will be a false positive? Hint: it's NOT 99.9% despite the fact that the test claims to be "99.9% accurate."
   
6. Who first isolated the HIV virus?
   

well i notice from the amber light next to yr name that i have now made yr lists of foes - the first time anyone on slashdot has made me one - that's fine by me, and of course you have the right to do so, however you seem by yr action to be continuing the long held practice of ignoring dissent on the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis - i.e. by my speaking out i am now on yr ignore list

thankyou for linking to a paper - i will have a look at it - however i do not feel i have the expertise necessary to judge it's validity - and this is why i listed the names of some fairly respected scientists in my previous comment - these are obviously people who do have the expertise and who are questioning the hypothesis - however i have never heard this mentioned in the mainstream media - like you, the media have set their filters to 'ignore' - their dissent may or may not be good science - but why is the dissent not even acknowledged? - very few people even know that there is dissent from credible scientists on this issue and this is what i wanted to bring to people's attention by my post

the website i linked to in my first post has a large repository of scientific papers contesting the HIV->AIDS hypothesis including at least one paper for every name that i listed in my second post - they are all easily accesible from the whistleblowers page from which i excerpted my list - i imagined that people would go directly to the source rather than expect me to try to paraphrase their arguments - i wonder whether you yrself visited the site?

in relation to the list of 5500 names - these are listed prominently on the major HIV->AIDS dissident page on the web - I would imagine that legal action would have quickly ensured removal of the names of any people who were being wrongly touted as sceptics of the HIV->AIDS hypothesis

my position on the HIV->AIDS hypothesis is simply a sceptical one - in the late 70's and early 80's a syndrome was documented as aquired immune deficiency syndrome - several years later an assertion was put forward that a retrovirus had been found and was the cause of the syndrome - the website i linked to has the papers of highly eminent people questioning both of these claims - science is all about questioning 'common sense' assumptions - so why have these people been continually left out of the debate? - indeed there has been no debate as mostly they have struggled to be published or have coverage in the mainstream media

i wish you luck in a medical profession that due to massive abuse of power and an increasingly marked desire to enter the pay of the drug companies is rapidly losing the trust and confidence of the common people

finally i'll end with a quote from a fellow named hippocrates - he doesn't seem to have much to say about whether HIV causes AIDS or not - but he does seem to have some commentary on the course that the mainstream medical community has followed in treating the syndrome :

I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel;

Well my parent comment has already been modded down, so my hopes for an intelligent discussion of whether HIV exists and causes AIDS seem to be rapidly diminishing.

Thankyou for your even-toned reply. However, I do not agree with your line of reasoning. You essentially seem to be saying that the HIV theory dissident's claims have been disproven. You state this without mentioning or linking to any papers along these lines. From my point of view the dissidents seem to have been ignored rather than defeated.

Further, it seems to me that the burden of proof lies with the proponents of the HIV causes AIDS theory. This is the general nature of scientific debate - to substantiate a positive claim against negative (sceptical) arguments rather than the other way around.

Finally there are now a large number of members of the scientific community expressing some level of scepticism about the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis. Some of the major dissidents include :

Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, who held a MacArthur Prize fellowship from 1981 to 1986, is associate professor of physiology at Michigan State University

Dr. Gordon Stewart is professor emeritus of public health at Glasgow University, and a former WHO adviser on AIDS.

Dr. Alfred Hässig, (1921-1999) was professor emeritus in immunology at the University of Bern, Director of the Swiss Red Cross Transfusion Service, and President of the Board of Trustees of the International Society of Blood Transfusion. With colleagues he formed the Study Group for Nutrition and Immunity.

Dr. Richard Strohman is professor emeritus in molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Etienne de Harven is emeritus professor of pathology, University of Toronto. He worked in electron microscopy primarily on the ultrastructure of retroviruses throughout his professional career of 25 years at the Sloan Kettering Institute in New York and 13 years at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, a New York physician and one of the first AIDS researchers, has been questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis.

The German virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka.

Further, here is a petition questioning the basis of the HIV hypothesis - the present number of signatures is more than 5500 - you can view the list and see that many of these people are established scientists.

To me it seems very strange that people from within the scientific establishment would be questioning common dogma and risking a great deal of mainstream credibility and their own financial security without their holding a genuinely sceptical position - it comes down to a question of motive and i can see no other reason for such people to 'stand out in the cold' except for a personal motivation to uphold rigour and independent thinking in science

Well my parent comment has already been modded down, so my hopes for an intelligent discussion of whether HIV exists and causes AIDS seem to be rapidly diminishing.

Thankyou for your even-toned reply. However, I do not agree with your line of reasoning. You essentially seem to be saying that the HIV theory dissident's claims have been disproven. You state this without mentioning or linking to any papers along these lines. From my point of view the dissidents seem to have been ignored rather than defeated.

Further, it seems to me that the burden of proof lies with the proponents of the HIV causes AIDS theory. This is the general nature of scientific debate - to substantiate a positive claim against negative (sceptical) arguments rather than the other way around.

Finally there are now a large number of members of the scientific community expressing some level of scepticism about the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis. Some of the major dissidents include :

Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, who held a MacArthur Prize fellowship from 1981 to 1986, is associate professor of physiology at Michigan State University

Dr. Gordon Stewart is professor emeritus of public health at Glasgow University, and a former WHO adviser on AIDS.

Dr. Alfred Hässig, (1921-1999) was professor emeritus in immunology at the University of Bern, Director of the Swiss Red Cross Transfusion Service, and President of the Board of Trustees of the International Society of Blood Transfusion. With colleagues he formed the Study Group for Nutrition and Immunity.

Dr. Richard Strohman is professor emeritus in molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Etienne de Harven is emeritus professor of pathology, University of Toronto. He worked in electron microscopy primarily on the ultrastructure of retroviruses throughout his professional career of 25 years at the Sloan Kettering Institute in New York and 13 years at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, a New York physician and one of the first AIDS researchers, has been questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis.

The German virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka.

Further, here is a petition questioning the basis of the HIV hypothesis - the present number of signatures is more than 5500 - you can view the list and see that many of these people are established scientists.

To me it seems very strange that people from within the scientific establishment would be questioning common dogma and risking a great deal of mainstream credibility and their own financial security without their holding a genuinely sceptical position - it comes down to a question of motive and i can see no other reason for such people to 'stand out in the cold' except for a personal motivation to uphold rigour and independent thinking in science

a link to some material on whether the widely-spread convention that there is a retrovirus called HIV that causes AIDS is true.

a quote from that site :

"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.

this page on the site links to the best introductory articles on the 'virus myth'

an excerpt from one of the articles on the site

The response to the first major critique of the HIV theory, by Dr Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular biology at the University of California at Berkeley, was bewilderment, followed by fury. Duesberg had been voted Californian Scientist of the Year for his discoveries in the field of retroviruses (of which HIV is supposed to be one). He argued in 1987 that HIV could not be doing the damage attributed to it, because it was so difficult to find in the body, even in a person dying of AIDS. He postulated that an explosion in the use of recreational drugs during the 1970s was probably the main cause of AIDS. He was first ignored and then pilloried for persisting with his views. He lost a $ 350,000 "outstanding investigator" award and became an embarrassment to his university, which, while unable to fire him, reduced him to chairing its annual picnic committee.

The past 10 years have shown Duesberg to have been right on several counts. He stated that HIV could not kill immune cells, that AIDS would not become a heterosexual epidemic and that the anti-viral drug AZT would kill rather than cure. On all three issues, the evidence has gone his way.

note to moderators : please note that the assertions against the conventional thinking on HIV -> AIDS are being made by respected scientists as shown in the above two excerpts. This comment is not made as flamebait or as a troll. The ideal of science is informed debate, not willful dismissal of dissenting opinion.

a link to some material on whether the widely-spread convention that there is a retrovirus called HIV that causes AIDS is true.

a quote from that site :

"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.

this page on the site links to the best introductory articles on the 'virus myth'

an excerpt from one of the articles on the site

The response to the first major critique of the HIV theory, by Dr Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular biology at the University of California at Berkeley, was bewilderment, followed by fury. Duesberg had been voted Californian Scientist of the Year for his discoveries in the field of retroviruses (of which HIV is supposed to be one). He argued in 1987 that HIV could not be doing the damage attributed to it, because it was so difficult to find in the body, even in a person dying of AIDS. He postulated that an explosion in the use of recreational drugs during the 1970s was probably the main cause of AIDS. He was first ignored and then pilloried for persisting with his views. He lost a $ 350,000 "outstanding investigator" award and became an embarrassment to his university, which, while unable to fire him, reduced him to chairing its annual picnic committee.

The past 10 years have shown Duesberg to have been right on several counts. He stated that HIV could not kill immune cells, that AIDS would not become a heterosexual epidemic and that the anti-viral drug AZT would kill rather than cure. On all three issues, the evidence has gone his way.

note to moderators : please note that the assertions against the conventional thinking on HIV -> AIDS are being made by respected scientists as shown in the above two excerpts. This comment is not made as flamebait or as a troll. The ideal of science is informed debate, not willful dismissal of dissenting opinion.

According to Dr. Root-Bernstein, there is no correlation between AIDS and HIV. He told us that he is willing to bet his entire carreer and reputation that Magic Johnson would never contract AIDS in Magic's lifetime.

Since taking the class (spring, 95), I have heard nothing new in the arguments that HIV causes or leads to AIDS. I'm no expert, but Dr. Root-Bernstein refuted all of the common reasons that people think that HIV becomes AIDS and I've heard no new reasoning since.

Hey, I'm down on how Western Medicine is about Profits over healing as much as the next guy, but there are bigger issues here...

There is NO correlation between the so-called HIV virus and the AIDS syndrome... Don't they teach the Scientific Method in medical school anymore?

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

http://www.duesberg.com/

While I'm no great fan of the drug companies (they are culpable in the over-medication of seniors, for example), it's exactly this sort of pseudo-scientific activist FUD that eventually leads to more deaths for those who contract the disease. The original sufferers weren't subject to these drugs (throughout most of the 80's) but shitloads of them died from this allegedly mystery virus. This is pseudo-science at its best, denial of scientific findings through innuendo and rumour.

I have been taking an interest in HIV/AIDS issues for some years now and I am not convinced that all of it is FUD. Seriously, check out www.virusmyth.net and www.aids-statistics.com.