MadKally

No wonder I thought we were talking about Peter Duesberg. I read that old link and had to scroll forever before I even saw the name Karry Mullis mentioned by RoddyM. We were talking about Peter Duesberg in this thread at the time. There was no mention of Mullis in the thread we were discussing. The OP mentioned Duesberg. When you linked your thread you didn't even mention Hairi or Mullis.

Jesse

Are you saying you think the consensus of scientists around the world on the HIV/AIDS connection is just a product of US "propoganda"? Kary Mullis has also said he believes in astrology and that global warming is nonsense, just because he's a nobel-prize-winner doesn't mean he's very trustworthy on all scientific issues.

Justin70

You know, I'm a little dissapointed.

I started this thread to ask some questions, not to have it turn into posts galore stating that Duesberg is a lunatic because EVERYONE knows that HIV causes AIDS. I'm not interested in that at all.

There are very specific evidences/information given in Duesberg's book and I'd like to know SPECIFICALLY why it's wrong. If you guys need the information, I'll dig out the book and post what he tries to show and the evidence that he uses.

So could we stay focused on the evidence at hand and keep the character assassination to a minimum?

And if you think it really isn't even WORTH posting information against his 'evidence' then don't post at all. I'm here to learn. =)

Thanks. =)

Justin

Principia

Justin70, why don't we start there. What specific evidence/information do you find convincing?

Asking for a blanket statement in your OP, such as: will only get you blanket statements about Duesberg.

tronvillain

JesseM:
I think you should be open to the possibility that RoddyM was saying just the opposite of that. In other words, he was saying that denial of an HIV/AIDS connection is comparable to young earth creationism. I could be wrong, but I thought I should point the possiblility out.

Gurdur

No, you're wrong, tronvillain, very wrong.


RoodyM is also on record as believing schizophrenia does not exist and the label is only USA propaganda, BTW.

MadKally

No, you're wrong, very wrong.

scigirl

I haven't read the book in question, but here are some facts to think about:

I do want to clarify the following: Is it true that AIDS denyers aren't denying AIDS, they are just denying that HIV causes AIDS?

I'm going to assume here that the denyers DO believe that there is a population of people who have the following features (taken out of a board review book so may be a bit out of date):
a. CD4 count below 200 mm^3
b. Opportunistic infections
c. A predisposition to specific types of cancers
d. A positive antibody titer AND a positive virus titer for the Human Immunodeficiency virus

Please let me know if denyers dispute the above facts.

So why do we think that HIV causes AIDS?

1) We have isolated the virus that allegedly causes AIDS, seen it under a (electron) microscope, and determined that it binds to and infects CD4+ T cells (among other things). People who are apparently immune to AIDS lack the receptor on their T cells.

2) When you look at the time course of virus titer and CD4 count in individual patients, they correlate perfectly. In other words, as HIV goes up, CD4 goes down. Then, if you add antiviral drugs (which we know for a fact inhibits the viral replication machinery of HIV), the CD4 counts go back up. Of course this is until the virus mutates and becomes resistant to the drug. But the early time course follows that pattern nicely.

3) Symptoms of AIDS correlate with what we know about the function of CD4+ T cells. In other words, the specific types of cancers and infections that an AIDS patient gets makes sense in the context of what it does to the immune system. (Of course we do have a lot to learn - but AIDS doesn't contradict any main theories that I know of, and by and large, confirmed our theories about the role of T cells in immune diseases).

4) To my knowledge, there has not been one convincing case of a person who had AIDS but did not have any evidence of HIV in them. Also, every person who has AIDS engaged in some type of behavior or action that fits with our hypothesis about HIV spread. In other words, every single person who has AIDS either had a mother with AIDS, shared a needle with someone, had a transfusion, or had sex. This is very important, because if AIDS is caused by something other than the spread of a blood- or sex fluid-born virus, we would expect to see cases of AIDS in virgins, in people who never did drugs, etc, etc. We dont. Or is the evil pro-AIDS conspiracy hiding these people?? Keep in mind that patients who exhibit items a - d above are facts, not opinions.

Pretty convincing evidence, I'd say.

scigirl

MadKally

We don't just think it, we KNOW it. But's there's a world full of weirdos out there.

RoddyM

I do say that HIV/AIDS is propaganda. In Reagan's era especially it was a way of saying "I told you so" to "undesirables". It's a fantastic social engineering tool.

HIV tests are non-specific to anything. PCR can indicate "full blown AIDS" in someone who is "HIV" negative and healthy. ELISA will give a positive result for just about anybody if the sample is insufficiently diluted.

Mullis might be a bit flaky but he did invent PCR.

Duesberg maintains that there is no virus worthy of the title HIV, that causes slow unrelenting destruction of the immune system. So it follows that in his view AIDS is non-infectious.