 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / September 2005Questioning is the cornerstone of science
I just wanted to pose the question as to whether anyone one thinks the HIV theory of AIDS - as a scientific theory - can ever be called into question... I am just thinking back to what I learned in school about all scientific theories: that what makes them science - and not religion - is that they can be questioned and found to be either partially wrong or completey wrong, as our scientific understanding grows. Aren't all great scientific discoveries are predicated on the question "What if everything we thought we knew about this subject was wrong?" Obviously there have been many, many scientific theories in the history of mankind - no matter how irrefutable they appeared to be in their day - which have later been proved to be abysmal failures. Does HIV fall under this category? And to stimulate the conversation, I would like to quote Dr. Luc Montagnier, Virologist, co-discoverer of HIV, Pasteur Institute, Paris: “There are too many shortcomings in the theory that HIV causes all signs of AIDS. We are seeing people HIV-infected for 9, 10, 12 years or more, and they are still in good shape, their immune system is still good. It is unlikely that these people will come down with AIDS later.” “HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS.” VI Int’l AIDS Conference, Jun 24 1990 “AIDS does not inevitably lead to death, especially if you suppress the co-factors that support the disease. It is very important to tell this to people who are infected.... I think we should put the same weight now on the co-factors as we have on HIV.” “Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you suppress this psychological support by telling someone he’s condemned to die, your words alone will have condemned him.” “We did not purify [isolate] ... We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses ... They were very different ... What we did not have, as I have always recognized it, is that it was truly the cause of AIDS.” Interview with Djamel Tahi-1997 What does everyone think about this? Yours truly, -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon >I just wanted to pose the question as to whether anyone one thinks the HIV >theory of AIDS - as a scientific theory - can ever be called into >question... Of course. Then one weighs the evidence to evaluate the hypothesis. snip >Does HIV fall under this category? And to stimulate the conversation, I >would like to quote Dr. Luc Montagnier, Virologist, co-discoverer of HIV, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >VI Intl AIDS Conference, Jun 24 1990 He believes that HIV exists. Do you? Some in the denialist movement don't. Or do only when it is convenient to their whim in a bizarre act of cognitive dissonance more akin to faith than science. At that time, he believed that HIV might require a co-factor infection for AIDS to result. He looked hard at mycoplasma infections but came up empty-handed. Co-infections may indeed act as accelerants to HIV disease progression. But there is no evidence to show any single co-factor is required for AIDS to develop. For more information, peruse: http://www.thebody.com/niaid/hiv/retrovirus.html At this point, from discussions I've had with folks at Pasteur, I believe Luc believes HIV causes AIDS. I haven't asked him lately; maybe I'll drop him an email. While this does not "prove" it, the accumulated data suggest that HIV is indeed necessary and sufficient to cause AIDS. George M. Carter How could any scientist be considered a "denialist" by questioning a scientific theory? What an odd term to use - sounds more like you think they "blaspheme" rather than question... As for me, I prefer to look at where one sits on a particular topic - whether they are set to gain, or for that matter, lose a great deal - while I a.ses where they stand... Afterall, you have to look no further than current affairs to see much reputation has to do with where one stands on a topic, such as the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. How many innocent soilders and civilians have died over that blatent lie? And who, in the current administration, has the balls to admit they mislead the American people and the world community? And are the people - including veterans and the parents of fallen soldiers - simply "in denial" over calling President Bush into question? I would say that if any qualified scientist questioned a scientific theory - let alone many scientists - I would want to know why terms like "denialist" are being used to describe them. To me, that smacks of religious sacrilege, not scientific process... Tell me, do you think the voices of the few are more important than the voice of the many when it comes to science? Or is that only important when it comes to, say, a religious belief wrapped in scientific clothing? And what if there was a scientific theory that had a lot of people's good reputation at stake if - just as an example - the theory were later found to be dead wrong? And what if civil lawsuits were to breakout like wildfires for those seeking just compensation for being misled by those who could never admit that - Gasp! - a scientific theory was later found to be severely flawed? And what if those individuals being called into question were to use terms such as "denialist" to describe those in the scientific community who would - Gasp! - dare to come forward and question a scientific theory? How would it make those who are being questioned - about their "indisputable theory" - appear to the public? What are they afraid of - do you think - that they would resort to name calling to fend off the simple admontion of those individuals who are highly qualified to question science - a.k.a., scientists? And do you think people who file lawsuits, and the attorneys who represent them, and juries that find in favor of them, and the judges that award compensation to them, are simply "in denial"? What if some court cases had already been won over this House of Cards Theory and many more were about to begin? Or do you think that those involved in the entire court system are also suffering from "cognitive dissonance more akin to faith than science"? I mean, how popular was Galileo, or Newton, or Einstein in their day when they first rocked the establishment with their "denial of the obvious truth"? Who threw Galileo in jail anyway? Was it his fellow scientists, or the Roman Catholic Church? Yes, why don't you contact Dr. Montagnier, since apparently you have the ability to do so, and ask him whether he still feels HIV is the sole cause of AIDS! I am sure the readers of this forum would want to know whether the co-discoverer of HIV thinks it alone is enough to cause AIDS. I know that I would just love to hear his response! Inquiring minds want to know, -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon > How could any scientist be considered a "denialist" by questioning a > scientific theory? What an odd term to use - sounds more like you think [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > whether they are set to gain, or for that matter, lose a great deal - > while I a.ses where they stand... You use what sources of data to determine if a individual scientist or other person has something to gain or lose by supporting a particular view? > Afterall, you have to look no further than current affairs to see much > reputation has to do with where one stands on a topic, such as the alleged > weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. > > How many innocent soilders and civilians have died over that blatent lie? Based on your previous statement shouldn't the question your asking be " who amongst the decision makers had something to gain by promoteing the Iraqi WMD story. > And who, in the current administration, has the balls to admit they > mislead the American people and the world community? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "denialist" are being used to describe them. To me, that smacks of > religious sacrilege, not scientific process... The term denialist is reserved for those who when presented with tens of thousands of scientific research papers on the relationship between HIV and AIDS still maintain that there is no connection. It is as absurd a position to take as would be claiming that the earth is a disk rather then a sphere and when presented with a photograph taken from space claim that the photo is fraudulent and therefore not evidence of the spherical nature of the earth. > Tell me, do you think the voices of the few are more important than the > voice of the many when it comes to science? That is a invalid question. It would depend on the credentials of the voices in question. If the voice was that of an individual with no formal educational background in virology or medicine and it is stating an opinion counter to the general consensus of the scientific community relating to virology then one would not pay much attention to that voice. On the other hand if the voice was from a PhD in Virology who is widely published on the topic under discussion then that voice would warrant a significant amount of attention. > Or is that only important when it comes to, say, a religious belief > wrapped in scientific clothing? It is the denialist movement that has the closer resemblance to religious beliefs in that it seems to be a faith based rather then fact based belief system. > And what if there was a scientific theory that had a lot of people's good > reputation at stake if - just as an example - the theory were later found > to be dead wrong? Happens almost daily in science, it's not usually a very big deal. It is the very hart of the scientific method for old models to give way to new models as more data becomes available or new theories are found to be more consistent with the data then had the previous theories. > And what if civil lawsuits were to breakout like wildfires for those > seeking just compensation for being misled by those who could never admit > that - Gasp! - a scientific theory was later found to be severely flawed? Again happens all the time in the US. A current example are the thousands of pending lawsuits against the makers of the pain killer VIOX. > And what if those individuals being called into question were to use terms > such as "denialist" to describe those in the scientific community who > would - Gasp! - dare to come forward and question a scientific theory? Wouldn't happen, when a new model or therioy is found to invaldate an old one the basis for that invalidation is data. Data that can and is duplicated in many labs and thus a new consensus is reached based on facts. AIDS denialists have never even come remotely close to meeting that standard. > How would it make those who are being questioned - about their > "indisputable theory" - appear to the public? > > What are they afraid of - do you think - that they would resort to name > calling to fend off the simple admontion of those individuals who are > highly qualified to question science - a.k.a., scientists? There is not a singly highly qualified scientist who has published a peer reviewed article that in any way shows that the Human Immunodefincey Virus is not the cause of the syndrome known as AIDS. > And do you think people who file lawsuits, and the attorneys who represent > them, and juries that find in favor of them, and the judges that award [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > system are also suffering from "cognitive dissonance more akin to faith > than science"? Have no idea what your talking about above, do you? > I mean, how popular was Galileo, or Newton, or Einstein in their day when > they first rocked the establishment with their "denial of the obvious > truth"? Who threw Galileo in jail anyway? Was it his fellow scientists, > or the Roman Catholic Church? It was the faith based Church, just as in the HIV debate it is the faith based denialists who are the most viscous in there attacks of those they disagree with. > Yes, why don't you contact Dr. Montagnier, since apparently you have the > ability to do so, and ask him whether he still feels HIV is the sole cause > of AIDS! His latest published papers indicate that that is indeed the case. Though he is still interested in the issue of cofactors having an impact on the speed of progression of the disease. > I am sure the readers of this forum would want to know whether the > co-discoverer of HIV thinks it alone is enough to cause AIDS. I know that > I would just love to hear his response! Simply go to any decent sized university library and get the librarian to help you find Dr. Montagnier's published work and you can read it yourself then you don't have to take someone else's word for it. > Inquiring minds want to know, Inquiring minds want to know what your position on the connection of HIV and AIDS is? Gary Stein >"On the other hand if the voice was from a PhD in Virology who is widely published on the topic under discussion then that voice would warrant a significant amount of attention." My, my, Mr. Stein. I can't be away for a short time and you get cocky again. Oh well, when the cat's away from home, the mice are dancing. One of those men with a PhD in Virology who is widely published, is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and is the major expert on retroviruses is Peter Duesberg. And does anyone in your tightly-knit circle pay significant attention to what Duesberg is saying? On the contrary. All you do is disavowing one of the major authorities in the field, although you do not have a Ph.D. but merely a script given to you by the pharma industry. Do you know what we call these people who are pushing an untenable theory, disregarding all scientific evidence? "Denialists!" If questioning is the cornerstone of science then I have some questions for Dr Godschalk He previously wrote before he ran away: > Viruses DON't generally mutate. You can get them to do that in the lab, but in vivo > there is no real evidence that it happens. Do a pubmed search with keywords "polio" "mutation". Read the papers. Try this one to start with http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en trez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&d b=pubmed&... http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g ov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=53 3926 Look at figure 1. There is a steady accumulation of base changes. For somebody who goes on about the "rules of virology" you seem to be remarkably ignorant. In the time since you ran away have you managed to find any citations to support your claims or are you still trying the "'cause I said so" approach to science? I hope that Dr Godschalk is open to questions. I hope he won't dogmatically stick to his own opinions. Chris Noble Mr. Noble! What a coincidence to find you here! Next time you present links, please use some that really work. These two didn't. >>"On the other hand if the voice was from a PhD in Virology who is widely >published on the topic under discussion then that voice would warrant a >significant amount of attention." > >My, my, Mr. Stein. I can't be away for a short time and you get cocky >again. LOL. You are NOT a professor of microbiology. >"LOL. You are NOT a professor of microbiology." Microbiologogy? No, never been either. Professor of Biochemistry, yes. Enjoying my retirement (and I mean really enjoying it). >>"LOL. You are NOT a professor of microbiology." > >Microbiologogy? No, never been either. >Professor of Biochemistry, yes. Enjoying my retirement (and I mean really >enjoying it). Liar. >>>"LOL. You are NOT a professor of microbiology." >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Liar. Lying that he's one step from the glue factory, or lying that he's enjoying it? B/ >>>>"LOL. You are NOT a professor of microbiology." >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Lying that he's one step from the glue factory, or lying that he's >enjoying it? That too! You're always good for a barrel of laughs, Mr.Mailman. It's good you mention the glue factory. I'm thinking about it every day. Yet, in spite of my headstart, I know I will survive those of you who are dumb enough to take the antivirals. And what's even worse: The glue factory won't even want you. You see, there was this episode in the Seinfeld show where George Constanza's fiancee died while licking the envelopes of her wedding invitations. The glue factories don't want that whimsical story to become grim reality, now do they? Who wants poisonous glue? > You're always good for a barrel of laughs, Mr.Mailman. Thank you Ms. Godschalk. > It's good you mention the glue factory. I'm thinking about it every day. > Yet, in spite of my headstart, I know I will survive those of you who are > dumb enough to take the antivirals. Ah, so that's why you don't wish to believe in HIV. You have it yourself. > And what's even worse: The glue factory won't even want you. You see, > there was this episode in the Seinfeld show Well, now you know what happens when you get your news from Seinfeld. B/ >How could any scientist be considered a "denialist" by questioning a >scientific theory? Because they play this BIG game, going around in a great circle. They say: what about this? The evidence is provided, usually in answer to the question as complete as science can be. They deny it. They go on to the next "issue" that appears to support their conspiracy. To a non-scientist or lay person, it may seem convincing. Once deconstructed, you can see it's a load of crap. Second, they provide no hypothesis (except Duesberg's "drugs cause AIDS") as to why so many people are getting sick in the way they get sick from HIV disease (if not treated). And Duesberg's hypothesis simply is nonsense. Many drug users do not develop AIDS; they are not HIV infected. Many non-drug users have developed AIDS; far too many have died. They are HIV+. In short, the evidence is clearly there and they, mostly lay people, deny it. Ergo, "denialists." You know. a.sholes like Gary Null. Others who QUESTIONED the theory, such as Robert Root-Bernstein have long since accepted a role for HIV in the development of AIDS. George M. Carter > How could any scientist be considered a "denialist" by questioning a > scientific theory? What an odd term to use - sounds more like you think > they "blaspheme" rather than question... Another "simple" question! The "question" asserts that somebody is labelled a Denialist because they question a scientific theory. The assertion is false. Why is it that a frontal lobotomy is a prerequisite for membership in HIV denial groups? Just a simple innocent question. The responsibility of proving that all HIV denialists have not undergone frontal lobotomies is yours not mine. All I did was ask a simple question. > Inquiring minds want to know, Chris Noble Ah, I see you're still at it, Mr. Carter. But then, you're sort of trapped in that position, isn't it? Any way, I knew you'd bite. >"At this point, from discussions I've had with folks at Pasteur, I believe Luc believes HIV causes AIDS. I haven't asked him lately; maybe I'll drop him an email." You're bluffing, Mr. Carter. You're neither in the age group nor in the class of Luc Montagnier. Alright! Iconoclaster...keepin' it real! > Alright! Iconoclaster...keepin' it real! ==================================================================================== From: roepinwoes Sent: 8/24/2005 8:48 AM Good work, Paul! As I expected, Carter took the bait immediately, and now he has me on his tail again. He'll probably call on his buddies for help. Wilhelm =================================================================================== Bait?? Calling on buddies for help?? ==================================================================================== From: roepinwoes (Original Message) Sent: 6/11/2005 11:44 AM Antbody who is interested in aiming some pot shots at real HIV goons, join the discussion on: http://www.talkabouthealthnetwork.com/group/misc.health.aids/messages/102067.html This is getting to be fun! For the unitiated, I am "iconoclaster" in this thread. Dan has joined me there already, and Paul is, as usual, everywhere. =================================================================================== Questioning?? ================================================================================== From: Paul King (Original Message) Sent: 3/18/2004 5:09 PM Message: - Shut down to LAM healtoronto.com (usual insults). They are posting 500 messages a day.. I cannot keep up - not feeling well. http://www.hivforum.com/bbs.asp Well done Heal Toronto ================================================================================= Chris Noble Splendid, Mr. Noble. On my part, I have not been idle either. I read some of your stuff from 2002. I didn't like any of it. And your tactics have not changed since that time either. And since you mentioned it in another post: Yes, a virus can mutate. A lot in lab cultures, especially after adding mutagens. A little (probably; not many data) in vivo. The mutations are random, and the chance to come up with a "new inproved model" is negligible. > Splendid, Mr. Noble. On my part, I have not been idle either. I read some > of your stuff from 2002. I didn't like any of it. And your tactics have > not changed since that time either. If by tactics you mean posting references and asking other people do the same then I can see why you don't like it. How nasty of me to ask questions. Why shouldn't I just believe the denialists. > And since you mentioned it in another post: Yes, a virus can mutate. A > lot in lab cultures, especially after adding mutagens. A little > (probably; not many data) in vivo. > The mutations are random, and the chance to come up with a "new inproved > model" is negligible. Do you have any references for these bold claims. Or am I supposed to take your word for it? Chris Noble Yes, Mr. Noble, you have to take my word for it. At the moment I don't feel like being put to work by you. Besides, I am a fully qualified biochemist who knows at least as much as any of the authors of papers I might quote. > Yes, Mr. Noble, you have to take my word for it. At the moment I don't feel > like being put to work by you. Besides, I am a fully qualified biochemist > who knows at least as much as any of the authors of papers I might quote. That's interesting. The title of the thread is "Questioning is the cornerstone of science". Now you want me to bow down to your supposed authority. You may be able to bluff your denialist buddies with your bullshit but don't be surprised if the rest of the world laughs at you. Chris Noble No, no, Mr. Noble. You keep on asking for references, but why do you think the authors of the papers I quote know more about the subject than I do? Besides, it's about time the apologists started to give US references, because they haven't answered our questions yet from as far back as the nineteen-eighties. This AIDS-structure is built upon a rotten foundation. It's time for the wrecker's ball. >No, no, Mr. Noble. You keep on asking for references, but why do you think >the authors of the papers I quote know more about the subject than I do? Because previously in this forum, you displayed a most remarkable degree of ignorance about fundamental aspects of HIV disease and treatment. George M. Carter Well, I think I understand HIV-disease and treatment perfectly, Mr. Carter: "HIV-disease" is hogwash to scare people, and "treatment" is premeditated murder. by "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl> Aug 28, 2005 at 07:19 PM "Well, I think I understand HIV-disease and treatment perfectly, Mr. Carter: "HIV-disease" is hogwash to scare people, and "treatment" is premeditated murder." Don't forget all the profit involved!!! >Well, I think I understand HIV-disease and treatment perfectly, Mr. >Carter: >"HIV-disease" is hogwash to scare people, and "treatment" is premeditated >murder. Clearly, you believe these ideas based on a vast store of ignorance. > No, no, Mr. Noble. You keep on asking for references, but why do you think > the authors of the papers I quote know more about the subject than I do? You silly twit. I have previously posted several references that disprove your unsupported opinions. You on the other hand just continue to post your unsupported opinions. This shows that despite your protestations you have absolutely no regard for science. It makes me think that this is all a game for you. You try to impress your denialist friends by standing up to "AIDS goons". As I have said before you can fool them but don't be surprised if the rest of the world laughs at you. Chris Noble Mr. Noble, let's get a few things straight: There's nothing scientific about the bullshit you're spreading. All you do is making short comments, waiting for the opponent to make a statement. Then you ask coyly for a reference. If one is supplied, then several things are possible: If the reference has appeared on a 'dissident site', it gets rejected out of hand. If it's a paper by Duesberg or someone from the Perth group, it's also rejected as invalid. If it is a paper that has been written a few years ago, it's "old stuff that has been discredited since". And if it's a real peer-reviewed recent paper, you simply state (whether you've read it or not) that it does not support the opponent's view. I think you're a complete fraud, Mr. Noble. I've checked out your earlier debates in 2002, where you applied the very same tactics, hoping to wear the opposition out by continuously asking for references, then rejecting them. In the course of my previous debate on this forum I mentioned my "Get Carter" file. I think it's time to let poor Mr. Carter off the hook and open my "Get Noble" file. I'm sure, after this one, which we'll continue for a while, you'll have other debates in other places on the Web. And when you do, one of the first ones you'll see is me. > Mr. Noble, let's get a few things straight: > There's nothing scientific about the bullshit you're spreading. All you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > simply state (whether you've read it or not) that it does not support the > opponent's view. But questioning is the cornerstone of science or does that only apply to you and your denialist friends. I do ask questions and I do ask for references and I do read the references. It always amazes me that people who label themselves as skeptics are so credulous when it comes to Duesberg's or the Perthies' "articles". I take it from this that you have no intention whatsoever to ever produce any evidence that viruses do not mutate although you have made this claim and used it as justification for your dogmatic assertion that HIV does not exist. > I think you're a complete fraud, Mr. Noble. I've checked out your earlier > debates in 2002, where you applied the very same tactics, hoping to wear > the opposition out by continuously asking for references, then rejecting > them. Depressingly, most Denialists continue to spout the same bullshit over and over again despite not being able to produce evidence for their assertions. > In the course of my previous debate on this forum I mentioned my "Get > Carter" file. I think it's time to let poor Mr. Carter off the hook and > open my "Get Noble" file. I'm sure Carter will be relieved. > I'm sure, after this one, which we'll continue for a while, you'll have > other debates in other places on the Web. And when you do, one of the > first ones you'll see is me. You overestimate my willingness to play games with trolls. You have not even attempted to provide evidence for your bullshit. It is not a debate. I am simply reminding you of this fact in case there is anybody reading this that has not realised this yet. Chris Noble ... >> In the course of my previous debate on this forum I mentioned my "Get >> Carter" file. I think it's time to let poor Mr. Carter off the hook and >> open my "Get Noble" file. > >I'm sure Carter will be relieved. LOL...and I'm sure that you--and the other folks on this NG--will once again make short work of this arrogant fellow. He swaggered in here claiming to have such deep knowledge and revealed, repeatedly, a truly, deeply profound ignorance of most every aspect of disease. Now, presuming he actually read some of the posts or even better, some of the original papers, he may be somewhat better informed--but I doubt it. George M. Carter Mr. Carter, don't get too cocky now, or the "Get Carter" file will be opened again. >Mr. Carter, don't get too cocky now, or the "Get Carter" file will be >opened again. LOL. Go for it. You're pathetic. > ... >>> In the course of my previous debate on this forum I mentioned my "Get >>> Carter" file. Oh Gawd, not another post about yet another "Get Carter" file! No wonder the Conman is drowning in boogeymen! > He swaggered in here claiming to have such deep knowledge and > revealed, repeatedly, a truly, deeply profound ignorance of most every > aspect of disease. And of course, Conman Carter, with his GED high school "education", is clearly in a position to know these things. LOL ... Susie >"It always amazes me that people who label themselves as skeptics are so credulous when it comes to Duesberg's or the Perthies' "articles"." I can explain that. It's because Duesberg and the Perth staff are scientists with a high degree of integrity. They don't rake in the big money from the pharmaceutical industry. They are not so pathologically ambitious as some of those I've personally dealt with in the past. Gallo, for example is an out and out crook. Montagnier, on the other hand, is a decent man. Wainberg, Fauci and Tramont are unmitigated monsters. >"I take it from this that you have no intention whatsoever to ever produce any evidence that viruses do not mutate although you have made this claim and used it as justification for your dogmatic assertion that HIV does not exist." I don't see why I need to. It's obvious that mutations do occur in vitro, if you add plenty of mutagenic substances. And why should I assume that this also happens in vivo? There are only a few vague indications in the literature I've seen. And most viruses can be isolated from cell material over and over again, and remain genetically stable. Mutants that can't reproduce properly disappear silently anyway. If the orthodoxy claims lively mutations, let THEM provide the evidence. If I say I don't believe that camels with 3 humps exist, why ask me for proof that they don't exist? For this same reason it's simply not true that I use my dismissal of the the mutation fest as a basis for my belief that HIV doesn't exist. Both subjects are totally unrelated. I simply don't believe in HIV at all because in the past 20 years I have seen no proof that it does. >"Depressingly, most Denialists continue to spout the same bullshit over and over again despite not being able to produce evidence for their assertions." So let me spout again: All the Rethinkers do is reminding you over and over and over again that the most fundamental premises of your theory (on which so much money and so many lives are riding) have never been proven, no matter how many thousands of papers are still to be published. I think you mentioned phlogiston earlier. Well, that's exactly what I compare 'HIV' to. >"You have not even attempted to provide evidence for your bullshit. It is not a debate. I am simply reminding you of this fact in case there is anybody reading this that has not realised this yet." I think you overestimate my willingness to make futile attempts to convince you with evidence, knowing full well that you will discard it out of hand. And if you don't realize by now that I'm not writing this for your benefit, but for those who are following the debate behind the cenes, I've overestimated your intelligence. >>"It always amazes me that people who label themselves as skeptics are so >credulous when it comes to Duesberg's or the Perthies' "articles"." > >I can explain that. It's because Duesberg and the Perth staff are >scientists with a high degree of integrity. And they're the only ones in the whole wide world. Golly. Not so. I'm here, right? >Not so. I'm here, right? What? Don't you follow the thread, Mr. carter? It went like this: >>I can explain that. It's because Duesberg and the Perth staff are scientists with a high degree of integrity. " >And they're the only ones in the whole wide world. Golly." So of course I wrote: "Not so. I'm here, right?" They're not the only ones in the whole wide world. I'm right there with them. Mr. "Iconoclaster", let's get a few things straight: There's nothing scientific about the bullshit you're spreading. Why don't you keep quiet, Mr. Carter? Aren't you glad you're off the hook, temporarily? You should be thankful. >Why don't you keep quiet, Mr. Carter? Aren't you glad you're off the hook, >temporarily? You should be thankful. You should run away again like you did last time. I'm back again, ain't I? That's what counts. I may "run away" again - when it suits me. But then... I may return once more. > Mr. Noble, let's get a few things straight: > There's nothing scientific about the bullshit you're spreading. All you [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > other debates in other places on the Web. And when you do, one of the > first ones you'll see is me. What a joke if you had the ability to argue your way out of a paper bag I would be amazed based on the quality of your posts in this forum. As to the first paragraph above; Duesburg's Drug Use/Life Style=AIDS idea has been thoroughly researched and shown to be false so yes he is rejected as a source of legitimate data about HIV and AIDS. The Perth Group does not have a single member who is trained in Virology, Epidemiology, Microbiology, or Pharmacology, they have done no research they ignore every piece of research that does not agree with there ideas, so yes they to are discredited and not considered relevant. Papers that are more then a decade old are certainly likely to have been superceded by current research because the knowledge about HIV, AIDS, AIDS treatments, etc etc has grown by such a huge amount over the last decade. Finally when you denialists quote current research you go through such selective editing contortions in order to try and convince your readers that the paper in question supports your views as to be so apparent it's laughable. When a reader goes to the full paper and reads it for them selves invariably you have indeed distorted the papers findings or so completely been unable to understand what your reading that you actually think it does support your ideas when in 95% of the cases it in fact does no such thing. If any one is a fraud it is yourself sir your claims to be a scientist are so clearly shown to be false by the numerous examples of intrinsically false claims such as "a virus does not mutate" that it is obvious to the vast majority of your readers that your just another uneducated twit who likes to argue on the internet. Gary Stein >"Duesburg's Drug Use/Life Style=AIDS idea has been thoroughly researched and shown to be false" Bald-faced lie. Show me. >"The Perth Group does not have a single member who is trained in Virology, Epidemiology, Microbiology, or Pharmacology" That's just the point. The HIV=AIDS=DEATH theory is so outrageously stupid that anybody with the ability to think logically will reject it. The only people who believe in it have taken stock in it. >"Papers that are more then a decade old are certainly likely to have been superceded by current research because the knowledge about HIV, AIDS, AIDS treatments, etc etc has grown by such a huge amount over the last decade. " I understand. When the sleight-of-hand has already occurred at the beginning of the magic trick ("The probable cause of AIDS has been found."), you can do any kind of hocus-pocus after that, without anybody being the wiser. Wake up, Mr. Stein. Stop your grandstanding. The emperor is wearing no clothes. If you find yourself in the iatro-homicidal treadmill, it has been your lifestyle that brought you there. Not some fictional virus. Of course I have compassion for the victims of this cruel hoax. But if they don't want to realize that the poison-picking quacks are not their friends, and don't want to take their lives in their own hands, there's nothing I can do to help either. > >"Duesburg's Drug Use/Life Style=AIDS idea has been > thoroughly researched and shown to be false" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that anybody with the ability to think logically will reject it. > The only people who believe in it have taken stock in it. Even granting your laughable premise above, you still have to explain why it is that the Perth Group did have the funding to spend thousands of hours reviewing (then ignoring) a large body of HIV research, producing a long complex explanation of there so called 'Gold Standard for Viral Isolation' and producing many papers outlining there theories on HIV, AIDS and Viral Isolation. Yet somehow did not have the ability to spend any time at all producing any original research data that would even slightly begin to backup even one of there many ludicrous claims. >>"Papers that are more then a decade old are certainly likely to have been > superceded by current research because the knowledge about HIV, AIDS, AIDS [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > found."), you can do any kind of hocus-pocus after that, without anybody > being the wiser. You can't honestly be as stupid as your comments make you seem to be, but anyway I will still try to get through that concrete shell you have surrounding your ability to see the truth. The fact that over the 20+ years that HIV and AIDS has been studied a simply gigantic amount of patient data has been compiled. This data consists of the clinical histories of 100's of thousands of patients. Studies such as the EURO-SIDA study put large quantities of this data into databases and then run comparisons on it looking for similarities and differences to see if anything pops out. The results of those analyses are not influenced in any way by the bias's or beliefs of any of the researchers in that they represent the unambiguous factual information about what happened medically to the patients in the data pool. Guess what, all that data looked it in hundreds of different ways by thousands of different scientists and hundreds of different research institutes and hospitals always shows that the HIV=AIDS model is the most consistent model and the most accurate way to describe what occurred medically with all of those patients. There is no theory involved in the retrospective analyses of medical records of real human beings with wildly different geographic origins, medical care, and environmental exposures. Yet time after time at research institute and hospital one after the other all the data always shows that indeed HIV infection is required for AIDS to develop, that CD4 and Viral Load tests very accurately predict patient health and disease progression and that ARV prolongs life in patients who start treatment somewhere in the 200 to 300 CD4 cell count range. You can argue your clap trap that HIV can't cause AIDS and that AIDS it self doesn't exist but your arguments do not make all of those human beings whose medical histories prove you wrong go away. Gary Stein >>"Duesburg's Drug Use/Life Style=AIDS idea has been >thoroughly researched and shown to be false" > >Bald-faced lie. Show me. This is where YOU'RE supposed to look at the evidence and share it. And it IS there. And the reason you don't is because it tends to dispute this ridiculous nonsense. Another example below. George M. Carter ** Barr MC, Billaud JN, Selway DR, Huitron-Resendiz S, Osborn KG, Henriksen SJ, Phillips TR. Effects of multiple acute morphine exposures on feline immunodeficiency virus disease progression. J Infect Dis. 2000 Sep;182(3):725-32. Epub 2000 Aug 14. Vaccine Research Institute of San Diego, San Diego, CA 92121, USA. pbarr@vrisd.org Drug abuse is a common method of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 transmission, but the role of opiates on lentivirus disease progression is not well understood. The feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV)/cat system was used to model the weekend opiate abuser: the nondependent, nonaddicted, and nontolerant person. Sixteen cats were placed into 4 groups: FIV only, morphine only, morphine/FIV, and controls. Multiple acute morphine exposure did not increase the severity of early lentivirus infection. On the contrary, it delayed or moderated the FIV-induced disease progression. Although the animals were exposed to only 1 injection of morphine per day for 2 consecutive days per week, the morphine-treated FIV-infected animals had a delayed onset of the FIV-induced lymphadenopathy, did not develop or had a significant delay in the FIV-induced effects on brain stem auditory evoked potentials, and demonstrated a trend toward decreased virus load. >Ah, I see you're still at it, Mr. Carter. But then, you're sort of trapped >in that position, isn't it? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >You're bluffing, Mr. Carter. You're neither in the age group nor in the >class of Luc Montagnier. What in the world does age group have to do with anything? Nope, not bluffing. I think I will take this opportunity to get in touch with him. Thanks for the encouragement! I'll report back when I hear something. George M. Carter Gentlemen, My basic argument is this: if there is more than one well qualified doctor or scientist who comes forward to publically call the HIV theory of AIDS a House of Cards, I think there is sufficient cause to seriously question that theory, regardless of who still supports it! It does not matter how many thousands of scientists and doctors support a scientific theory, if there are any - I repeat any - dissenting opinions by highly qualified individuals then that theory to me is one that needs to seriously be questioned. And there are many, many dissenting voices. Now, those voices are being shouted down and called "denialists," despite the fact that many of them are highly-credentialed in the field of science and medicine. So, why are those individuals being called "denialists"? What, exactly, are they denying? The following is a link to quotations by highly-credentialed individuals - and many others - who have publically questioned the HIV theory and/or the current treatments for AIDS. Whether, or not, they have a "proven" replacement theory is irrelevant. They say HIV does not cause AIDS at all - or is insufficient to cause AIDS by itself - yet they are NOT receiving billion-dollar funding to test their alternate theories! They are not getting the recognition they deserve for having the balls to stand up to the scientific status quo and challenge a twenty-five year old scientific theory. What they are receiving is admonition, castigation, chastisement, punishment, and punition. My question is to the readers of this forum is: How can we ignore these individuals and say things like... "Because they play this BIG game, going around in a great circle. They say: what about this? The evidence is provided, usually in answer to the question as complete as science can be. They deny it. They go on to the next 'issue' that appears to support their conspiracy. To a non-scientist or lay person, it may seem convincing. Once deconstructed, you can see it's a load of crap"? Are you both saying that all of these individuals in the professional communnity who question the HIV theory - including some highly-recognized individuals in the scientific and medical coummunities - are all full of crap? Come on! You can't tell me that all of these dissenting voices don't constitute and MAJOR problem with the HIV theory of AIDS! I am not that stupid, son! I have heard of WAY too many extremely powerful organizations crumbling when their "gravy train" slammed into the lawsuit wall! No matter what the orthodoxy spouts off about how many hundreds of thousands of papers have been published, proving the HIV theory, if the original premise was incorrect, and there are qualified individuals disputing that theory, then it is time for those of us affected by this shoddy theory to question it as well! And, as I mentioned, here is a link to quotes by those who have publically questioned the HIV theory of AIDS: http://www.aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm And starting tomorrow, I am going to post each and everyone of their quotes, so that those who do not think that quailified, critically-thinking individuals are questioning this scientific theory can then have a door opened for them to a greater understanding... I would invite every member of this forum to read the quotes and then decide for themselves whether the HIV theory is beyond questioning. Yours in rethinking, -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon > I just wanted to pose the question as to whether anyone one thinks the HIV > theory of AIDS - as a scientific theory - can ever be called into [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > "HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS." Smoking is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause lung cancer. Are you going to deny that there is overwhelming evidence that smoking causes lung cancer? Questioning is a major part of science. Denying evidence is not. This "more scientific than thou" posturing reminds me of Intelligent Design advocates. ...Evolution is just an unproven theory.... There are likely many co-factors that determine transmission probability and speed of progression. None of this goes supports the denialist dogma that HIV does not exists and does not cause AIDS. Chris Noble Is this *the* Chris Noble, from the BMJ debates? Why, Chris, darling! You honor me! I even can't freakin' believe you are so threatened by my posts that you would actually come to this dicussion to defend your "indisputable" little theory! Damn, I must be doing something right! Here I am - just a humble administrative assistant in Portland, Oregon - with the power to summon The Great Chris Noble! WOW! It's like having the power to invite The Devil himself into a discussion about religion! But then, even His Satan Majesty isn't foolish enough to reveal his weakness by showing up at church to debate the Alter Boy... Tell me, Chris, do you think Toby Gettins is also "more scientific than thou"? “There is NO SUCH THING as the HIV virus. If there was, don’t you think that the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry would have produced a sample of it by now? Something that actually replicates in human tissue? But hey, prove me wrong: Cite the scientific papers showing isolation and replication of the virus.” BBC News World Edition (online), 11 Nov 2003 — Toby Gettins, Theoretical Physicist, Birmingham, UK. Former researcher, High Temperature Superconductivity, University of Exeter And exactly what makes you think there isn't anything to question about the Theory of Revolution? So we can't question science at all now? I guess we should just close the schools and let all of those budding, young thinkers know there are no new discoveries to be made, no new understandings to be had in the field of science and that everything hitherto in the field of medicine is now carved in stone. In your honor, we will call it "No child left a mind." Yours in critical thinking, Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon >Is this *the* Chris Noble, from the BMJ debates? >Why, Chris, darling! You honor me! >I even can't freakin' believe you are so threatened by my posts that you would actually come to this dicussion to defend your "indisputable" little theory! >Damn, I must be doing something right! >Here I am - just a humble administrative assistant in Portland, Oregon - with the power to summon The Great Chris Noble! WOW! Paul, you'll know you've really done something right when they get scared in call in their overlord "Bennett". Let's see how long that takes. > Is this *the* Chris Noble, from the BMJ debates? So insted of attacking the messenger, do you have anything to say about the message? B/ Brian, Unfortunately, I don't have a degree in molecular biology, so I can't really get into the nitty-gritty of this 25 year-old theory. What I can do, however, is point out the obvious "gross logic" that *any* scientific theory, no matter how "proven" it is, can still be disproven at any point in time. The history of science is replete with examples of this. And I am sure you can think of many just from what you learned in Junior High... So, I trust those in the scientific community who are highly-qualified to talk about the HIV theory and who are publically saying that it is a piping hot crock of doo-doo (pardon my French). I leave the scientific debates to the scientists and do what I can to point out the flaws of those who would claim their scientific view is beyond questioning, when it is *clearly* being questioned. Yours truly, -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon > Brian, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > scientific theory, no matter how "proven" it is, can still be disproven at > any point in time. Can be isn't will be, and yes, true science is about questioning. By *peers.* That's why they call it "peer-reveiwed." > So, I trust those in the scientific community who are highly-qualified to > talk about the HIV theory and who are publically saying that it is a > piping hot crock of doo-doo (pardon my French). Seems to be at odds with your first paragraph. B/ Brian, The problem is, when those who are handsomely paid to support the HIV theory engage in "peer review," everyone seems to be in agreement that the theory stands. And their checks just keep rolling in... I don't argue that those heavily-invested in this theory - both financially and professionally - are supporting it. That just stands to reason. What I am pointing out - by posting quotes from highly-credentialed individuals who are very well qualified to debate the merits of this theory - is that the theory itself seems to *not* be standing up to reason. Why are there so many scientists and doctors publically questioning the HIV theory? Hmmmm? Seems kinda funny that there would be *any* kind of dissent for a theory that is claimed to be as infallible as this one. Yet, there are scientists and doctors saying things like: “There is NO SUCH THING as the HIV virus. If there was, don’t you think that the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry would have produced a sample of it by now? Something that actually replicates in human tissue? But hey, prove me wrong: Cite the scientific papers showing isolation and replication of the virus.” BBC News World Edition (online), 11 Nov 2003 “Let’s put money into normal healthcare, clean water and grassroots development. HIV is an illusion.” — Toby Gettins, Theoretical Physicist, Birmingham, UK. Former researcher, High Temperature Superconductivity, University of Exeter Now, is Toby Gettins some kind of "evildoer" for saying that? What gives? Is he just crazy? What about all of the other scientists and doctors who have very publically questioned the HIV theory? Are all of them just "denialists"? So, can you explain that to me? -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon Without getting into name calling, into which this thread quickly degenerated, let me make a few points. The problem with all of this is that the people who are "questioning" the HIV/AIDS theory are doing nothing but talking. They are not presenting research results that cast doubt on the theory. In many cases, the people to whom you are referring, classic example being the physicist quoted below, do not have the background and knowledge to credibly question the massive amounts of research results that have been produced that do support the theory. Anyone can state a personal opinion about a scientific issue; if the person making the statement has appropriate training and background to realistically address that issue, their comments will be considered more significant than if they don't. If they back up their comments with research results, then the comments are going to be even more significant and may, as you have correctly noted, even overturn the theory. However, if all that happens is someone states an opinion and does not back it up, or someone else quotes that opinion as the complete basis for questioning an issue, there probably isn't going to be a whole lot of attention paid to it. I know that one of the stock responses to what I have pointed out above is that people who might question the theory cannot get money to do the research needed to overturn the theory. Personally, I don't believe that is a particularly valid arguing point. Much of the research that might be done to initiate a serious questioning of the theory would not be all that expensive and anyone actively doing research can find money to support a new direction. Please note that I am paid *nothing* to support the HIV/AIDS theory. I do not do laboratory research on HIV/AIDS and I do not have any grants from any segment of the pharmaceutical industry (in fact, I do not have *any* research grants at this point in time). I have no financial stake in this at all. > Brian, > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > -Paul Whiting > Portland, Oregon  SignatureLarry D. Farrell, Ph.D. Professor of Microbiology Idaho State University Larry, You make an excellent point, however, would you consider Peter Duesberg to be someone qualified to make such statements? How about David Rasnick? Or Kary Mullis? These are all individuals who have either done significant work on retroviruses in general (Duesberg) or on "HIV" specifically (both Rasnick and Mullis) and, then, questioned the theory. Peter Duesberg - who has more than enough "appropriate training and background to realistically address that issue," as you put it - questioned the HIV theory, but did not receive the recongnition he deserved for challenging a shoddy theory, he got quite the opposite reaction. He was once the Golden Boy of retroviruses who could do no wrong - until he publically questioned HIV - and then could do no right. Yet, you are saying these three gentlemen - who are all highly-qualified to question the HIV theory due to their experience with that theory - are not allowed to do so... What reason do you give for questioning their questioning? Have you read what Kerry Mullis has said about looking for the original documentation supporting the HIV theory, as part of research he was doing at the time for AIDS? Perhaps you would like to read his forward to Peter Duesberg's book: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/kmforeword.htm Now part of the problem in the field of science these days - so I gather from what I have read - is not so much funding, but reputation. Like it or not, the field of science is still populated with human beings who are prone to one-sided thinking, bias, close-mindedness and all of the other unpleasant human conditions. Please see this excellent article about Richard Sternberg who made the fateful mistake of challenging the Theory of Evalution: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html "Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago. "As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for "intelligent design," a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand -- subtle or not -- of an intelligent creator. "Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper..." A closet Bible thumper? Does that sound like a "scientific" response to you? And there are many, many examples of scientists being ostracized by members of their own community for making the mistake of questioning the status quo. If you would like a very thoroughly researched and well-documented account of what Peter Duesberg experienced when he called the HIV theory into question, may I suggest you pick up a copy of Inventing the AIDS Virus. Read that book. And, then, tell me if you still think it's easy for those who question the status quo to get funding for their nonconformist thoeries... By the way, it took a me a long time to read Duesberg's book, because don't have any formal scientific training. Some of it I didn't actually understand, but what I did understand was his basic premise - based on his extensive knowledge of retroviruses - that HIV could not possibly do all the things they say it can do. Now, my basic argument is this: if the people who are making these public statements do, in fact, have "background and knowledge to credibly question the massive amounts of research results that have been produced that do support the theory," what happens to that theory? More and more doctors and scientists are coming forward to challenge HIV as the cause of AIDS - and even to challenge it's very existence. What happens when the scales tip and it is finally discovered the HIV theory was a poor one, at best? What about all of those people who have been mislead into thinking they have some "killer virus" lurking inside of them that turns out to be either completely harmless, or non-existent? And before you say, "That can't happen," think again, my friend... What will you say to them? "Ooops?" Maybe we need to start questioning this theory now, rather than waiting until Bablyon falls, because once it falls many institutions will lose all credibility. And before you think Bablyon can never fall, think again, my friend... -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon See inserts below. > Larry, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > He was once the Golden Boy of retroviruses who could do no wrong - until > he publically questioned HIV - and then could do no right. Duesberg has done no actual research to support his questioning of HIV, nor his contention that the actual cause of AIDS was drug use. Please also note that Duesberg believes that HIV exists, and attempted to collect the Continuum prize for proof of that existence, but the magazine refused to award the prize since what he offered as proof, including information about archived genetic sequences of HIV, was not collected in ways that met the Perth Group's "gold standard," which virtually no actual virologists accept. > Yet, you are saying these three gentlemen - who are all highly-qualified > to question the HIV theory due to their experience with that theory - are > not allowed to do so... ***No, I did *not* say that. Go back and *read* what I said. There was absolutely nothing in there about censoring anyone!*** What I did say was that those folks probably aren't going to have much impact on the scientific world unless they can back up their questioning of *any* scientific theory with actual experimental data. > What reason do you give for questioning their questioning? Reams of scientific results that all support the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Actual *research*! [snip] > Now, my basic argument is this: if the people who are making these public > statements do, in fact, have "background and knowledge to credibly > question the massive amounts of research results that have been produced > that do support the theory," what happens to that theory? Absolutely nothing, until experimental data clearly controvenes the current theory (whether HIV/AIDS or anything else). Keep in mind that a *scientific theory* is not even put forward until an initial hypothesis has been tested many, many times and found to always provide the best explanation for a phenomenon. Only then is it promoted to the status of a theory. One issue for non-scientists is that a theory is usually considered only a wild a.s guess about something and, therefore, it can be refuted by little more than a good counter-argument. However, in science, a theory, developed as described above, can only be refuted by considerable amounts of experimental data that are inconsistent with the theory. Questioning, by itself, may cause other people to look more closely at the system but, unless that closer look produces data that don't fit the theory, the theory continues to stand as the best explanation of the phenomenon. [snip] SignatureLarry D. Farrell, Ph.D. Professor of Microbiology Idaho State University "Please also note that Duesberg believes that HIV exists, and attempted to collect the Continuum prize for proof of that existence, but the magazine refused to award the prize since what he offered as proof, including information about archived genetic sequences of HIV, was not collected in ways that met the Perth Group's 'gold standard,' which virtually no actual virologists accept." An excellent point, to which I would add that doesn't mean virologists are correct in *not* accepting the Perth Group's 'Gold Standard.' Virologists are human too and can by just as wrong as they claim the Perth Group is. And do you think it would interest those who are being told they have a deadly virus inside of their body that there is *no gold standard* for the test uopon which their diagnosis was based? Do you think folks who are HIV-positive would like to know the HIV theory of AIDS is now being questioned by many, many highly-qualified scientists? And do you feel that HIV-positive people have a right to hear dissenting arguments from those same qualified scientists, regardless of whether experimental data has been produced? "Keep in mind that a *scientific theory* is not even put forward until an initial hypothesis has been tested many, many times and found to always provide the best explanation for a phenomenon." Is that what Robert Gallo did when he announced at a press conference on April 23rd 1984 that he had found the "probable cause of AIDS"? Had his work been peer reviewed? Had it even been published at all? Why did the French government sue the American government claiming Gallo had stolen Dr. Luc Montagnier's work and claimed it as his own? Why was Robert Gallo's title as "co-discoverer" of HIV eventually stripped away from the good doctor? Have you actually done any research into how this theory was "proven" by Gallo? Before you start claiming the HIV theory went through anything resembling the scientific process - before being presented to the public as the proven cause of AIDS - may I suggest you read the book "Science Fictions: A Scientific Mystery, a Massive Cover-up, and the Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo" by Robert Steinbrook. Steinbrook did a phenomenol job of documenting the rise - and fall - of our dear Dr. Gallo. But be careful reading this book, as you may even come to question the HIV theory yourself... Yours truly, -Paul Whiting [snip] >> "Keep in mind that a *scientific theory* is not even put forward until an >> initial hypothesis [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is that what Robert Gallo did when he announced at a press conference on > April 23rd 1984 that he had found the "probable cause of AIDS"? What makes you think that Gallo presented a "theory" at that press conference? What makes you think that Gallo is the only one involved in this whole process. At best, what Gallo presented would be, as explained above, an hypothesis. It did not even begin to be elevated to the level of a theory until it had been tested in thousands of additional experiments. [snip] > Why did the French government sue the American government claiming Gallo > had stolen Dr. Luc Montagnier's work and claimed it as his own? > > Why was Robert Gallo's title as "co-discoverer" of HIV eventually stripped > away from the good doctor? Absolutely irrelevant since neither of these points has anything whatsoever to do with the HIV/AIDS "theory" and, as pointed out above, Gallo is clearly not the only scientist to ever do work in this area. > Have you actually done any research into how this theory was "proven" by > Gallo? Not a theory, at least at that point in time, and Gallo did not "prove" it. At best, a theory can only be disproved. > Before you start claiming the HIV theory went through anything resembling > the scientific process - before being presented to the public as the > proven cause of AIDS - [snip] Again, Gallo did not present a theory. And whether Gallo's hypothesis went through the "scientific process" (can you explain what you think that is?) is completely irrelevant to the masses of experimental data produced around the world since that time, all of which support the idea that HIV causes the immune deficiency that results in the development of AIDS. As long as the only thing that people do is *talk* about problems with that idea, and they never produce any experimental results that demonstrate that those problems actually exist and that some other hypothesis more clearly explains AIDS, the scientific world is not going to pay much attention. -- Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D. Professor of Microbiology Idaho State University Mr. Farrell, you've got my BS detector going at full tilt. Whether Gallo presented an "hypothesis" or a "theory" at that famed press conference isn't all that important. What IS important is that all the "thousands of experiments" performed over the years are all based on his original work, i.e., HIV causes AIDS. Pretty simple stuff, really. To suddenly cast him into a pool with the thousands of other scientists and researchers out there is disingenuous to say the least. If anybody can lay claim to the idea that HIV causes AIDS, it's Gallo. Come now, we're not that easily fooled here. > Mr. Farrell, > you've got my BS detector going at full tilt. Then you had better get another BS detector. The one you are depending on now is so full of your BS that it is giving false readings. > Whether Gallo presented an "hypothesis" or a "theory" at that famed press > conference isn't all that important. What IS important is that all the > "thousands of experiments" performed over the years are all based on his > original work, i.e., HIV causes AIDS. Pretty simple stuff, really. Oh, you mean that Gallo directly dictated all of the results that all other experiments would find "over all the years" by stating his initial hypothesis? Then you know absolutely nothing about science. Whether based on his original work or not, biological systems do not work a certain way simply because someone says they should based on some idea they have, nor do all other scientists wilfully skew their results so they only support one such idea. To think otherwise is fall into the trap of the conspiracy theorists. > To suddenly cast him into a pool with the thousands of other scientists > and researchers out there is disingenuous to say the least. If anybody > can lay claim to the idea that HIV causes AIDS, it's Gallo. Come now, > we're not that easily fooled here. What possible relevance does Gallo's idea that HIV causes AIDS, wherever and however it was presented, have to any of the other experiments that have been done worldwide? If anyone is being disingenuous, it is you. Biological systems do not operate as any one person says they should, no matter how often you throw out that red herring. It appears to me that you are fooling yourself. -- Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D. Professor of Microbiology Idaho State University > > Mr. Farrell, > > you've got my BS detector going at full tilt. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > other experiments would find "over all the years" by stating his initial > hypothesis? Then you know absolutely nothing about science. The theory of heavier-than-air flight is all predicated on early experiments by the Wright brothers. All so called "flying" is based on this. All you need to disprove this theory is find flaws in the Wright brothers "proof". Whatever you do don't go to an airport and look at planes taking off or landing it might conflict with your worldview. Chris Noble Chris, George, Larry and Brian and Gary, How many alternative theories to HIV have ever received funding? Is there even one? You challenge the "denialists? to provide evidence of their claims, but the only theory being given ANY funding - since Robert Gallo introduced the world to it at a press conference - is HIV. Yet, there are many, many qualified scientists - which you so endearingly call "denialists" who question the HIV theory - who would *love* the opportunity to test their theories. Why aren't these individuals being given that opportunity? If HIV is NOT the first "indisputable" theory in the history of mankind, why have NO OTHER theories ever received funding from the Federal Government? Can you even site one theory that has ever been given ANY money to be tested? Just one will do. How about Peter Duesberg's theory? Did he ever receive any funding to test his drug theory? I think the answer to that will be a big, fat "No." So, before you ask another "denialist" for references proving their alternatives to the HIV theory, perhaps you should find out whether they are being give *equal opportunity* to prove their theories through equal funding. Yours truly, -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon [snip] > Yet, there are many, many qualified scientists - which you so endearingly > call "denialists" who question the HIV theory - who would *love* the > opportunity to test their theories. > > Why aren't these individuals being given that opportunity? Since you are the one making the claim that they are being denied the opportunity, it is your responsibility to prove that is true. No one here, or anywhere else, has any responsibility for disproving it. [snip] SignatureLarry D. Farrell, Ph.D. Professor of Microbiology Idaho State University >Chris, George, Larry and Brian and Gary, > >How many alternative theories to HIV have ever received funding? The ONLY theory I've heard as to what AIDS is comes from Duesberg. And there are AMPLE data showing that the Drugs Cause AIDS theory is full of holes. That has been studied and reviewed. No recreational drugs cause persistent chronic declines in CD4 counts. None cause OIs. Many people with HIV/AIDS do not use recreational drugs. In short, the evidence that exists utterly refutes Duesberg. So what other hypothesis is there? None. Nothing. Nada. George M. Carter |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message