By the Way
Dean
Can anyone locate an epidemiologist--or anyone at the CDC or NIH--who's willing to go on record as refuting what we have put forward in Falsifying the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis?
Anyone at all?
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Can anyone locate an epidemiologist--or anyone at the CDC or NIH--who's willing to go on record as refuting what we have put forward in Falsifying the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis?
Anyone at all?
Biochemistry and epidemiology are not the same thing. When you have a PhD in a subject you should stick to your research area in that subject. To go beyond that is to put the mantle of science over uninformed opinion.
(Of course go ahead and speak as a layman on subjects outside of your field.)
I think Dean is looking for someone with creds from the CDC/NIH specifically. While your creds may be good, they would be better if you worked for those orgs and were willing to stick your neck out.
Also thanks for telling me that Biochem and Epidemiology aren't the same thing. While I may not then be qualified to comment on the demographics of HIV infection, that does make me a bit more qualified to comment on its molecular mechanism and pathogenesis. But I know no one here wants to here about viral gene replication and antigenic epitopes...
I think it'd be a worthwhile discussion, myself.
Actually, I find biochemistry fascinating. It's not my field, but I love learning about it. By all means, please do talk about.
My only request is that acronyms comprise less than 10% of the words used. :-)
If the intent was to get an official response from either of these agencies instead of from people who read the blog, why not present the data and conclusions in an official paper to these agencies requesting a formal reply instead of wondering why none of them have bothered to respond to a blog entry based on misrepresented data and wild estimations? (At the very least, some emails or phone calls to the CDC or NIH directly soliciting commentary on the post would be appropriate rather than just assuming everyone at both agencies scour the web constantly looking for the latest HIV/AIDS theories which need to be demonstrated as wrong.)
It looks more like the intent was to slide some shoddy science past an audience who would be too intimidated by the PhD next to Bialy's name and impressed by some official-looking graphs to point out the emperor had no clothes. That didn't work and now that he's caught out, rather than address the fact that he's walking around naked, Dean's insisting that he still looks good because Mr. Blackwell hasn't descended from up on high to proclaim he really belongs on the Worst Dressed List.
All in all a rather disappointing denouement to what could have been a good series of posts on exercising critical thinking.
You're asking us to do your reporting for you. Ask the question yourself. Go talk to another epidemiologist at the NIH or CDC and see if you get any response. Call their PR offices and get back to us.
But don't do half your reporting and then pull an "ah ha, see?" because no one else has done the other half.
Plus, decrying your commenter's credentials by countering with the credentials of a single expert doesn't cut it.
Second, I posit that my BS in Biology and near-PhD in Neurobiology, as well as the Biochemistry degrees cited above make all of us expert enough to rip a pair of graphs to shreds. In fact, I don't think you need a BS degree in Public Health or Virology or ANYTHING for that matter, to be able to think critically and credibly about data that's presented to you, which makes all of us qualified to argue here.
Third, I don't think it's fair to ask for people's opinions and then turn around and tell them that they don't have any credence because their credentials aren't good enough. That's like a three year old telling his teacher "you can't make me, you're not my mommy." The guys over at theMUSCtiger have made a very clear case refuting what has been put forward here. I have too, but I think their point is more clearly made. We've accepted your challenge, and you would seek to discount it because of a technicality.
Those boobies on your site aren't work friendly - at least where I work (I'll wait for the rush to your site to end before continuing...)
Okay, to continue I think that both you and theMusctiger (whom I believe is Jenks) should engage in a closed debate with Bialy and/or one of his minions. Closed - meaning no comments by anyone else - with Dean as a moderator. Dean attempted to do this in one of the threads, but it didn't work due to the nature of this medium as well as people's egos.
I want to see a debate between both sides. I want to see no ad hominems. I want to see evidence and I want footnotes and citations so that I can check them.
This debate on HIV - AIDS needs to be controlled and so far Dean - with his Libertarian streak and blogosphere background - hasn't done this.
How about it, Dean?
You're missing the fundamental distinction between someone who's competent and someone who's an authority.
I have no doubt that you're competent to look at graphs and draw what conclusions you can, as are most reasonably intelligent people.
But that you will soon have an advanced degree in a field which is related because your subject matter is also wet does not at all make you an authority such that your opinions are to be accepted without scrutiny.
While I agree with Bill that Dean's asking for the production of a counter-expert is underhanded (though knowing Dean, I'm certain that he doesn't mean it that way; being in some ways at the center of this he has a different perspective than most of us do), he has something of a valid point if you consider the discussion in total. He's presented data which convinces some people. Others are claiming that they shouldn't be convinced, but not stating convincing (to that sub-group) arguments that the graph does not disprove HIV<->AIDS. Thus he's asking the people making the claim who are appealing to their own authority to produce a real authority.
While I think that Dean is more convinced of his conclusion than he should be (and also may believe that more people consider his challegne to the reigning orthodoxy important than do), his request for an authority as an arbiter is not inherently wrong.
Several years ago, two CDC docs admitted they'd lied about the likelihood of an AIDS epidemic among straights for political reasons.
Apparently, if the general public had felt AIDS was going to be solely the problem of gays and dopers, they wouldn't pony up the big bucks.
In addition, there was a change in the definition of AIDS, resulting in a spike in reported infection rates. Using either definition, the rate was smooth. If some is good, apparently, more is better.
Just watch it.
As far as the difference between "competent" and authority is concerned, I figure that when the actual subject matter in question is that simple, everyone can be an authority, as I said before.
Further, I never asked that my opinions be considered without scrutiny. What I did expect, and I think we all deserve, is to have my opinions considered carefully and not dismissed as not good enough simply because the letters behind my name aren't the right ones. But we can leave my own arguments out of this entirely, as I feel the MUSC guys have done a much better job of making the case.
As far as a private debate is concerned, Dr. B invited me to one several days ago, but I won't waste my time debating with someone who has repeatedly belittled me and used me as an example of what not to do. There's no point in debating with someone who has no respect for me at the outset.
I just feel like Jenks has succinctly presented his case (which I happen to agree with), and no sooner did he put the effort into it than it was dismissed.
The real authorities shouldn't have to answer to Dean when their work is already out there. Bill's earlier suggestion that he do the legwork is a reasonable one. I have presented the link for the standard search engine for biomedical research at least 3 times here and twice more on my page. Here it is again. You can use whatever search strings you like, and you can even find Duesberg's work on PubMed.
And Scott, the thread you refer to is also the one I refer to.
I am an everyday citizen and I am asking questions. I'm not calling anybody names, and I am not making any insinuations about anyone. Nor am I making any money at this, unless you count a couple of hundred bucks a month in ad revenue "making money."
This blog gets thousands of daily readers. Surely somewhere among those daily readers someone can locate an epidemiologist, an HIV researcher, or someone at NIH or CDC who will answer this publicly.
Caltechgirl's completely correct: a degree in biology does not make you any more competent to address this data or its implications than any intelligent layman. Besides, if being intimidated by degrees was a character trait I possessed, I would never have embarked upon this subject.
Although, as an aside: Bialy is a molecular biologist with a PhD from Berkeley, and is the founding editor (and current Editor At Large) of Nature/Biotechnology, which is one of the most respected peer reviewed journals in the field of biology (it's a sister journal to Nature). None of that makes Bialy correctj. However, if you are going to discuss the man's work on a subject like this, do him the courtesy of not referring to him as "Mr." or indulging in similar forms of character assassination. If "Dr." sticks in your craw just call him Bialy or even Harvey. But if you cannot have that fundamental level of courtesy, seriously: get off my blog, I don't want you here.
Also by the way, if you're going to make insinuations about my motives, go to hell. Surely if you are a biologist or are attached to a university, you can locate an epidemiologist and/or someone at NIH or CDC who will address the data. That is no great challenge, is it?
who is that addressed to?
Not knowing what the journal Nature is doesn't make one stupid, only ignorant.
Anyhow, I think that the problem with people who have concluded against your conclusion finding an epidemiologist to answer you is one of percieved important; I think that not everyone figures that the evidence you've presented is worth answering. I don't mean that I think that that's the case — if half of what science knows today turns out to be mostly wrong, it wouldn't surprise me at all (in particular, I suspect that peer review isn't worth what it once was, and even then wasn't worth all that it was supposed to be) — but you're advocating a very minority position. One of the natural pitfalls of being in a minority is that people don't even answer you; they won't take you seriously.
I think that people fear that you might confuse epidemiologists not taking you seriously with them not being able to answer you. (Again, I make no claim as to whether they probably could or couldn't do so.)
(And besides all this, I doubt that most people realize that normal mortals can talk to important people. You've actually interviewed people the rest of us only read about or see on TV. I'm just guessing, but I would guess that most people imagine that every famous person has some sort of protection from interaction with commoners. Thus many people might be inclined to view the idea of getting someone from the NIH to look at your stuff as something unattainable.)
If people want a public debate between actual experts, I'm happy to oblige. Let me be clear on something: this started when I started emailing people and picking up a telephone and asking questions.
So: can you locate anyone--an epidemiologist, someone at NIH or CDC, hell, even a mathematics professor--who will go on record in a public forum on this?
We have two pieces of data and we have an inference we have drawn from them. This started because I fearlessly sent some emails to some biologists and was brave enough to pick up a phone. Is it asking too much to ask if any Dean's World readers (there are quite a few at this point) can do the same?
I don't want "leads" because that's proven futile. Locate me someone. It can't be hard, can it?
If your intention is to get an official response to this new theory from the CDC or NIH, I don't understand why you are presenting it as a general audience post on a weblog.
Also, since no one else has managed to do so, perhaps you could ask Dr. Bialy (who, as you point out, is the editor at large of one of the most respected peer reviewed journals in the field of biology) to locate an epidemiologist and/or someone at NIH or CDC who will address the data and conclusions you presented. That would put the whole thing to bed, wouldn't it?
While I share your concern about the peer review process breaking down in recent years, what I'm asking is not hard. As for the notion that they don't want to take me seriously: they don't have to. Take Bialy seriously. For that matter, take Dan Fendel seriously. I guess most people don't know it but the man's a highly respected mathematics professor.
And they don't have to answer me. I'm telling them they get a public response which I'll publish not as a comment but as an article. I won't edit it. Just go on record.
If the entire response is, "we are too smart for you mortals, and everyday citizens should not be asking these questions" well then fine.
I truly hope that no one here feels that way. That would be tragic given what Dean is trying to accomplish with this discussion.
As for asking Dr. B, mightn't that be like asking the fox to guard the henhouse? I think someone who is either ambivalent or on the other side should seek out an expert since that way there's an implicit guarantee that the debate would be free.
The fact is, there is a great deal of evidence supporting the proposition that HIV infectious agent that leads to AIDS. To be honest, I didn't know how much until this web discussion. I believe that if you're going to get "answers" from the CDC or the NIH, you're simply going to have to come up with a stronger case to refute the hypothesis.
With all due respect to you and Dr. Bialy, I do not believe that a strong case has been made at all. In particular, the quality of the data being relied on (namely, the total incidence numbers for persons with HIV between 1985-1990) are very suspect. Additionally, I have not seen any reasonable refutation of the studies I and otehrs have cited repeatedly that demonstrate that, controlling for most other factors, persons or other animals demonstrating HIV seropositivity develop AIDS, while persons or other animals demonstrating HIV seronegativity do not develop AIDS. Play with numbers all you like, but experimental data with controls are, in my mind, much stronger evidence.
But it's not a theory by the way, it's two pieces of data taken from the CDC's published data, and it's an inference drawn from them.
Lots of bloggers and lots of commenters are now participating in the debate, and I haven't stopped any of it, so what the hell are you talking about? Jesus Christ! I've asked a simple question: can you find an epidemiologist willing to on record in a public response? Or any person from CDC or NIH who will simply go on record in a public forum, or can you not? If you can, I'll publish it!
As for Harvey finding someone: Heh. Jesus, you're so CUTE! Every epidemiologist he's asked tells him that unless the data's fabricated then his analysis is correct. Would my publishing something from one of them impress you? He can't find one to disagree with his conclusions. Can you?
As for NIH or CDC: in 20 years no one's been able to get anyone from those organizations to go on the record on this.
Have you or Dr. Bialy contacted anyone at either the CDC or NIH and asked them to respond?
There is no "what next."
Of course.
Furthermore, the question's been out there for well over a decade. Published in peer reviewed journals.
No response. None.
He is the founding scientific editor of Nature Biotechnology, which is one of the most respected peer reviewed journals in
the field of biologythe ISI category of applied microbiology and biotechnology, which includes more than 100 peer reviewed publications (it's a sister journal to Nature). He has been, since 1996, a resident scholar at the Institute of Biotechnology of the Autonomous National University of Mexico, in Cuernavaca.I am sure someone will forgive Dean for not getting his memory of my CV exactly correct when he obviously was passionately defending his cyber-maligned, blogged down, dumb-ass friend. I appreciate that of course... but really there is no need to defend me. I stand by my good words, my good works and my good name.
Dean, that seems to be the problem. It's foolhardy to try and draw a conclusion (or even an inference) from two pieces of data... especially when their is so much else out there. Hell even that first AIDS graph doesn't tell the whole story (you can find a better representation in the 2002 CDC report).
I think that is the problem you are seeing here. There is plenty of data out there that all but confirms HIV as the causitive agent that skeptics refuse to consider. And the inability to answer the questions and challenges to Dr. Bialy's argument is pretty telling... all they hear in return is "NO! Look at MY two graphs dammit!" And that's not very compelling.
So much else is out there? Oh, I quite agree. A whole lot else is out there, and not all of it favoring your position. But it is a cheap debating trick to say "well, all this other stuff is out there." Yeah, well we can discuss those other things. But if we cannot focus on one thing at a time we cannot have a rational discussion.
We have a fundamental problem: The number of people infected with HIV has never changed. Never. That one fact is the turd in the punchbowl of all this other data you speak of.
Completely aside from that: The handwaving bullshit about latency periods to explain why the incidence of AIDS exploded when the incidence of HIV never did is just that: handwaving bullshit. Even if this idea of a latency period were correct, there would be an AVERAGE latency period and the pattern would still hold. And this virus does not track with any such pattern.
If these data are correct--and they are from the CDC, so if you're saying the data is unreliable you are effectively saying that there is no reliable data on HIV because they ARE the authoritative source--then you cannot take the position that AIDS is the sole explanation for AIDS. You can take the position that there may be cofactors, but you can't conclude that HIV alone is the cause. You cannot. Until fairly recently, no one would even admit that there could be cofactors, and even still, almost no one talks about these cofactors. We've had 20 years of study of this virus and there's still almost no public discussion of what these cofactors would be. Why?
I'll tell you what it looks like to me: because if you admit that there are cofactors, you have to ask what they are, and the implications are enormous.
We most certainly can. We can't because it won't favor YOUR position. I have provided more information and arguments, which people are free to read for themselves. I don't consider your dogged pushing of these questionable graphs as "rational discussion."
We have a fundamental problem: The number of people infected with HIV has never changed. Never. That one fact is the turd in the punchbowl of all this other data you speak of.
Unfortunately for you, this is far from a fact, as many on this site have pointed out. The CDC itself states that HIV infectivity rates from that far back are wild estimates. To rest what amounts to your whole case (while ignoring other evidence such as the molecular mechanism of HIV causing immunodeficiency) is a fool's gambit.
Even if this idea of a latency period were correct, there would be an AVERAGE latency period and the pattern would still hold. And this virus does not track with any such pattern.
Do you deny that HIV has a latency period? Can you provide HIV infectivity before 1985? Can you prove that your HIV infectivity graph is the least bit credible? Also, I think this discussion can be had without the use of profanity, which I don't appreciate. I haven't lost my temper in such a fashion toward you.
I also love how you dismiss HIV latency as "handwaving" without providing evidence as to why this is so.
If these data are correct--and they are from the CDC, so if you're saying the data is unreliable you are effectively saying that there is no reliable data on HIV because they ARE the authoritative source--then you cannot take the position that AIDS is the sole explanation for AIDS. You can take the position that there may be cofactors, but you can't conclude that HIV alone is the cause. You cannot.
Dean, do you even know what "cofactors" means? Because I am starting to wonder. I never said the data was unreliable, I merely pointed out where you could find a more accurate representation of the data, so don't try to set up some strawman where I can't argue my position because I point out the flaws in the numbers you present.
Really Dean, give it up. I came here and also posted on the issue to give a fuller picture of the issue. I'm sorry that that made you angry. Is that what you want as an exercise in critical thinking? That your claims go unchallenged? How about answering some of the questions all the others have raised?
You could spend the next few years actually learning about HIV and how it does what it does, or you could stick to this skeptics superior aire you seem to have; I don't really care.
Your inability to consider evidence contrary to your claims is not MY problem. But I will be watching, and any further sketchy claims you decide to make I will point out because thinking unchallenged isn't critical at all -- it's dogma.
But that's not true. The graph that you guys showed in your other thread was apparently based on some pulled-out-of-the-ass estimates, and whether they were pulled out of the CDC's ass or out of Jesus' they're still not meaningful because they just represent an estimate and not a measurement. There are masses of data that suggest the rate of HIV infection is anything but constant, and virtually nothing that comes from an empirical source to support Bialy's and Duesberg's [wild] claim.
Google HIV incidence rate and you'll find this and many other studies showing bell-curve rates in countries all over the world during the last couple of decades. See this press release from Emory University on rates of HIV transmission in the US. Do some diligent homework and you'll find that this flat-line theory is crap and nonsense.
Then ask yourself why you fell for this. Have you ever seen a demographic that looked like this? The ratio of girl babies to boy babies is about as close to a straight line as you'll ever see in demographics and it doesn't track this straight.
And to top it off, you guys presented two charts that weren't even normed to the same baseline - one is absolute numbers and the other is rates. I've never seen a more shoddy attempt at argument from data in my life, which is why I thought you must be trolling. Serious scientific debate doesn't look like this Dean, and your commenters have been very patient with you.
AIDS is a life-and-death matter, and it's way more important than Bialy's reputation.
"If these data are correct--and they are from the CDC, so if you're saying the data is unreliable you are effectively saying that there is no reliable data on HIV because they ARE the authoritative source"
Yes, that's exactly what we're saying - and the CDC would, too. Until there was an HIV test developed and in mainstream use, there is no possible way to get a reliable number for HIV infections. Period. Everything before that point is a guess. Some guesses might be more educated and/or better than others, but it's still a guess, and as such can't really be used definitively the way you want to use these graphs.
Also, as Jenks and I have both shown, independently, the graphs look different when you convert them to apples-to-apples graphs. Indeed, they look entirely different when you use apples-to-apples data.
In my opinion, as a philosophy major who works as a computer programmer (in other words, as somebody who is definitely not an expert on the subject, but - IMHO - a pretty smart guy), these graphs prove absolutely nothing one way or the other. When converted and viewed correctly, they are entirely consistent with the prevailing HIV positive + latency period = AIDS theory.
When I first looked at the graphs as you presented them, I had exactly the same opinion you did. The data didn't make any sense at all. But when you look at the correct data (total AIDS cases) presented in the correct form (as raw numbers, not as incidents-per-100000), they tell an entirely different story.
If you want to knock off the prevailing hypothesis, you have to show how that hypothesis fails to predict the results you actually see. But the prevailing hypothesis is HIV causes AIDS, with a latency period. That hypothesis, in its entirety, predicts exactly the data Jenks displayed in his graph, as I explained in the comments of your "graph" post and he explained better on his own site.
What you're trying to do is to pick apart the elements of the hypothesis one at a time. HIV, without the latency period, doesn't predict the data we see. But that's not the prevailing hypothesis. That one's already been deemed wrong by the "establishment." They've decided to go with the theory of HIV plus a latency period. If you're going to try to knock off the prevailing hypothesis, that's what you have to go after. Going after the other version is a red herring, one of the well known logical fallicies (hey, a philosophy degree counts for something).
On that note, I still haven't seen you update your chart. Jenks and I have both provided apples-to-apples versions, which you promised to post if anybody provided. (For what it's worth, my opinion is that Jenks' version is better and more complete than mine, so it's the one that should go up).
Why do you continue to insist on an oranges-to-apples comparison?
HIV cannot be the sole cause of AIDS. It can’t. It’s either a cofactor among other factors, or, it doesn’t do anything at all and is merely a passenger virus that gets spread through sexual contact and sharing needles and blood transfusions along with lots of other things that get spread that way.
Now, I'm pretty sure no one here believes you have made a case strong enough to back up THAT sort of claim. Again, I will point out that I am passionate on the issue (one that I NEVER thought I would care a whit about) as a training physician, but public health is a very serious matter that doesn't need to be underminded by selective data and faulty logic. Regardless, I want you to know it is not my intention to attack anyone's integrity, but I do think scientific judgement is at issue.
Maybe I can ask it differently. Given the Durban Declaration of some years ago, why hasn't Dr. Bialy
or Duesberg presented their findings to the academic community for evaluation ?
Have they sought out their academic peers ?
Richard: I will look at your sources and get back to you. But I must tell you, I laughed out loud at the Emory University press release. Sorry man.
I must also tell you that there's going to be an awful lot in the news a couple of weeks from now about those African statistics you cite. I can't say more at the moment, and no I'm not trying to be mysterious, I'm just not at liberty to say quite yet.
Anyway, please, let's dispense with the questioning of my motives. I give a shit about this because I've had a personal interest in it for a long time, because truth matters to me, and because if the science is as bad as it looks then we have had a lot of people die who didn't need to die--and are even now treating a deadly condition with exactly the wrong treatments, and more people are going to die who could be saved.
I'm either right, or I'm wrong, and if I'm wrong I'll admit it. But enough with the patting me on the head.
Jenks: The "handwaving bullshit" I'm referring to is the attempt by people to say that the fact that there's a latency period would somehow explain away why HIV infectivity has been so flat for so long.
Russell: Argh. Where is this graph you made? Did you mail it to me? Did I miss it in the bowels of the comments somewhere?
To make a bombastic claim such as that I hope you would have been able to prove something, which, it's clear, you haven't. Honestly, to claim that treatment that have SAVED LIVES harms people has brought your credibility to a new low that I hoped would never happen. Please provide evidence for what you claim to be true. Please recognize and counter the arguments that have been presented to your claims; for once!
I'm referring to is the attempt by people to say that the fact that there's a latency period would somehow explain away why HIV infectivity has been so flat for so long.
Why do you still refuse to acknowledge the problems with the data behind the graph you site, Dean? I honestly can't say anymore. I came here in good faith to try and reach a resolution... to have a logical argument... but when met with challenges, you don't address them and fall back on old arguments. I don't know what else to do. The HIV infectivity numbers have been roundly challenged, yet you STILL refuse to even acknowledge this!
Honestly Dean, give it up before you are discredited beyond repair.
Stick to it, Dean! Don't let these ill-informed hacks deter you!
Hank Barnes
As for the rest: You specifically asked me why I cared. I answered. I don't want us to go off on that tangent, but if you read Duesberg's paper, which has been referenced multiple times, you'll see that that's the clear assertion of the skeptics: that the medical practice has commonly been to put even healthy people on AZT (early days) and experimental "cocktail" drugs (later days) which themselves are often deadly and often cause symptoms of immune deficiency. Read the Duesberg paper, or read some of the stories I linked here. I'm not going to argue with you about this, especially not here since we're trying to discuss a specific data set and I don't want to get bogged, but that is the concern. You should know that this is what the skeptics are saying (and these skeptics include practicing MDs who treat HIV+ patients): a lot of people are being unnecessarily or inappropriately medicated by physicians who mean well but have been given bad data from reearchers.
So. We've asked one question: explain these numbers. You say you have a specific refutation. Give me the link. I will look, and if I cannot answer I will say so.
I fully understand your comment regarding, asking a noted epidemiologist or an NIH expert to respond to unanswered hypotheses re: HIV/AIDS and my interpretation of that as 'quasi-illusionary hypotheses'. My point was why ought they respond to this methodology.
In prior non-anticipation of your post today, I did sent an email to a very, very highly placed academic neuroscientist who would more than qualify as meeting your criteria. I do believe he would respond publically if it were in an academic setting and presented by credentialed educators presenting a valid scientific argument rather than just---we have questions that you need to refute---right here on the blogosphere---and here are the Duesbergs links. I do not accept that is a valid approach. Maybe I am wrong.
Am I incorrect in assuming that yourself and/or others have a programmed agenda--that really makes the bulk of the commentary on these issues secondary to that agenda ? And that we really ought not comment ?
Yes, I do respect that you have serious interest in the HIV/AIDS questions and as well do the other commenters. I think your numerous posts and others commentary have demonstrated that pont.
Dean,
Why not try to orchestrate a civilized debate between 1 proponent of the HIV causes AIDS crowd, and 1 opponent of this view. One on one.
This would save us from all the excess verbiage from some folks who not only don't get it, but don't want to get it.
You could argue the opponent view or be the judge, or whatever. But the key, of course, would be to find a smart gal/guy who believed HIV causes AIDS, based exclusively on the science, but was opened-minded enough to acknowledge that she/he could be persuaded otherwise.
Myself, I am still flabbergasted that a large segment of people fervently believe that HIV causes AIDS, yet they can't cite the paper in the mid-80's that proved it. Bizarre.
I'm not trying to dismiss the man but I think I was specific in my request: someone who practices epidemiology professionally, or a professional AIDS researcher, or a public health official. Otherwise we merely have another person with a PhD in the discussion, and what does that add? Dan Fendel is a well-respected math professor. Bialy is a molecular biologist. I forget what Miklos and Rasnick and Duesberg's PhDs are. At this point, we got enough PhDs (and MDs) in this conversation to staff a medical school.
If some blogger's got data he thinks I should link, I'll probably link it even if I disagree with it (just like I already did). My comments are also open to anyone, PhD or not, who has a serious response.
But the offer I'm making is more serious, and is exactly as I've stated: If a professional epidemiologist, a professional researcher in this area, or a public health official, wishes to go on record with a response to the specific article of Bialy's that I published, I will publish that response unedited.
If your neurobiologist friend believes he qualifies--if he's professionally active in HIV research, if he works as an epidemiologist, or if he works for a public health agency of some sort, I will publish it. There will be no need for him to concern himself with any other question: the data and the inferences we have drawn from same. No need to respond to the peanut gallery, and no need to change the subject.
I would love to host a serious debate with no heckling or interjectors. One on one. The HIV skeptics have really just a handful of specific objections, which they claim have been outright ignored or distorted. I'll definitely open this up.
The question would be: who would we get to represent the defenders of the HIV hypothesis? It would have to be someone serious--this is why I keep saying, public health official or professional AIDS researcher. But if we're going to escalate, who do we get?
Who's the guy in charge of AIDS matters at NIH? Get me a name and I can call him.
I originally posted a link to my chart in this comment. I would've e-mailed it except that I lost your direct e-mail address (I know you sent me an e-mail once, but I don't have it anymore). I tried filling out a contact form on your site twice but got no response, so I just linked to it.
The data it's based on were found here because I couldn't track them down on the CDC's web site. AVERT, however, cites the CDC as their source, and the numbers for 2003 match up with the numbers for 2003 provided by the CDC on the page you linked to in the same post with the charts, so I trust them. I originally posted that link here.
However, you really should skip all of that and go directly to this chart provided by Jenks on MUSC tiger, because my chart actually isn't an apples-to-apples chart. To get that, you need total AIDS cases to compare to total HIV infections. Your "flatline" chart already has the latter - Jenks' chart provides the former. I thought my chart had the former, but I was mistaken and Jenks pointed out the error of my ways.
When you look at the data as apples-to-apples, you get a totally different picture. The total number of AIDS cases increases steadily and more or less linearly. There is never once a drop in total cases.
In my comment here I described exactly the graph that the HIV-causes-AIDS hypothesis predicts (followed up with more here and here. However, Jenks post with the graph is a much more concise explanation.
The second post of mine is probably the best illustration of my reasoning, but it really is rather simple mathematics to figure what kind of graph the HIV-AIDS theory predicts, and it's exactly the graph that Jenks produces.
For simplicity's sake, I'll describe it again (all of this assumes the HIV-AIDS hypothesis). In year zero, H people become infected with HIV. In that same year, zero people will exhibit AIDS because of the latency. In year 2, H' people will exhibit HIV where H' = H + Hn - Hd, where Hn is the number of new infections and Hd is the number of infected people who die (for whatever reason). Our first few years should exhibit a very rapid increase in H because a) nobody knows about HIV yeat, b) nobody's developed AIDS yet (due to the latency), and c) the people who have it are still engaged in extremly risky behavior, thus spreading the virus.
Note that in this case, "year zero" would have to be several years before AIDS first appeared on the scene. However, your charts only begin when AIDS is already there, so we're missing this critical piece of information, even if your HIV chart is correct. Furthermore, even the first few years of your chart are entirely useless because there was no reliable HIV test, and the next few years are suspect because the test wasn't in widespread use. So all we have for that time are guesstimates.
Now, if people continued to engage in risky behavior we would expect to see HIV infection rates continue a gradual rise. But people didn't continue to engage in those behaviors. Ever since HIV appeared on the scene and public service messages and public schools started putting out the message, those risky behaviors have declined significantly. So seeing a relatively flat HIV infection curve from then on out isn't very surprising, especially if you factor in various other studies that commenters have already linked to showing that plain jane heterosexual intercourse has a very low rate of passing HIV. In and of itself, the flatline HIV curve would be expected by the HIV-AIDS theory if the epidemic is under moderate but imperfect control - which is more or less the current state of AIDS risk behaviors. No big gotchas here.
Now, on to the total AIDS incidences chart. The first year, we're going to have zero cases of AIDS. Somewhere around year 3 through year five, we're going X cases of AIDS as the virus exits latency and starts to do its dirty work. The next year, we'll have X' cases, where X' = X + Xn - Xd (sound familiar?). Xn represents the new cases of AIDS and Xd represents AIDS patients who died for any reason.
Now, the HIV-AIDS theory tells us that all those who get HIV will eventually contract AIDS. So if it had zero latency, the total AIDS graph would very closely follow the HIV graph. But since the theory tells us it has a many year latency, the graphs simply aren't going to match. Given a constant number of HIV infections, the AIDS graph would start at zero and slowly rise until X approximately equals H. Alternatively, if people were dying of AIDS faster than new infections, H would slowly fall until it equalled X. Either way, the two curves would be leading toward each other, growing asymptotically closer.
HIV medication would not result in dips and curves in this graph. It wouldn't ever reduce the total number of AIDS cases because it doesn't cure people who already have AIDS. It simply delays onset. The effect this is going to have is to flatten the AIDS curve and make it less steep. There is one exception: if the drug were so good that it slowed the rate of new AIDS cases (Xn) to a number lower than the rate of AIDS deaths (Xd), then you would start to see dips in the graph. However, we are told by the current establishment that this has not happpend.
So, given your HIV chart (and discounting the first few years because of unreliable data), what we would expect to see is a gradual rise in the total number of AIDS cases. What we would also expect to see is a rise in the number of new AIDS cases at the beginning of the cycle, followed by a large dip with the introduction of AIDS-delaying drugs, with the curve finally stabilizing at some kind of equilibrium point.
As it turns out, this is exactly the graph that Jenks generated.
The alternate chemical-AIDS theory might predict similar graphs. I haven't taken the time to play the thought experiment through. But even if it does, if both theories predict the same graphs then the graphs cannot be used to discredit either theory.
These graphs prove nothing. When read correctly, they're entirely consistent with the HIV-AIDS theory. I did read Dr. Duesberg's (no offense meant if I misspelled that!) paper, and find its argument very interesting, though I haven't had time to check his data yet. As such, I remain open to the chemical-AIDS hypothesis. But these charts just don't cut it.
PS: Dean, you really should've taken the time to make apples-to-apples charts. That's middle school science/math stuff, dude. You're a way smart dude (to be clear, meant in a very complimentary, totally non-sarcastic way), and should know better.
Okay, first off, I did not realize that Jenks runs The MUSC Tiger site. Sorry Jenks. I didn't realize that's who you are. I guess I should have looked closely, but that added to my "what data?" confusion. Now that that's cleared up:
I saw the chart on The MUSC Tiger site, and I was bemused at how he or anyone thought that a serious response. It hasn't got anything to do with what we're talking about, because what we're talking about is how many people have AIDS vs. how many people have HIV. What do AIDS deaths have to do with any of that?
Bialy's charts do not purport to show HIV deaths, nor do they purport to show AIDS deaths. They purport to show the incidence of AIDS in the population on an annual basis, and the incidence of HIV on an annual basis.
Is that where the confusion lies here? Do you guys think we're trying to describe AIDS deaths?
Look: if I read it properly--and Bialy or anyone else can contradict me--the CDC measurements we refer to are annual tallies: A) How many instances of AIDS do we find in the general population this year, and B) How many instances of HIV do we find in the general population this year?
They are measuring two distinct things, so in that sense it's "apples and oranges," but that's what we're trying to look at: we want to look at how common HIV is apart from how common AIDS is. The HIV cases will include people with an AIDS diagnosis and people without an AIDS diagnosis.
Now I suddenly click on why Dan Fedel's response caused confusion though. He said "It's pretty obvious from the shape of his first graph that this must represent new cases." When I read that I read it as "the AIDS cases still carrying over plus the new cases." That's my fault. Completely. I should have spotted that and asked him to clarify before I held it up (and I wish someone else would have pointed it out to me sooner).
That being said, everything else he said applies.
So. Let us start over. And please, let's not accuse people of trying to pull fast ones here, this is my fault for not looking at the language more clearly. I take full responsibility, because I saw what I thought Dan MEANT vs. what he SAID. Remember, though, this isn't about Dan, or me, it's Bialy's data. So let's look at it again:
Question 1: How many people with AIDS do we find in the general population in any given year?
Question 2: How many people with HIV do we find in the general population at any given year?
When I was verifying these figures (not easy to do) by looking through historical news archives and such, this all matched, and it's what I was looking for.
Is this not consonant with the way the word "incidence" is used in epidemiology? We take a year, and we look for every instance we find.
In any case, if my interpretation of the what the graphs is flawed, it will be my own ignorance. However, I do not see how you guys can think measuring incidence of AIDS and incidence of AIDS deaths can have any bearing on this discussion.
At this point I am going to have to ask Harvey to rescue me in case I've said something wrong. But this was the understanding I had when this started and it's still how I'm reading it. And nothing any of you guys has said has refuted any of that.
If my own carelessness added to that confusion I apologise. It's # of people alive with HIV, and # of people alive with AIDS. Right?
I saw the chart on The MUSC Tiger site, and I was bemused at how he or anyone thought that a serious response. It hasn't got anything to do with what we're talking about, because what we're talking about is how many people have AIDS vs. how many people have HIV. What do AIDS deaths have to do with any of that?
Hey, thanks for the insult; pretty much everyone here thought it pretty convincing, but they aren't dogmaticly clinging to a preconcieved conclusion. In case you are still confused; that link contains the full graph which I have to say was EASILY obtainable from the CDC website.
Look: if I read it properly--and Bialy or anyone else can contradict me--the CDC measurements we refer to are annual tallies: A) How many instances of AIDS do we find in the general population this year, and B) How many instances of HIV do we find in the general population this year?
Again, what you present in "A" is NOT what the data shows (although it IS what Dr. Bialy said it did); if you look at the graph I provide (from the CDC info) the linear plot shows "How many instances of AIDS do we find in the general population this year" while that peak and dip plot shows cases that were FIRST DIAGNOSED that year, which is a HUGE difference. Russell points out why this is significant in his most recent yeomanlike comment.
In any case, if my interpretation of the what the graphs is flawed, it will be my own ignorance. However, I do not see how you guys can think measuring incidence of AIDS and incidence of AIDS deaths can have any bearing on this discussion.
At this point I am going to have to ask Harvey to rescue me in case I've said something wrong. But this was the understanding I had when this started and it's still how I'm reading it. And nothing any of you guys has said has refuted any of that.
Jesus Christ, just look at the graph. AND, it would be pretty silly to EXCLUDE AIDS deaths when you are looking at infectivity and how much AIDS is in the population!! And, I'm pretty sure Harvey isn't the guy you need to run to on this issue. He is the booster of a guy who believes that AIDS DRUGS caused AIDS (a possition I show how silly to be in this link )!
I don't mean to be rude or anything, but this is pretty frustrating at this point.
That is significant, and shows that if your chart is correct, my interpretation of the data is incorrect.
There is an inherent set of arguments here about whether all those people "living with AIDS" on the right hand side really represents. However, there can be no wiggle room here: clearly, a linear curve is shown for the growth of AIDS cases.
And now an explanation is required.
Don't sweat it, Dean; it's cool. I know what it's like to have stuff swirling around you (especially when there are other things to be concerned about). No one is making any accusations here on the things that matter (character, motives, ect.). But, I do believe this at least warrents another (hopefully final) post on the matter rathe than being consigned to the comments section.
Cheers to being a stand up guy though and running a cool site.
Recent discoveries have proved that HAART decrease oxidative stress, in opposition to AZT.
HAART and oxidative stress
Particularly, 3TC and FTC are the essential drug which must be given so that HAART be efficient. Indeed they are reducing agents.
The main alternative to the hiv hypothesis is the oxydative stress hypothesis, which is defended par MD's and PhD's from Perth (Aus) :
The Perth Group
In the present study, we have shown that, during HAART, the decrease in virus load and the increase in CD4+ T cell count are accompanied by both an improvement in the abnormal glutathione-redox status and an increase in the subnormal levels of antioxidant vitamins; however, HAART did not induce full normalization of these parameters, and, furthermore, in HIV-infected patients receiving HAART, glutathione supplementation in vitro increased anti-CD3stimulated T cell proliferation and suppressed the spontaneous release of TNF- from PBMCs. These findings lend further support to the idea that enhanced oxidative stress contributes to the pathogenesis of HIV infection, and our in vitro findings suggest that therapeutic intervention aimed at normalization of these oxidative disturbances could be of interest, even in the "HAART era." However, it remains to be proven that such effects of glutathione supplementation also are operative in vivo in HIV-infected patients receiving HAART.
What it is saying is that in addition to fighing the virus, HAART also results in increased effectiveness of glutathione, which would be good since free radical damage is part of the proposed mechanism of how HIV kills T-cells. It goes on to postulate that glutathione supplementation might be beneficial in addition to HAART to lower oxidative damage and hopefully help boost T-cell counts. It is NOT saying that the HAART drugs have an effect solely by decreasing oxidative stress; they are clearly retrovirals (you can look up their molecular mechanisms) as they result in a decreased viral load.
For any lay man reading this: free radicals are basically molecules with unpaired electrons that are nasty little buggers which love to cause DNA damage. Our cells have a mechanism to reduce (oxidatively that is, i.e. re-pair the electron) free radicals that involves glutathione.
Free radical are ubiquitous though and will probably be what kills you (you can increase their presence by eating a lot of chargrilled meat for example). They are implicated in cancer, aging, ect. So it's no surprise they have a role in the mechanism of T-cell death (in fact our own phagocytic cells that eat pathogens degrade proteins through the same oxidative stress mechanisms).
All in all, while dangerous, free radicals are neat, in a tubular sort of way ;).
In the years since more and more AIDS drugs have been administered (which have similar mechanisms but help the patient b/c side effects are very patient specific), the AIDS deaths (as well as NEW AIDS cases) should go UP not down. One could claim that something else caused the increased survivability of people with AIDS (though I would wonder why), but it's clear that AIDS drugs aren't what's causing AIDS, AIDS symptoms, or AIDS progression.
On the contrary, I have given some links which show clearly that aids is closely linked whith excess of oxidative stuffs. Particularly in my opinion with oxidized nitrogens.
In my opinion of chemist, 3TC acts as an antioxidant.
Not really disputing that. All I pointed out was that the study you link also said that HAART resulted in a decreased viral load (which is consistant with the anti-retroviral mechanism of 3TC); it uses antioxidant effects to propose that HAART may be even more effective by incuding agents that reduce oxidative stress; it does not say that the drugs give a beneficial effect solely through reducing oxidative stress (but rather this may be a beneficial side effect).
The mechanisms of anti-retrovirals is no mystery. Lamivudine (3TC) is a pyrimidine nucleoside analogue. It's going to help terminate HIV viral gene replication (it's also been shown to be useful in Hep B). You don't need to sequence a terminated chain (although I'm sure someone has done this with eariler analogue drugs like acyclovir for herpes) to see it's effect works through it's proposed mechanism.
Luc Montagnier for instance works actually on oxidative stress, and thinks that it is the major perturbation of aids.
Do you think that molecular modeling represents the reality ?
I have adressed this against a molecular biologist in connection with this study which wants to prove that "hiv" mutes in the presence of AZT.
The modelisation was wrong, because they havn't applied properly the hydrogen bonding and Van dr Waals phenomenon.
I love this:
The mechanisms of anti-retrovirals is no mystery. Lamivudine (3TC) is a pyrimidine nucleoside analogue. It's going to help terminate HIV viral gene replication
Isn't it also going to terminate cellular DNA replication, too? Don't cells have millions of more nucleosides than itty-bitty viruses? Won't nucleoside analogues, in effect, kill the white blood cells, far more efficiently than the virus, nobody sees fit to culture?
Please advise.
Hank Barnes
I have no need to be conviced, I'm sure that this study about resistance to AZT is bad science.
A few simple questions, my friend:
1. Does AZT, as a nucleoside analog, target viral DNA or not?
2. Does AZT terminate "HIV viral gene replication" or not?
3. Do white blood cells, including T-Cells, have cellular DNA, including the pyramidine nucleosides, or not? (Pyramidine just means Cystosine (C) and Thymine(T); whereas Purine would mean the other 2, adenine (A) and Guanine (G)
4. Do white blood cells have MILLIONS of more nucleosides than HIV or not?
5. Can AZT distinguish between the DNA of viruses and the DNA of cells, or not?
Add all of this up. The conclusion is that AZT kills white blood cells (by terminating DNA synthesis) much more efficiently than the virus.
Hence, AZT CAUSES immune deficiency.
Analogy: The Iraqi invasion was intended to HELP the War on Terror by killing bad guys. Instead, some argue, it has HURT the War on Terror by BREEDING greater numbers of bad guys.
Yes, it's hard to compare politics to science, but the same principle applies.
Faithfully,
Hank Barnes
Short answer, because I don't have time. But the genes controlling viral replication are different than those that control human white blood cell replication. Targeting viral replication will not target cell replication. They're two different things.
And in a broader point, why is it that the proponents of the "AIDS drugs cause AIDS" hypothesis ignored the fact that, after the advent of the widespread use of AIDS drugs, new AIDS cases have dropped and AIDS deaths have dropped? That data doesn't correlate with the hypothesis.
This is so laughable, my ribs hurt!
1. When was AZT developed?
Answer -- 1964. (See, Horwitz, J.Org.Chem, 1964)
2. What was the purpose of AZT?
Answer -- Well, certainly not to treat AIDS, since AIDS did not appear until 1981. That would be impossible.
3. C'mon, quit joshing, What was the purpose of AZT?
Answer -- To target CELL replication, namely, cells that had, unfortunatly, turned cancerous. Kill the tumor, by killing the cell, by interrupting the DNA. Quite logical and simple.
So, Mr. Biochemistry Degree, you're telling me with a straight face that:
1. AZT was designed to kill the mutated DNA of cancer cells; and
2. AZT kills the un-mutated DNA of HIV; but
3. Somehow, magically, avoids killing the healthy DNA of white blood cells?
I shudder to ask where you obtained your degree. Please don't say UCLA - my alma mater:)
You have just explained why you are so thoroughly and completely wrong about AIDS.
Alas, I remain,
Hank Barnes
Also, human cells have multiple repair mechanisms with their polymerases and other proteins that allow them to excise and repair the kind of damage that would be caused by a nucleoside analog. The viral reverse transcriptase is one of the most error prone polymerases known (which is why HIV has such a high mutation rate) and is unable to repair it's gene products when they are damaged.
This is all the time I am wasting on you. You might want to learn to show a little respect for people that undoubtably know volumes more about a subject instead of showing your bare-assed ignorance like this.
If this guy insists on going on like this, someone else will have to feed the troll because I have no interest in it.
AZT is an anti-retrovial medication, which inhibits the activity of reverse transcriptase, which converts RNA to DNA. It has nothing to do with cellular replication (although it does affect protein assembly). It was developed as an anti-cancer drug, but never approved because it wasn't efficacious to fight cancer.
AZT taken on its own does have some nasty side effects in a certain portion of the population. But these seem to be diminished slightly with the use of a AIDS drug cocktail.
But there is one thing we do know, and that's that AZT actually activates T-cells in the body, thereby INCREASING the efficacy of the immune system.
http://www.aegis.com/news/bw/1996/BW960716.html
And you're still ignoring the fact that after the advent of the AIDS treatments, AIDS deaths have dropped and new AIDS cases have dropped. If those drugs caused AIDS, the reverse should be true.
Honestly, do some freaking research you lame troll.
And I am also surprised that none of the many people who have carefully examined the Duesberg paper from which the graphs are adapted has brought in the missing part of the relevant figure which shows clear as a bell that the CDC and Bialy and Esmay and Barnes et al. are full of it.
Damn! Doesn't the curve from Africa using really excellent data from the WHO show a perfectly linear increase from a negligible number of cases in the 80's to 25 or so million now?
What are these guys trying to pull?
P.S. Epidemic curves come in a variety of flavors as a profitable use of your favorite instant knowledge tool, Google, will show you. They all have one thing in common, however. It's the first likc that's the killer.
Go Steelers.
Nice bluff. Good indignation. But, you avoid answering the questions. What a surprise.
Now, I'll respond to your rant.
Normal human cells replicate at a much slower rate than tumor cells or the rate that viruses replicate at.
Kinda sorta true, but grossly misleading. Nobody's talking about "normal human cells." We're talking about quick-dividing cells such as white blood cells. That is why cancer chemo notoriously leads to immune suppresion -- it kills white blood cells. (See, Cheson, Nucleoside Analogs in Cancer Therapy, pg. ii,, (1997.)
One of the fastest turnover of cells is in the intestines, which part of the reason why diarrhea is seen alot as a side effect.
Er, why are you mentioning diarrhea? Bad lunch or something?
Human cells are simply less succeptible to damage because their turnover is far less.
True for most cells, but, sigh, not for quick-dividing cells, like, er, YOUR WHITE BLOOD CELLS -- which is what we are talking about. WBC replicate quickly, right genius?
Also, human cells have multiple repair mechanisms with their polymerases and other proteins that allow them to excise and repair the kind of damage that would be caused by a nucleoside analog.
You're saying that white blood cells repair their own damaged DNA caused by nucleoside analogs? Wow! This would revolutionize cancer chemotherapy regiments and simultaneously negate the effects of immune-suppressive drugs for transplant operations. Well done, Jenks! I'm sure you've published these results and won a Nobel Prize for it, too:)
The viral reverse transcriptase is one of the most error prone polymerases known (which is why HIV has such a high mutation rate) and is unable to repair it's gene products when they are damaged.
This is a mess. I have no idea what your point is here -- the errors of RT lead to HIV mutation? So what. But, in any event, Do you have a cite for Reverse Transcriptase is "error prone?"
Further, for your edification, RT, discovered by Temin (or was it Baltimore?) in 1970, CAME after the development of AZT in 1964. So, obviously AZT was not designed as a Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor.
RT is the red-herring your ilk hang their hat on, ignoring the damage that AZT does to the cellular DNA of healthy white blood cells.
Finally, one of the known side-effects of AZT is leukopenia and neutropenia. (See Richman, The Toxicity of AZT, NEJM, 317:192 (1987). I'll quote it for you, since you don't believe in citing the literature before popping off:
Hematology: Anemia, leukopenia and neutropenia were the major hematologic abnormalities attributable to AZT. (Richman, page 193.)
As you know, Jenks, my hysterical new friend, Leukopenia means a decrease in white blood cells, while neutropenia means a decrease in neutrophils, another type of white blood cells.
Let me explain this to you. This means:
We treat Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome with a drug that causes immune deficiency.
That you fail to understand that AZT causes a depletion in white blood cells both by its designed mechanism and according to the published literature demonstrates you as a rather clueless biochemist.
This is all the time I am wasting on you. You might want to learn to show a little respect for people that undoubtably know volumes more about a subject instead of showing your bare-assed ignorance like this.
Really? For someone, who dodged my questions, cited no authorities and offered grossly screwed-up analysis, you might wanna avoid the Greta Garbo "I vant to be alone" pose:)
Cordially,
Hank (Mr. Barnes) to you
Temper, temper, Jenks0. With all due respect, you should know that if you are caught out in misguided statements and errors, you may only create an even greater impression of fallibility by letting loose.
Ad hominem stuff only destroys reader's' concentration, don't you agree? And the purpose of this thread and the others on HIV and AIDS is to clarify and even resolve this knotty issue in our minds, is it not?
"Targeting viral replication will not target cell replication. They're two different things. "
I shall have to go back and check everything you said on this topic, but it seems to me that anyone who denies that AZT interferes with cell replication is so in error that I begin to wonder whether your claimed qualifications are truthful. I mean your claim to "know volumes about" the subject, your degree etc. The whole reason AZT was reluctantly rejected as a cancer treatment by Sam Broder when he found it was that this promising tumor killer polished off the patient faster than the disease.
"bare-assed ignorance."
The true explanation is so simple that one again wonders if you know enough about the topic. AZT is a DNA chain terminator, so when cells divide and uncurl the double helix into single strands and then rebuild them into two new sets of DNA for two new cells, then AZT - azidothymine- is mistaken for thymine and added to the DNA chain which it then terminates, aborting the rebuilding process and leaving in effect two dead cells instead of two new live ones. That is why AZT is very bad news for the human body, which has many cells dividing in many sites including the guts you mention.
Respect
The key thing though for me is that you apparently lack the respect due those you disagree with ie the heretics, or anyone who endorses their complaints. In this you are not alone. The thread is crowded with people who seem to imagine that the heretics are unqualified compare with the establishment, and therefore wrong annd deserving of contempt.
But I ask you to reconsider. The credentials of Peter Duesberg are better than any of his opponents. He has an impeccable record in publishing his research, none of which has ever been questioned. He was California Scientist of the year and well on his way to a Nobel for discovering the first oncogene before he overplayed his hand by saying what he thought in reviewing the absurd HIV-AIDS theory. He was one of the founders of oncogenes, one of the biggest pursuits of biologists in the last quarter century. He renounced that theory in favor of a new line of research in cancer which is now attracting big names from all over who are trying to steal the credit from him.
His papers are beautiful classics of writing and logic -- you're an intelligent guy, you would admire them if you read them. He was a member of the National Academy at 49, well ahead of his opponents in AIDS. Meanwhile two of his greatest foes in AIDS, Robert Gallo and David Baltimore, narrowly escaped official censure for scientific malpractice in scandals which filled space in the newspapers for years.
Duesberg had an Outstanding Investigator Grant of $750,000 from the NIH to do what he liked with, he was such a golden boy. He never had a grant turned down. After his AIDS reviews, he never got another public grant. His PhD students and post grads vanished, his lab went down the tubes, rscued from oblivion only by private donors who saw the injustice in his treatment, nd all his positions and invitations disappeared. He was reduced at one point in his university appointments - other than his luckily tenured professorship - to chairman of the department annual picnic.
But I challenge you to find anyone who has studied with him or heard him lecture or read anything he has written who doesn't respect and even admire him. Except his foes, of course, who are not only tormented by his critiques but often the butt of his jokes. I am only sorry that those who despise him here have never met or heard him. He seems to bring round every audience he talks to.
I think he also deserves a lot of respect for his public spirit. He has sacrificed his reputation and much of his career privilege for the simple reason as he puts it that the public is paying him, so he feels that they deserve truthful answers to questions he researches. Now of course the public's money doesn't reach him at all, since his colleagues are not going to give their blessing to his grant requests and encourage his effort to overturn the bandwagon on which they have ridden to riches and fame. They are going to tell naive students, naive colleagues, naive officials, naive activists and naive members of the public that he is full of it and not to listen to him. Knowing or foolish reporters will amplify and endorse this attitude to keep in with their irreplaceable sources -the top guys.
Only the few people who are used to the crowd being misled by those in high positions in every field will examine the question with an open mind and give Duesberg his due. The others will rush to attack him with prejudgement - that is what prejudice means - and self righteous delight. That's human nature.
Doesn't prove him right, but it does suggest we shouldn't join the lynch mob too soon. As Jonathan Swift remarked, "When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
I think in modern science we have to add the words "and the fat cats" after dunces. And we have to oause and think what we have paid for in sending money to them,. and not to Duesberg. As things stand at present, we may even have delayed the solution to cancer and lost even more lives than in AIDS.
Think about it - and if you don't believe me, read Scientific American over the last couple of years, or Harvey Bialy's book. Come on, its only $20 and it gives you the lowdown, the inside dope on what really goes on in science, how the game is really played. I don't think even CaltechGirl will be as sure of herself as she is right now, after she reads it.
But why do I supect that she never will? I hope I am wrong.
I am curious to know, very, how many HIV particles an infected CD4 cell could produce in 24 hours if it was maximally replicating the 9 kb of RNA that encode all the genetic information necessary to make one killer virus.
And given that number to know how many such T cells are ever infected at any one time in a typical Stage III or even Stage IV AIDS patient, and how many infectious particles do they produce each 24 hours they manage to stay alive.
The entire rationale of all anti-retroviral therapies seems to be crucially dependent on these answers.
Surely you can find them. When you do, will you be taken aback, even a little? I know I was, and Duesberg was, and a few other dolts as well, and more than a little, we when discovered the answers to these quantitative, molecular biological type questions. And I wasn't an armchair professor then.
What is faintly absurd about this whole set of threads is that the complete list of ridiculous claims made in the HIV-AIDs ideology that I posted earlier in answer to a sneer was ignored. What better proof a paradigm is not viable that a humungous list of inconsistencies that cannot be matched by ONE good scientific reason why we should believe it, as evidenced by the entire LACK of any paper to reference in the peer reviewed scientific literature that proves it or even sufficiently supports it, as Hank has repeatedly pointed ou?. All the overwhelming evidence often cited is tautological - it actually assumes what it purports to back. One of the biggest fatuities is that any of the symptoms in the presence of (antibodies to) HIV is AIDS, without HIV it is not AIDS. Thus the match between HIV and AIDS is 100%. The correlation is perfect! So it must be the cause!
However, since Dean queried the assertion that no doctor, nurse or researcher exposed to HIV in their work has ever contracted AIDS, on the reasonable basis that zero is always a questionable number, I asked Duesberg to confirm the assertion, which is in his Journal of Biosciences paper. His reference there is in Table 4 Point 13 as (30) which is the CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 13.
After all, surely among the multitudes administering their deadly potions to the afflicted, or researching new toxic substances to try on them, thre must have been some who came down with 'AIDS" symptoms of one kind or another and blamed the cursed virus.
How come the CD report is too dumb to claim any such cases?
This is his answer:
"The fact is that there is not one single peer-reviewed study, reporting that a doc/health care worker ever contracted AIDS from >850,000 American AIDS patients in >20 tears, despite the absence of an anti-HIV vaccine. By contrast, about 1000 American docs/health care workers contract viral hepatitis B from patients per year, even though there are vaccines."
I shall have to go back and check everything you said on this topic, but it seems to me that anyone who denies that AZT interferes with cell replication is so in error that I begin to wonder whether your claimed qualifications are truthful.
Strawman, no one is denying that AZT interferes with cell replication. I'm not going to knock down your strawmen, and keep your snide asides to yourself.
Your explaination of the mechanism of action of AZT is perfectly correct. Unfortunately for you AZT binds reverse transcriptase far more avidly than human DNA transcriptase thus allowing it to be given at safe levels to the body.
The key thing though for me is that you apparently lack the respect due those you disagree with ie the heretics, or anyone who endorses their complaints. In this you are not alone. The thread is crowded with people who seem to imagine that the heretics are unqualified compare with the establishment, and therefore wrong annd deserving of contempt.
I'd be glad to hear anyones qualifications.
The credentials of Peter Duesberg are better than any of his opponents.
That's quite a statement! Given that his opponents are most of the scientific community it's no wonder they work so hard to discredit him. They must simply be jealous.
His papers are beautiful classics of writing and logic
Is he also kind to puppies?
Bla bla fawning bla. Has it occured to you that maybe your hero worship might be blinding you to the facts? Why is it that all of the skeptics still refuse to answer the challenges to their criticisms? Why do we only get restatements of the same old tired debunked arguments?
Only the few people who are used to the crowd being misled by those in high positions in every field will examine the question with an open mind and give Duesberg his due. The others will rush to attack him with prejudgement - that is what prejudice means - and self righteous delight. That's human nature.
So, I'm supposed to respect his conclusions and if I don't then I am close-minded? How convienent a possition for you to take.
I considered the arguments carefully here, then pointed out how sadly flawed they were, and convinced most of the people how sadly flawed they were. I don't consider that a "rush to attack" with "prejudgement" do you? Might you be more upset that no one seems to take these claims seriously? Or upset that you can't make even a half-way decent case for them?
"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
How fortunate for him! He must be a genius because he is discredited.
As things stand at present, we may even have delayed the solution to cancer and lost even more lives than in AIDS.
No, in fact, we have made great strides despite this malarky which is a danger to public health. Take your book hocking and fawning praise to someone else and try getting out of the blind-to-all-facts box you have put yourself in.
Outstanding! Far more eloquent than myself. And more patient, too. Also, don't worry about Jenks calling me a "dolt." I am a dolt in many respects on many topics, but just not this one:)
Here's the track record of Jenks so far:
1. Doesn't cite authority
2. Doesn't answer questions
3. Doesn't ask questions
4. Pontificates with egregious misinformation about his own supposed field.
5. Calls people dolts.*
No wonder the U.S. is falling so far behind in the sciences compared to the world.
Your Faithful Servant,
Hank Barnes
* Obviously, Jenks would not call me a dolt in person, since I am 6'2", 205 -- and that's without cowboy boots:)
My only excuse is that I am old and enfeebled like Father William, and I love the Steelers.
When I wrote earlier:
And I am also surprised that none of the many people who have carefully examined the Duesberg paper from which the graphs are adapted has brought in the missing part of the relevant figure which shows clear as a bell that the CDC and Bialy and Esmay and Barnes et al. are full of it.
Damn! Doesn't the curve from Africa using really excellent data from the WHO show a perfectly linear increase from a negligible number of cases in the 80's to 25 or so million now?
Of course what I meant was: number of cases of HIV infection. How silly of me.
tyger is a deliberate mispelling in the honor of another insane writer named William. He used it, I think, to convey the image of an imaginary tiger.
I lost my temper once and I regret that but now others are doing it.
I see now we're off on a discussion of AZT, which ought to be a separate subject of discussion. Mama mia...
Jenks0He is a dolt. I've refrained from ad hominem attacks before and been very patient.
(Excuse me correcting your Latin spelling). OK you think (you claim) that Hank is a dolt. Why say so? It will only bring you into disrepute since a) It lowers the level of a high flying discussion into a mud wrestling bout, and that insults everyone who is trying to get subtle points across to some sharp well informed people such as yourself as well as into some very thick skulls. b) All present can see what Hank is for real, a racehorse, and here you are saying he is a donkey, so your judgment is called into serious question. And c) many serious people discussing a serious topic involving millions of lives and billions of tax dollars will put your outburst down to petty frustration at being called on some of your unsustainable assertions, such as AZT is no problem for cellular division.
I was not being snide when I said this made me wonder if your claim of a degree was truthful. Maybe the answer is that your degree didn’t cover the particular area. Whatever, your assertions are a whole body of new knowledge hitherto neglected by th