 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / June 2004The BMJ Debate - Or, the Art of Bluffing
In a scientific debate, where a given theory is being criticized on highly specific and well defined grounds, and its defenders resort to generalizations and vagueness, the odds are that its the defenders who are wrong. Take that darn debate over whether HIV exists, for example. Papadopulos-Eleopulos has criticized the HIV theory on many grounds, among them that the allegedly retroviral particles seen in EM pictures of density gradients do not have the right shape for retrovirus particles, are not the right size for retroviral particles, and don't have the all-important knobs which they need to actually be infectious (http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html). That's specific. Now look at the sort of things Perth Group critic Brian Foley is saying in the BMJ debate: "The virus particles in those EMs look like HIV-1 or any other lentivirus to me. Whether or not they contain ³all² of the morphological characteristics attributed to HIV-1 depends on what list of characteristics you are referring to. I would not expect the envelope glycoprotein spikes often seen on virus as it is budding from cells [8,9,10 for examples] to always survive untracentifugation, for example." (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7387/495#59478) That's vague and general, not to mention subjective: "they look like that to me." And it doesn't actually address a single point, except for those knobs, and there his criticism has a too-convenient aspect to it: The spikes/knobs don't always survive ultracentifugation? Do they indeed ever survive ultracentifugation? If not, is it just as likely they were never there in the first place? His asking which list of characteristics the Perth Group is refering to shows that he has not really bothered to familiarize himself with their arguments, or else doesn't really want to understand them, or doesn't really want to respond to them. So does the fact that he feels the need to grandly inform them of the existence of two papers (the one by Gluschankof et al published in Virology Mar 31;230(1):125-33 PMID: 9126268 and the one by Bess et al published in Virology. 1997 Mar 31;230(1):134-44. PMID: 9126269) that the Perth Group have been aware of for years, and which are referred to in the interview with Papadopulos-Eleopulos. So who is being misleading here? Look at the manner in which this debate is being conducted and you get a pretty good idea pretty quickly of which side is doing the evading. snip... >Papadopulos-Eleopulos has criticized the HIV theory on many grounds, >among them that the allegedly retroviral particles seen in EM pictures [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >That's vague and general, not to mention subjective: "they look like >that to me." Once again, you are distorting. One needs to know the conditions under which the EM was done. And then on top of that, it is not relying on an EM alone as the sole source of evidence. There are scads of other techniques that are employed. These satisfactorily identify viruses. Whether HIV, the coronavirus that causes SARS, West Nile virus, etc. Of course, perhaps all these viruses don't exist either? George M. Carter > snip... > >Papadopulos-Eleopulos has criticized the HIV theory on many grounds, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > George M. Carter Why do I bother? Can't you see what's gone wrong here? People like Foley are just making fools of themselves because they can't respond to the Perth Group's arguments. Seriously. If Foley could do that, he wouldn't be trying to tell them about papers they already know about and in fact draw upon for their arguments as though they somehow refuted them. And note that Foley isn't saying something like, "these papers show this and that, as you should know, since you comment on them yourselves." No. He mentions them as though he thought he was informing the Perth Group of their existence for the first time. Which shows that he simply hasn't bothered to study their arguments carefully, an elementary requirement for anyone who wants to criticise them. He's low grade material. >Why do I bother? Can't you see what's gone wrong here? People like Foley >are just making fools of themselves because they can't respond to the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >He mentions them as though he thought he was informing the Perth Group >of their existence for the first time. Perhaps it is not the Perth Group that he is trying to inform. If the other readers see reports of observational evidence that convince them, and see the Perth Group reject them without satisfactory reasons, most will decide that the Perth Group are just cranks, and that the Perth Group's rejection of evidence for HIV is not evidence against HIV.  SignatureDavid Canzi The problem most anti-spammers are trying to solve, when correctly understood, reduces to "How do I let everybody in the world send me e-mail without letting everybody in the world send me e-mail?" > >Why do I bother? Can't you see what's gone wrong here? People like Foley > >are just making fools of themselves because they can't respond to the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > that the Perth Group's rejection of evidence for HIV is not evidence > against HIV. Yes, I think it is the Perth Group he is trying to 'inform.' He is after all having a 'debate' with them. The Perth Group's reasons for rejecting the existence of HIV are on record. It is not, as they say, a matter of rejecting evidence, but of interpreting evidence differently. Their view is that nothing that is held to be evidence for HIV is acceptable as proof of a virus, since there are non-viral explanations in each case. Furthermore, the particles that are held to be HIV don't even look like a virus. Brian Foley shows that he does not know what he is talking about when he claims that the Perth Group are misleading their readers about EM pictures of HIV when he refers them to two papers about the subject, the sort of papers he claims they ignore - but these are the very same papers that they use to show that HIV particles don't look like a virus! This is an embarrassing, absolutely elementary error that no one who had bothered to read the Perth Group's papers would make. >> >And note that Foley isn't saying something like, "these papers show this >> >and that, as you should know, since you comment on them yourselves." No. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Yes, I think it is the Perth Group he is trying to 'inform.' He is after >all having a 'debate' with them. When I first posted that it was merely a hunch. FWIW, I have received email from Foley confirming this hunch. No telepathy was involved. I myself have done the same thing. I have argued with intransigent people in a public forum in order to show the audience that the intransigent arguers would believe what they believe no matter what was actually the case and, therefore, that their disbelief of an idea was not evidence against that idea. >Brian Foley shows that he does not know what he is talking >about when he claims that the Perth Group are misleading their readers >about EM pictures of HIV when he refers them to two papers about the >subject, the sort of papers he claims they ignore - but these are the >very same papers that they use to show that HIV particles don't look >like a virus! It's a blunder on Foley's part if the Perth Group are not misleading readers about the papers they cite. Foley is confident enough that he is encouraging readers to check. You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to discourage people from checking. Hmmm. SignatureDavid Canzi The problem most anti-spammers are trying to solve, when correctly understood, reduces to "How do I let everybody in the world send me e-mail without letting everybody in the world send me e-mail?" snip >Why do I bother? Can't you see what's gone wrong here? People like Foley >are just making fools of themselves because they can't respond to the >Perth Group's arguments. Seriously. If Foley could do that, he wouldn't >be trying to tell them about papers they already know about and in fact >draw upon for their arguments as though they somehow refuted them. Ah--apparently they DON'T know about those papers. Or if they do, the Perth group fails to address their meaning. Let alone the fact that there are multiple ways to identify a virus! >And note that Foley isn't saying something like, "these papers show this >and that, as you should know, since you comment on them yourselves." No. >He mentions them as though he thought he was informing the Perth Group >of their existence for the first time. Which shows that he simply hasn't >bothered to study their arguments carefully, an elementary requirement >for anyone who wants to criticise them. He's low grade material. LOL...I would say the same of you for making such a lame argument. The Perth group sadly does not appear able to respond to any of Foley's arguments. George M. Carter > snip > >Why do I bother? Can't you see what's gone wrong here? People like Foley [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Perth group fails to address their meaning. Let alone the fact that > there are multiple ways to identify a virus! The Perth Group agree that there are other ways of isolating viruses, but argue that none work for HIV. And you're quite wrong that it's the Perth Group who 'fail to address the meaning' of those papers. Read again Christine Johnson's interview with Papadopulos-Eleopulos, where she gives very clear and very specific reasons why it is open to question that the particles described in those papers are a retrovirus, and compare that to Foley's lame evasion on the same point. "They look that way to me" just isn't an argument; how could anyone think it was? I have to conclude that you want to believe in the HIV theory of AIDS no matter what. You're attached to that theory for emotional reasons of your own. It takes away some of the blame and the responsibility for being HIV positive or having AIDS. It's like gay people who insist that they were 'born gay' even though the evidence for that is very meagre. > >And note that Foley isn't saying something like, "these papers show this > >and that, as you should know, since you comment on them yourselves." No. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > George M. Carter Lame argument? Why is it lame? It clearly matters a great deal to Brian Foley that he succeed in showing that the Perth Group are misleading people about EM pictures of HIV. Too bad he couldn't even be bothered reading their papers, because anyone who has would know that the person who is being misleading is him. > The Perth Group agree that there are other ways of isolating viruses, > but argue that none work for HIV. What other ways of isolating viruses do they agree on, and where exactly have they stated that they agree on these other methods? > Read > again Christine Johnson's interview with Papadopulos-Eleopulos, where > she gives very clear and very specific reasons why it is open to > question that the particles described in those papers are a retrovirus, > and compare that to Foley's lame evasion on the same point. "They look > that way to me" just isn't an argument; how could anyone think it was? Yeah, and monkey's have wings. This is what she said: "CJ: Tell me, the few particles they say are HIV, do they look like a retrovirus? EPE: They bear only the vaguest resemblance to retroviral particles." Foley says they look like virus particles, Papadopulos-Eleopulos says they bear only the vaguest resemblance to retroviral particles. Foley points out that one of the Bess et al photos shows nearly pure virus (figure 3 center panel) in (1), Papadopulos-Eleopulos tries to mislead people into thinking that only the top panel of figure 3 exists in (1). 1: Bess JW Jr, Gorelick RJ, Bosche WJ, Henderson LE, Arthur LO. Microvesicles are a source of contaminating cellular proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations. Virology. 1997 Mar 31;230(1):134-44. > It's like gay people who insist that they were 'born gay' even > though the evidence for that is very meagre. And I suppose you have more than "meagre" evidence that people choose to be gay??? What is this substantial evidence? Care to show it to us? > Lame argument? Why is it lame? Becuase it has nothing but lies and empty rhetoric to back it up. Go get the Bess paper from the local libary and look at the photos yourself. > It clearly matters a great deal to Brian Foley that he succeed in > showing that the Perth Group are misleading people about EM pictures of > HIV. Too bad he couldn't even be bothered reading their papers, because > anyone who has would know that the person who is being misleading is him. What, exactly, convinces you that Foley is wrong and Papadopulos-Eleopulos right on this point? > > The Perth Group agree that there are other ways of isolating viruses, > > but argue that none work for HIV. > > What other ways of isolating viruses do they agree on, and where > exactly have they stated that they agree on these other methods? It's all in the BMJ debate. You have the link. > > Read > > again Christine Johnson's interview with Papadopulos-Eleopulos, where [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > found in purified HIV-1 preparations. > Virology. 1997 Mar 31;230(1):134-44. And this pure virus looks like a virus, specifically a retrovirus? Yes or no? Does it or does it not have those knobs? If it does, why does Foley not say so rather than resort to vagueness and generalizations and fudging? For that matter, being a doctor, why don't you enter the BMJ debate and argue the matter with Papadopulos-Eleopulos yourself? > > It's like gay people who insist that they were 'born gay' even > > though the evidence for that is very meagre. > > And I suppose you have more than "meagre" evidence that people > choose to be gay??? What is this substantial evidence? Care to > show it to us? I wasn't trying to say that homosexuality was a choice. Being gay myself, I am well aware that it isn't a choice. It so happens that the notorious Freudian theory of homosexuality according to which it's all about your too-close mother and your distant father fits me perfectly. I therefore believe that theory, and so would you if you were in my shoes. That means that although homosexuality isn't a "choice", you still have much more responsibility in how you deal with it than you would if it had purely biological causes. You can, for example, read Freud and try to understand the psychological forces behind your homosexuality, or else you can remain ignorant and pretend that there is no issue. If you dare confront those forces - which takes great courage to do because it's so deeply disturbing and painful - that may alter your sexual feelings to a greater or lesser extent, though there are no guarantees. Personally, my own sexuality has shifted somewhat in the heterosexual direction. I am sexually aroused by/interested in women, which wasn't true before. I have not stopped being interested in men, though. It might be true that I could Œgo straight¹ and abandon homosexuality totally if I tried hard enough, but I have no particular wish to do so. What does this have to do with AIDS? The rhetoric surrounding AIDS sounds extremely similar to the rhetoric surrounding homosexuality. These are both issues where gay activists have vested interests and are therefore absolutely unwilling to permit open debate. The censorious declarations about how other points of view are "homophobic" and therefore not to be tolerated is precisely the same in both cases. Anyone who dissents from the standard view can expect to be vilified, as psychiatrist Robert Spitzer was when he conducted a study with 'ex-gays.' The scientific issues are also similar to some extent. We know what genetic determinism has meant to the study of homosexuality. Compare what it has meant to AIDS (http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/slartefact.htm). > > Lame argument? Why is it lame? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What, exactly, convinces you that Foley is wrong and Papadopulos-Eleopulos > right on this point? I was concerned with one particular point, a point no one needs to be a scientist to appreciate. Mr. Foley claims that the Perth Group have tried to convince people that there are very few EM pictures of HIV. He then mentions two papers describing such pictures, papers that the Perth Group commented on several years ago. This makes him look like a fool. The point here is only whether or not the Perth Group are aware of the existence of these papers and have called people's attention to them (which they have), not their interpretation. > And this pure virus looks like a virus, specifically a retrovirus? Yes > or no? It looks like a lintivirus. Most retroviruses have a more sperical core, lentiviruses have a cone-shaped core. > Does it or does it not have those knobs? If there are any knobs, they do not show up clearly in the Bess photograph. > If it does, why does > Foley not say so rather than resort to vagueness and generalizations and > fudging? I don't know, why don't you ask Foley? > For that matter, being a doctor, why don't you enter the BMJ > debate and argue the matter with Papadopulos-Eleopulos yourself? Probably the same reasons you don't. > What does this have to do with AIDS? The rhetoric surrounding AIDS > sounds extremely similar to the rhetoric surrounding homosexuality. > These are both issues where gay activists have vested interests and are > therefore absolutely unwilling to permit open debate. "Debate" is just hot air. People can debate these things for dozens of centuries with no conclusions. The alternative is to try to apply the scientific method. This is easier done with HIV than with homosexuality. > The scientific issues are also similar to some extent. We know what > genetic determinism has meant to the study of homosexuality. Compare > what it has meant to AIDS > (http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/slartefact.htm). Clever rhetoric. It sounds good if you ignore all the serological evidence, DNA sequence evidence, and epidemiology. If Gallo's and Montagnier's groups had ONLY a photograph and some RT activity, then they might indeed have been wrong. > I was concerned with one particular point, a point no one needs to be a > scientist to appreciate. Mr. Foley claims that the Perth Group have > tried to convince people that there are very few EM pictures of HIV. He > then mentions two papers describing such pictures, papers that the Perth > Group commented on several years ago. This makes him look like a fool. The Perth Group said: "(c) In the only EM of "purified" "HIV" published to date the vast majority of the material is microvesicles,..." That is a bold lie. There have been hundreds of EMs of HIV published, and more than 10 of them have been photos from bands collected at 1.16 g/ml in sucrose gradients. One of the ones in the Bess paper shows the vast majority being HIV-1 particles with very little cellular vessicles. Why, exactly, does Foley look like a fool for pointing out this lie? > The point here is only whether or not the Perth Group are aware of the > existence of these papers and have called people's attention to them > (which they have), not their interpretation. OK. Yes, the Perth Group is aware of the papers and willing to lie about the content of the papers. Foley is willing to point out the lie. > > What does this have to do with AIDS? The rhetoric surrounding AIDS > > sounds extremely similar to the rhetoric surrounding homosexuality. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to try to apply the scientific method. This is easier done > with HIV than with homosexuality. But it's not HIV we're talking about. Or at least it isn't HIV that is the point of the discussion. The point of the discussion is AIDS, and what is or isn't causing it. How do you determine what causes AIDS? Presumably you do that by studying people with AIDS, by checking their bodies for various infections - and by talking to them about their lives, asking them what kind of drugs they have or have not been using, and so on. Just as you would try to find out what causes homosexuality both by doing biological studies on homosexuals and by talking to them about their lives, about their relationships with their parents, and so on. In either case it's a very complicated and difficult business where many things can go wrong, any of which can produce a bogus outcome. For instance, there is dishonesty and recalcitrance on the part of the people you are doing the studies on, due to their embarrassment about their condition. And beyond mere dishonesty, how well do they even recall what their childhoods were like or how many and which drugs they have used over the years? How serious a problem this is I invite you to guess. Book after book has asserted that there is no evidence for the traditional Freudian theories about homosexuality. Not little evidence, or scattered and inconclusive evidence, but no evidence. None. Yet the Freudian view happens to be true, or at least a major part of the truth. So clearly in the case of homosexuality it's a pretty serious problem. I have no confidence at all that it isn't equally as serious a problem with AIDS. In fact, everything I know about the homosexual issue leads me to think it must be at least as serious a problem. So when I see claims about how there is no evidence that drug use, or other lifestyle factors, cause AIDS, I just think "here we go again." Now, it may be true that a far higher proportion of people with AIDS have HIV than homosexuals have particular genetic factors, but it is impossible to fully understand the significance of these facts unless one can control for other factors. Which is much like trying to move water with a sieve. All of that holds good quite regardless of the existence or not of HIV. >...But it's not HIV we're talking about. Or at least it isn't HIV that is > the point of the discussion. The point of the discussion is AIDS, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lives, asking them what kind of drugs they have or have not been using, > and so on. You only do that if you really want to know what causes AIDS. And if you read books such as "And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts, "The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS" by Ed Hooper, "History of AIDS: Emergence and Origin of a Modern Pandemic" by Mirko D. Grmek, and "HIV and the Pathogenesis of AIDS" by Jay Levy; or if you read the scientific literature, you will find that this has all been done as carefully as possible, with HUGE cooperation and commitment from HIV-infected and uninfected volunteers. Many gay men in the 1980s were beyond cooperative, they were actually demanding that scientists study this problem and find the cause. But if you are into pseudoscience and/or denial that HIV could possibly be the cause, you can just claim that we all know very well that all gay men abuse drugs. Or you can claim that the drug abuse epiedmic in the USA exactly mirrors AIDS cases, without ever presenting any real data. snip...> >But if you are into pseudoscience and/or denial that HIV could >possibly be the cause, you can just claim that we >all know very well that all gay men abuse drugs. Or you can claim >that the drug abuse epiedmic in the USA exactly mirrors AIDS cases, >without ever presenting any real data. Yes, indeedy. clearly, all the heterosexuals I knew (know) who did (do) recreational drugs were all secretly homosexual if they got AIDS. While a lot of the rest who never got sick must have been lying about doing drugs. And those gay people that did NOT do drugs and developed AIDS must have been covering up the time they did penicillin as a kid, clearly the PROXIMATE cause of AIDS. Gosh, Doc, doncha know nuttin'? Cigarettes, by the way, MUST cause AIDS too cause they're real toxic. So's alcohol. George M. Carter > Yes, indeedy. clearly, all the heterosexuals I knew (know) who did > (do) recreational drugs were all secretly homosexual if they got AIDS. Yeah, I ran into Ryan White shooting speed at a gay rave when he was 5. B/ >> Yes, indeedy. clearly, all the heterosexuals I knew (know) who did >> (do) recreational drugs were all secretly homosexual if they got AIDS. > >Yeah, I ran into Ryan White shooting speed at a gay rave when he was 5. Yeah, we was hanging out writin up the Gay Agenda to piss off fundy xtians.... > >> Yes, indeedy. clearly, all the heterosexuals I knew (know) who did > >> (do) recreational drugs were all secretly homosexual if they got AIDS. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yeah, we was hanging out writin up the Gay Agenda to piss off fundy > xtians.... Do you have an extra copy? I was out shopping that day. B/ >> >> Yes, indeedy. clearly, all the heterosexuals I knew (know) who did >> >> (do) recreational drugs were all secretly homosexual if they got AIDS. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Do you have an extra copy? I was out shopping that day. LOL....sadly, no. I think one was actually written as a spoof...but trying to find it on google, I was just reminded that the only document of that name is a rant worthy of Himmler from the xtian psycho fundy right called "The Gay Agenda." They do the same thing that Himmler did with the Jews in characterizing the "enemy" as something less than human and therefore to be oppressed, beaten or, like too many, killed. SOME denialists do that in more subtle ways. Indeed, Duesberg's whole stupid theory is based on the notion that gay men are SUCH drug users their CD4 count vanishes. As if lesbians don't party. As if all gay men use drugs who got AIDS...as if heteros...oh, but I said all that. But it is the same kind of bullshit and Rasnick, Duesberg's erstwhile sidekick, appears to be a raving homophobe/racist/whack job. George M. Carter > >> >> Yes, indeedy. clearly, all the heterosexuals I knew (know) who did > >> >> (do) recreational drugs were all secretly homosexual if they got AIDS. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > George M. Carter I'd be interested if you actually had any evidence that David Rasnick was homophobic or racist (and merely supporting an alternative theory of AIDS does not constitute homophobia, in my view). Of course this would not reflect one way or the other on the truth of any of his theories. In any case, you need people with many different points of view being involved in a debate, this is how truth emerges. I would regard NARTH, while I don't agree with them about everything, as not only a legitimate but a vitally necessary participant in the debate over homosexuality. > snip...> > >But if you are into pseudoscience and/or denial that HIV could [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > George M. Carter I've often been told that plenty of people who don't become homosexuals had close mothers and distant fathers. This is held to torpedo that theory, but I still think that it's a good explanation of homosexuality. Life being complex, there might be numerous reasons why some people from that family background become homosexuals while many others do not. snip,,, >I've often been told that plenty of people who don't become homosexuals >had close mothers and distant fathers. This is held to torpedo that >theory, but I still think that it's a good explanation of homosexuality. Based on what? I am not surprised to discover that you enjoy embracing homophobic stereotypes! >Life being complex, there might be numerous reasons why some people from >that family background become homosexuals while many others do not. Nature and nurture play inextricably bound roles in the development process and in sexual orientation and attraction. But then again, perhaps if choice plays such a role, there is hope for the vile heterosexual lifestyle! Get them to be gay and stop overpopulating the planet with abandoned children, children sold into slavery, killing their kids, fornicating, lying, doing drugs. Oh, those vile heterosexuals. But hey, some of my best friends!.... George M. Carter > snip,,, > >I've often been told that plenty of people who don't become homosexuals [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Based on what? I am not surprised to discover that you enjoy embracing > homophobic stereotypes! Based on personal experience. I am gay, and that particular "stereotype" is true of me. While I can see why some people might regard that as "homophobic", I think they are wrong to do so. It isn't necessarily the same as saying that homosexuality is a mental illness, or anything of that kind. You may find it embarrassing, but that's a different matter. I note that the said stereotype is true of a number of prominent gay writers - at one time or another, I've read Larry Kramer, Andrew Sullivan, Simon LeVay, and Martin Duberman say it was true of them. (Sullivan wrote the best essay I've ever seen on the subject of psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality, in his book Love Undetectable). I don't claim that this observation is good statistical evidence; it certainly isn't. But I am equally not confident in studies purporting to show that family background has nothing to do with sexual orientation, since I can all too easily imagine reasons why they could go wrong. Many of those reasons could also wreck studies of PWAs, which is one of the reasons why I feel one has to have some doubt in the HIV theory of AIDS. > >Life being complex, there might be numerous reasons why some people from > >that family background become homosexuals while many others do not. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > George M. Carter Evasive remark. What 'nurture' factors do you have in mind? Anyway, I only made that comment to counter-act your remarks on lifestyle theories of AIDS. If there are reasons why one particular notorious family background doesn't always produce homosexuality, there can equally well be reasons why drug use doesn't always produce AIDS. snip... >Based on personal experience. I am gay, and that particular "stereotype" >is true of me. While I can see why some people might regard that as >"homophobic", I think they are wrong to do so. It isn't necessarily the >same as saying that homosexuality is a mental illness, or anything of >that kind. You may find it embarrassing, but that's a different matter. I retract my comment and thank you for your clarification. I do not find it embarrassing at all....I just have a mistrust of stereotyping in general. The use of the term "lifestyle" is also a key bashing term from homophobic bigots to castigate gay people. Whether or not that psychological profile you describe is a description of same gender loving people in general I cannot comment upon. But such generalities are often blown away under closer scrutiny. Yes, a stereotype arises because there is some self-fulfilling prophecy involved (whether ethnic, orientation or what have you)...but they are of little utility beyond off-color jokes. snip... >Evasive remark. What 'nurture' factors do you have in mind? Anyway, I >only made that comment to counter-act your remarks on lifestyle theories >of AIDS. If there are reasons why one particular notorious family >background doesn't always produce homosexuality, there can equally well >be reasons why drug use doesn't always produce AIDS. Ah, why does AIDS develop without drug use? Why only gay men drug users in the early part of the epidemic? Why only a subset of drug users in the hetero community as...gee..something shifted? (More HIV infections.) Lifestyle does play a role in our health. Here, I use the term to mean considerations of diet, stress management, exercise, sleep issues, substance use (legal, illegal, recreational)...etc. There is NOTHING in the literature that suggests that any of these causes AIDS. If I've missed something (aside from Duesberg's discredited ditherings), please feel free to share. George M. Carter > snip... > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > self-fulfilling prophecy involved (whether ethnic, orientation or what > have you)...but they are of little utility beyond off-color jokes. You can't comment on whether it's a good description of gay people in general? But don't you have confidence in science? Science has now shown beyond a doubt that all of that is totally discredited, right? Or so I've frequently heard. That's certainly the 'mainstream' position, and you've indicated that you take 'mainstream' views very seriously indeed. > snip... > >Evasive remark. What 'nurture' factors do you have in mind? Anyway, I [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > George M. Carter The point you have missed is that the comparison between research on homosexuality and research on AIDS is a good one. As is the comparison between the standard of public debate and commentary on these issues. There's a tendency to reduce the complexities of minority theories to only the best known ones, or a debased version of them, find a fact held not to be compatible with them, and then let that settle the entire issue. Not all homosexuals come from one particular family background? OK, then family background has nothing to do with homosexuality. Not all PWAs use drugs? So therefore drug use has nothing to do with AIDS. Duesberg has responded to at least some of the problems you mentioned. You had an epidemic of really intense drug use developing in the 1960s and 1970s that was different from anything in the past. As for its only being gay men in the early part of the epidemic, that could have had something to do with their being better organized and in general better educated than drug users, therefore more likely to find a health problem and act on it. Plus their health problems would have been more remarkable, since you expect drug users to be in lousy health anyway. snip... >You can't comment on whether it's a good description of gay people in >general? But don't you have confidence in science? Science has now shown >beyond a doubt that all of that is totally discredited, right? Or so >I've frequently heard. That's certainly the 'mainstream' position, and >you've indicated that you take 'mainstream' views very seriously indeed. I cannot comment because I have not read the material. It probably has been discredited as another stereotype. snip... >The point you have missed is that the comparison between research on >homosexuality and research on AIDS is a good one. As is the comparison >between the standard of public debate and commentary on these issues. No, it's not at all. It's just a way of confusing two issues and not coming to any genuine understanding on either. If at the end of this you just want to draw the conclusion that all science can be rejected, which seems to be where you're going with this, then it's even worse: just childish trollery/ >There's a tendency to reduce the complexities of minority theories to >only the best known ones, or a debased version of them, find a fact held >not to be compatible with them, and then let that settle the entire >issue. Not all homosexuals come from one particular family background? >OK, then family background has nothing to do with homosexuality. Not all >PWAs use drugs? So therefore drug use has nothing to do with AIDS. But darling, I NEVER claimed drugs have nothing to do with AIDS. Nor that family is not a contributor to sexual orientation to some degree. But NEITHER is the proximate cause (although speaking of 'causes' for something as complex as sexual orientation is MUCH different; another reason I find your comparison specious). By contrast, HIV disease results in a chronic decline in CD4+ count. Can drugs affect that? Yes! Which ones? Probably cocaine and crystal meth, in terms of recreational drugs and in terms of negative effects. Marijuana, by contrast, does not. Nor does nicotine or heroin. Alcohol probably does (esp. neurological function). And THOSE influences depend on frequency and intensity of use, individual metabolism, and other factors. >Duesberg has responded to at least some of the problems you mentioned. >You had an epidemic of really intense drug use developing in the 1960s >and 1970s that was different from anything in the past. Yep! And the majority of that drug use--which continued THROUGH the 80s, 90s and 00s--was by heterosexuals! By sheer numbers. >As for its only >being gay men in the early part of the epidemic, that could have had >something to do with their being better organized and in general better >educated than drug users, therefore more likely to find a health problem >and act on it. Plus their health problems would have been more >remarkable, since you expect drug users to be in lousy health anyway. Some are--some are not. And drug use also contributed to spread through those who used and shared needles. And it still is: from the South Bronx to Manipur, India. Those who get HIV develop AIDS. Those who do not, do not develop AIDS. Duesberg's theories are cockeyed foolishness and, as I posted, there are NO data that support his idiotic idea. You demand PROOF of HIV's role in AIDS, yet embrace this flimsy notion that has nothing but refuting data. So. I can ask you: where is your PROOF that 'drugs cause AIDS'? You have none, so you resort to ridiculous comparisons. George M. Carter > Duesberg has responded to at least some of the problems you mentioned. "Responded to" is not the same as "presented hard data". > You had an epidemic of really intense drug use developing in the 1960s > and 1970s that was different from anything in the past. As for its only [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and act on it. Plus their health problems would have been more > remarkable, since you expect drug users to be in lousy health anyway. That is all true, which is why it was not immediately obvious that an infectious agent was the cause of AIDS. It took some real research, and observations such as cases of AIDS developing in recipeints of tranfusions of blood from donors who also went on to develop AIDS, to make it clear beyond reasonable doubt, that an infectious agent was involved. Real researchers also interviewed AIDS patients and the sex partners of AIDS patients, rather than just assuming that all AIDS patients might be drug users. > > Duesberg has responded to at least some of the problems you mentioned. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the sex partners of AIDS patients, rather than just assuming that all > AIDS patients might be drug users. A variety of arguments have been presented about haemophilia (http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/haemophilia.htm). Duesberg and the Perth Group have dealt with the issue at some length. As for the interviews, how much they are worth is a matter for surmise. I surmise that they may be worth crap, based on the example of research into homosexuality, where they are clearly worth crap. That you continue to ignore this last point is merely amusing. snip... >A variety of arguments have been presented about haemophilia >(http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/haemophilia.htm). Duesberg and the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >That you continue to ignore this last point is merely amusing. Now I realize you really are just another disingenuous troll! LOL. As you flit away from logic and data to the next stop on the 'tiny rounds' of your denialist cant, you swing to the issue of hemophilia. Citing no less crap from 1995 that has been dealt with time and again. And yes, again, the science shows that people with Hemophilia who got infected blood developed AIDS. Those who did not, well, they did not develop AIDS. Look it up! Oh! But that might conflict with your carefully constructed psychosis. So...better yet! Get some HIV and get infected and see what happens. George M. Carter [snip] > Oh! But that might conflict with your carefully constructed psychosis. > So...better yet! Get some HIV and get infected and see what happens. > > George M. Carter People who tell other people to get HIV should not be accusing other people of being psychotic. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > People who tell other people to get HIV should not be accusing other > people of being psychotic. Well it does describe the frustration of people like myself who have been dealing for over a decade with HIV/AIDS on a personal and community level. The level of self delusion it takes to deny that there is both an empiric and theoretical basis for the HIV=AIDS conclusion is simply difficult to comprehend further more argue with year after year after year. All the while watching loved ones succumb to this insidious and deadly virus. Gary Stein > > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Gary Stein Frustration? No doubt. But most people who get frustrated at AIDS don't deal with that by actually wanting one more person to develop AIDS. >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >People who tell other people to get HIV should not be accusing other >people of being psychotic. But why should you worry, dear? You insist it is nonexistent or harmless or something? So a little HIV+ blood won't do a gosh darn thing, now will it? George M. Carter > >[snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > George M. Carter The word 'dear' is a little queasy-making. I think it's a covert form of fag-bashing, and I find it very disturbing coming from an openly gay man. > > > Duesberg has responded to at least some of the problems you mentioned. > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > that they may be worth crap, based on the example of research into > homosexuality, where they are clearly worth crap. And you base the above statement on what evidence? Simply stating that the interview data on homosexuality is crap is far from showing that all such data is crap. Now if you said the original Kinsey interview data is crap most would agree with you (though even that is still a contentious debate for some in the research community) however that is not what you claim. Rather you claim that all such data is crap with no attempt on your part to show that you have even attempted any form of review of the available interview data on human sexuality. > That you continue to ignore this last point is merely amusing. That you continue to make such claims with no evidentiary backing is even more amusing...... Gary Stein > >...But it's not HIV we're talking about. Or at least it isn't HIV that is > > the point of the discussion. The point of the discussion is AIDS, and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > that the drug abuse epiedmic in the USA exactly mirrors AIDS cases, > without ever presenting any real data. I haven't read most of those books, but I did get through the one by Shilts, and it's dreadful. I was pretty shocked by some of the things he records scientists doing work on AIDS as thinking - such as Robert Briggar, who "had seen plaques in Africa, and he knew that the American infatuation for quick and easy theories, like semen or poppers, came only from naivete. No matter how affluent and civilized, humans were humans and susceptible to viruses that could come from nowhere." p. 156 That's a very stupid statement; it amounts to saying that we ought never to even consider lifestyle factors because viruses can affect anyone. It's stupid and grossly immoral on the scientific level. The first point that most of the books by AIDS dissidents make is that virologists tend to want things to have viral causes, and surprise surprise, that's true. Your confidence in the studies of PWAs reveals a remarkable sense of humour. Do you have equal confidence in all those studies showing that family background has nothing to do with homosexuality? Or will you not express an opinion about that, homosexuality after all not being your area of interest? But if you knew something about the debates in that area, it might help to make you less naive about AIDS. The comparison between these two phenomena is helpful and quite correct in this context. While it is perfectly true that one can support any theory of anything by accusing people who give information counter to your theory of lying, it is also true that people do lie and/or remember incorrectly. The assumption that PWA were honest because they knew that scientists needed to find the truth in order to help them might or might not be right. But this isn't the only thing that needs to be said. That "all gay men use drugs" is not something one needs to claim in order to support a lifestyle theory of AIDS, any more than one needs to claim that all gay men have close, too-warm, and over-protective mothers and distant, cold, hostile fathers to support an environmental theory of homosexuality. These phenomena are complex enough to have a range of causes, including variations on the best known theories (drugs in the case of AIDS, close mothers/distant fathers in the case of homosexuality) in some cases, and quite other factors in other cases. Does there have to be a single cause of AIDS any more than there has to be a single cause of homosexuality? snip... >These phenomena are complex enough to have a range of causes, including >variations on the best known theories (drugs in the case of AIDS, close >mothers/distant fathers in the case of homosexuality) in some cases, and >quite other factors in other cases. Does there have to be a single cause >of AIDS any more than there has to be a single cause of homosexuality? Wow...this is so lame it is breathtaking! Sophistry at its finest. Science works based on making a hypothesis to describe the development of events. The loose and vague use of "lifestyle" as the cause of AIDS (which is significantly characterized by a chronic decline in CD4+ T lymphocytes) is illustrative of the weakness of the denialist position. At least Duesberg developed an hypothesis based on drug use. Data exist that soundly refute this notion. First, many people with AIDS do not have any particularly strong history of drug use. Second, many people without AIDS have a VERY strong history of recreational drug use--and do NOT see a steady deterioration of CD4+ counts. Thus, the theory is weak. Can lifestyle choices *affect* disease susceptibility or progession? Of course. Can recreational drugs have toxicities? Yes! But they do NOT cause AIDS. An excellent review paper: M. S. Ascher, H. W. Sheppard, W. W. Jr & E. Vittinghoff. Does drug use cause AIDS? Nature 362, 103 - 104 (1993). See below. And all of that is utterly aside from sexual orientation. HIV is the one element that binds people who develop AIDS, whether they are on the DL, transexuals, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, children, infants.... But I'm sure such logic is of no use to you. George M. Carter *** From the Ascher paper cited above: Since 1987, Peter H. Duesberg, a professor of molecular biology at the University of California, Berkeley, has maintained that the HIV virus is not the infectious aetiological agent for AIDS. Responses to Duesberg have presented a strong case that HIV has a central role in AIDS pathogenesis. Duesberg did not at first present a clear alternative hypothesis, but recently, based on an ecological analysis of drug use in the United States, he has proposed that "either durg consumption (fre- quently associated with malnutrition) by recently established behavioral groups or cenventional clinical deficiencies and their treatments are necessary and sufficient to cause indi- cator diseases of AIDS. Because of the wide publicity attracted by this assertion, we decided to assess this hypo- thesis. ...[An analysis of] data from more than 4,500 homosexual/ bisexual men in the Multi-center AIDS Cohort Study ... found no association between the use of alcohol or other psycho- active drugs and HIV seroconversion or progression of HIV infection to AIDS. Because amyl nitrite inhalants were thought to be aetiologically related to Kaposi's sarcoma, [another study] compared the use of 10 psychoactive drugs in 72 incident cases of Kaposi's sarcoma with 109 incident AIDS cases without Kaposi's sarcoma from the well-characterized San Francisco City Clinic Cohort, and found no differences. The most commonly used durgs were marijuana, nitrite inhalants, cocaine and amphetamines. To test Duesberg's drug-use hypothesis directly, we analysed data from a unique population-based cohort study, the San Francisco Men's Health Study. This study is based on a cohort of 1,034 single men 25-54 years of age at the time of recruit- ment, selected by stratified, random, houselhold sampling from neighbourhoods of San Francisco.... Participants were recruited without regard to sexual preference, lifestyle or HIV sero- status.... Because Duesberg has specifically implicated amyl nitrite in the aetiology of Kaposi's sarcoma, we [specifically analysed] this relationship.... [W]hen controlled for HIV serostatus, there is no overall effect of drug use on AIDS.... In addition, we have performed a logistic analysis of the longitudinal drug- use data wich shows no positive association between long-term or continued drug use and the development of AIDS. ... Duesberg and his followers could better be applied to unraveling the enigmatic mechanism of the HIV pathogenesis of AIDS signalling at CD4 cells. This model and others are now being evaluated, and we cordially invite Duesberg to participate in this endeavor. - Michael S. Ascher and Haynes W. Sheppard, Viral and Riceket- tsial Disease Laboratory, California Dept. of Health Services, 2151 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, CA 94704 USA Warren Winkelstein Jr and Eric Vittinghoff, Dept. of Bio- medical and Environemntal Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA [Excerpted from Nature, Vol. 362, No. 6416, 11 March 1993, pp 103-4. Important details have been left out of this excerpt. See the article in Nature for them.] *** Old studies showed little relation between drugs and AIDS. Not NO relation, but certainly not evidence of a CAUSATIVE relation. Goedert JJ. Recreational drugs: relationship to AIDS. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1984;437:192-199. Current data suggest that a transmissible agent causes AIDS, but undefined cofactors may also play a role. This paper reviews published data on the relationship between recreational drugs and immune alterations, with particular emphasis on nitrite inhalant (NI) use by homosexual men. In our original cohort of 15 homosexual men, helper:suppressor (H:S) T-cell ratios are stable, but persistently lower in the NI users. A recent analysis of 245 homosexual men shows that NI use is associated with low H:S ratios in homosexual men in Washington, D.C., but not in New York. Although NI use could increase the risk of AIDS by direct or indirect effects, it could also be a surrogate for a lifestyle practice that predisposes homosexual men to the putative AIDS agent. The current evidence concerning use of NI and the risk of AIDS is inconclusive, as is true for two other recreational drugs, heroin and cocaine. Future studies may not be able to dissect the complex interrelationships of drug use and other variables until precise laboratory tests are available for defining exposure to the putative AIDS agent and suspect cofactors. *** Role of syphilis? Here again, not causation but clearly a potentially serious problem in HIV+ people. McKenna JJ, Miles R, Lemen D, Dunford SA, Renirie R. Unmasking AIDS: chemical immunosuppression and seronegative syphilis. Med Hypotheses. 1986 Dec;21(4):421-30. In both African AIDS populations and homosexual populations outside of Africa, a high incidence of syphilis and multiple exposures to infectious diseases results in frequent, often abusive use of antibiotics. Epidemiological evidence exists for chemical immunosuppression resulting from antibiotics and other prescribed and recreational drugs prior to the current AIDS crisis. Analysis and review of literature is given on the effects of subcurative doses of antibiotics masking and distorting the expression of secondary and tertiary syphilis. A high incidence of seronegative syphilis is found in Africa and compares with Western reports of seronegativity and persistence of treponemes despite adequate antibiotic therapies. Late latent and tertiary syphilis produce symptoms and immunosuppression comparable to that seen in the current AIDS crisis. Screening procedures instituted for a group of gay men with AIDS and AIDS related conditions is revealing evidence of chemically immunosuppressed syphilis as a factor in AIDS. Key words: AIDS, immunosuppression, syphilis, chemical immunosuppression, seronegativity, immunosuppressive sera, etiology of AIDS. PIP: A review of the medical and personal histories of 100 gay men in San Francisco, 24 of whom had already developed acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), uncovered disproportionate prior antibiotic and immunosuppressive drug use. 25 of the men reported at least 9 of the following 12 conditions: antibiotic treatment for multiple episodes of gonorrhea, hepatitis, nonspecific urethritis, dermatological eruptions treated with long-term tetracycline, sedative or tranquilizer use, chronic sore throat treated with antibiotics, herpes simplex, chronic use of allergy medications and symptom suppressants, lymphadenopathy, diarrhea, daily alcohol use, and recreational drug abuse. On the basis of this finding, it is hypothesized that a prior history of chronic inflammation, combined with the administration of antibiotics and other immunosuppressive drugs, creates an environment conducive to the growth and reproduction of an array of micro-organisms, including the retrovirus found in AIDS. Moreover, among both US homosexuals and African AIDS patients, chemical immunosuppression is often linked to endemic syphilis. The expression of such secondary and tertiary syphilis is commonly masked and distorted by the long-term effects of subcurative doses of antibiotics; in fact, late latent and tertiary syphilis produce symptoms and immunosuppression similar to the profile of AIDS. It is estimated that at least 60% of US homosexuals have a history of syphilis, and 90% of gay with AIDS have had at least 1 syphilitic infection. Since the immunosuppression of advanced syphilis and drug-induced immunosuppression can produce false-negative results in antigen and antibody tests for syphilis, it is recommended that gay men obtain baseline serologic tests for syphilis and undergo repeat testing if new symptoms arise. *** Sexual activity is the highest correlate of infection and AIDS here. Poppers and speed are used -- but they make no mention of people who are HIV-negative developing AIDS. Burcham JL, Tindall B, Marmor M, Cooper DA, Berry G, Penny R. Incidence and risk factors for human immunodeficiency virus seroconversion in a cohort of Sydney homosexual men. Med J Aust. 1989 Jun 5;150(11):634-9. Comment in: Med J Aust. 1989 Sep 18;151(6):359-60. Department of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW. By means of prospective cohort data from the Sydney AIDS Project, we report on 55 homosexual or bisexual men who have become infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), as measured by the development of serum HIV antibodies (seroconversion). We have compared the sexual practices, recreational drug abuse, history of sexually-transmissible diseases, and antecedent immunological findings of the men who seroconverted with those of 588 subjects who persistently remained seronegative in the same time-period. The cumulative incidence rate of HIV infection over the three years of observation was 8.5%. The cumulative incidence rate ranged from less than 1% for the six months before August 1, 1984, to a peak of 5% in the six months before August 1, 1985. Of those subjects for whom we had data for the period of seroconversion, all but two of the subjects who seroconverted admitted to a recognized high-risk sexual practice in the six months before the first visit at which they were found to be seropositive. Univariate analysis found that men who seroconverted were significantly more likely to have had a greater number of recent sexual partners (relative risk per partner, 1.02; P less than 0.001), to have engaged in receptive anal intercourse (incidence rate ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-7.6; P = 0.01) and to have used nitrite inhalant (incidence rate ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.9; P = 0.02) and amphetamine (incidence rate ratio, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.2-10.5; P less than 0.001) drugs. The men who seroconverted were significantly (incidence rate ratio, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-6.1; P = 0.014) more likely to have antecedent T-suppressor-cell counts of greater than 800 cells/microL. Factors that retained significance in multivariate analysis were the number of recent sexual partners, recent amphetamine abuse and a T-suppressor-cell count of greater than 800 cells/microL. *** Self explanatory. Nitrites do NOT causes AIDS--but can facilitate risky sexual activity: Ostrow DG, VanRaden MJ, Fox R, Kingsley LA, Dudley J, Kaslow RA. Recreational drug use and sexual behavior change in a cohort of homosexual men. The Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS). AIDS. 1990 Aug;4(8):759-65. Howard Brown Memorial Clinic, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois. The relationship between use of recreational drugs and high-risk (HIV-transmitting) homosexual behavior was examined in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) population. Among the 3916 men who completed both the baseline (1984) and first 6-month follow-up evaluations and were sexually active during the 6 months prior to enrollment, self-reported use of each of 10 classes of recreational drugs in conjunction with sexual activity was analyzed for both cross-sectional and prospective relationships with pattern of sexual behavior using a four-level sexual risk behavior index. At baseline, the proportion of men in the highest risk category (unprotected anal exposures with multiple partners) increased from 36 to 85% when men not using any drugs to men using three or more drugs plus volatile nitrites were examined. In multivariate logistical analyses, volatile nitrite use was significantly associated with failure to maintain or attain lower sexual risk levels after controlling for the effects of age, educational level and numbers of high-risk partners. These results suggest that volatile nitrite use may play an important role in the association between recreational drug use and high-risk sexual behavior among homosexual/bisexual men. *** Recreational drug use can affect progression: Nair MP, Mahajan S, Hewitt R, Whitney ZR, Schwartz SA. Association of drug abuse with inhibition of HIV-1 immune responses: studies with long-term of HIV-1 non-progressors. J Neuroimmunol. 2004 Feb;147(1-2):21-5. Department of Medicine and Microbiology, State University of New York at Buffalo, Kaleida Health/Buffalo General Hospital, 100 High Street, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA. mnair@acsu.buffalo.edu Recreational drug use has been proposed to affect the course of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections. To investigate the effects of substance abuse on HIV infections, we compared virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) responses and the expression of IL-16, TGF-beta1, and CXCR4 in three different cohorts of HIV-infected patients: (1) long-term nonprogressors (LT-NPs) of HIV infection who do not use recreational drugs; (2) nondrugs using normal progressors (NPs), and (3) drugs using NPs. Our results show that LT-NPs manifest increased CTL activity and IL-16 expression and decreased expression of TGF-beta1 and CXCR4 compared to NPs, regardless of recreational drug usage. Furthermore, drugs using NPs showed significantly lower levels of CTL and IL-16 expression and increased TGF-beta1 and CXCR4 expression compared to nondrugs using NPs. Our results suggest that recreational drug use may reduce CTL and IL-16 expression and increase the expression of TGF-beta1 and CXCR4, all of which may facilitate progression of HIV infections. ** > snip... > >These phenomena are complex enough to have a range of causes, including [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > George M. Carter [snip] Oh dear God. We're really into heavy territory now, what with you posting scientific papers showing that there is no proof drug use causes AIDS. Why don't you post papers showing that family background has nothing to do with homosexuality? I'm sure that would be fun, not. While I can't answer all of your points, the thing about how many people who use drugs heavily don't get AIDS proving that drug use can't cause AIDS is no better an argument than the one about how many people with a particular family background don't become homosexual showing that that environment can't have anything to do with homosexuality. It may sound like a good argument in the abstract, but things just aren't that simple in the real world. Likewise with saying that many people who get AIDS don't have histories of drug use - you could round up a line of homosexuals and question them, and they might all say that their relationships with their parents were fine, that they didn't have too-close mothers and distant fathers, etc. I'm sure they would say that, since they've been told that if this were true, it would mean they were mentally ill, and obviously they don't want to believe that. What you think you can show by claiming that a single, definable condition cannot have multiple causes is a good question. Seems like good logic on paper, but is it actually true? Homosexuality is pretty obviously significantly characterized by sexual attraction to the same sex, but that still does not mean that it must have one single cause. (Freud suggested at least four causes of homosexuality). I'm not saying that anything about sexual orientation proves anything about AIDS. Obviously it doesn't, since they are different issues. But some of the problems involved are similar and it's interesting to compare them. snip...>[snip] >Oh dear God. We're really into heavy territory now, what with you >posting scientific papers showing that there is no proof drug use causes >AIDS. Why don't you post papers showing that family background has >nothing to do with homosexuality? I'm sure that would be fun, not. Yes...you appear to dislike such scrutiny. >While I can't answer all of your points, the thing about how many people >who use drugs heavily don't get AIDS proving that drug use can't cause >AIDS is no better an argument than the one about how many people with a >particular family background don't become homosexual showing that that >environment can't have anything to do with homosexuality. I never made that argument. To the contrary, environment DOES play a role in our growth and development. Whether in forming our sexual orientation or influencing our response to disease. Take a lot of crystal meth, it will probably accelerate progression of HIV. It will probably facilitate become newly infected. That is NOT the same as buying into the theory that one PARTICULAR environmental family structure "causes" any type of sexual orientation. >It may sound >like a good argument in the abstract, but things just aren't that simple [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >that, since they've been told that if this were true, it would mean they >were mentally ill, and obviously they don't want to believe that. Conflating these issues creates confusion. Which topic do you wish to discuss? And yes, I think it is not a sign of mental illness to have had a "too-close" mother and "distant" father. >What you think you can show by claiming that a single, definable >condition cannot have multiple causes is a good question. Seems like >good logic on paper, but is it actually true? In terms of recreational drugs causing AIDS, that's an excellent question. So I provided a first pass at some data that collectively show that they do NOT cause CD4 counts to diminish over time. By contrast, you are arguing about AIDS and homosexuality in an extremely confused way, drawing false parallels about the nature of the argument. Indeed, I submit that you are making a GREAT argument against yourself. The way to discover whether some association is true is to evaluate it, do the analysis. I'm saying that in terms of "drugs causing AIDS" those data DO exist and do NOT support that hypothesis. By contrast, there are AMPLE data showing that HIV exists and causes AIDS. >Homosexuality is pretty >obviously significantly characterized by sexual attraction to the same >sex, but that still does not mean that it must have one single cause. I didn't suggest it did. I guess you wish to talk about homosexuality, not AIDS? >(Freud suggested at least four causes of homosexuality). I'm not saying >that anything about sexual orientation proves anything about AIDS. >Obviously it doesn't, since they are different issues. But some of the >problems involved are similar and it's interesting to compare them. Maybe to you! LOL....a nice way of dancing away from the data. George M. Carter >Papadopulos-Eleopulos has criticized the HIV theory on many grounds, >among them that the allegedly retroviral particles seen in EM pictures >of density gradients do not have the right shape for retrovirus >particles, are not the right size for retroviral particles, and don't >have the all-important knobs which they need to actually be infectious >(http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html). That's specific. The following paper: http://hiv-web.lanl.gov/content/hiv-db/COMPENDIUM/1997/partIII/Gelderblom.pdf explains: ---QUOTE--- Virus aging and comparative aspects: ============================= Because of weak SU-TM interactions, the viral knobs are shed spontaneously from the viral surface (Gelderblom et al. 1985b 25 ). For HIV-1 strain IIIB a shedding half-life of 30 hours was determined. This rate easily explains the rapid decay of viral infectivity of IIIB ---END QUOTE--- I think this answers the complaint of the Perth dissidents that electron micrographs of particles claimed to be HIV particles often lack the expected knobs. Peter PS The following email correspondence took place between me and a supporter of the HIV theory several years ago. To get a clearer idea of the status of HIV research it is worth visiting a library to look at original scientific papers. Me: > So far the only electron micrographs I have been > able to find of HIV have mainly shown cells and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one thousand or so particles look like HIV is supposed > to look with only 3-4 contaminating particles. Response: You have apparently only been looking at the photos that the "dissidents" or "denialists" feed you. If you go to the very same papers that the dissidents cite, and read them, you will find that the dissidents show just the very worst of the photos in those papers. For example http://healtoronto.com/emphotos.html shows the photo of the MN uncloned strain of HIV grown on H9 cells which resulted in a p24 (HIV protein) to HLA (human contaminating protein) ratio of 0.02 to 1. Bess also presented another photo of a slightly more pure preparation with a ratio of 4.61 to 1, and indeed in that photo there are roughly five times as many virus particles as microvessicles. Bess did not show the photo of the better preparations with ratios of up 10 150 to 1 that he was able to get with cell lines other than H9 (the Daudi cell line for example), but he would send you a photo if you wanted one. Bess JW Jr, Gorelick RJ, Bosche WJ, Henderson LE, Arthur LO. Microvesicles are a source of contaminating cellular proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations. Virology. 1997 Mar 31;230(1):134-44. PMID: 9126269 http://hiv-web.lanl.gov/content/hiv-db/COMPENDIUM/1997/partIII/Gelderblom.pdf has photos, but none of them are of gradient-enriched HIV. Me: > Eg. See the micrograph for the Friend retrovirus in Fig 2 on the > following web page. > http://healtoronto.com/emphotos.html > > Can you provide a link to electron micrographs of similar quality > for HIV? Response: Figure 2 there just shows little dots, so it is hard to say what you mean by "similar quality". There are many photos here: http://www.virology.net/Big_Virology/BVretro.html Me: > By the way 1997 the situation was as in the following > papers: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Do you know of any papers with better results? Response: No. I think the 150:1 ratio that Bess reported on is about as good as it gets. That is one of the major reasons that ELISA and Western Blot reagents are no longer prepared from whole virus preps, but instead are made from cloned viral genes. Have you really read those two papers in full? Or did you just look at the one photo posted to the HEAL www site? If you think that photographs of viruses are the be-all and end-all of virology, you are missing some major points. For one thing, HIV-1 and other retroviruses are "enveloped" viruses which means that they take a chunk of the host cell membrane out of the cell when they leave and thus even a 100% pure virus preparation contains the host cell membrane proteins as well as proteins encoded by the viral genome. The "Perth group" of denialists would like to convince you that photos of viruses are the most important thing in virology. But in fact, all lentiviruses look identical, and you can't tell the difference between HIV-1 and EIAV in a photo, let alone determine the difference between the HIV-1 and HIV-2 or the difference beteen HIV-1 subtype A and HIV-1 subtype B. With infectious molecular clones of HIV-1 or any other virus, it is possible to do all sorts of biology that could never be done with just "gradient enriched" viral preparations. > >Papadopulos-Eleopulos has criticized the HIV theory on many grounds, > >among them that the allegedly retroviral particles seen in EM pictures [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Peter It might. It might not. It sounds like speculation, although I really don't know. Is there a more recent paper than one from 1985? And do those weak SU-TM interactions also change the size and shape of the particles away from those typical of retroviruses? >Is there a more recent paper than one from 1985? And do >those weak SU-TM interactions also change the size and shape of the >particles away from those typical of retroviruses? I am afraid I am only a layperson so far as virology is concerned, so I have had to struggle to work out what to believe without understanding all the details. The sentences I quoted, >> Virus aging and comparative aspects: >> ============================= >> Because of weak SU-TM interactions, the viral knobs are shed >> spontaneously from the viral surface (Gelderblom et al. 1985b 25 ). >> For HIV-1 strain IIIB a shedding half-life of 30 hours was determined. >> This rate easily explains the rapid decay of viral infectivity of IIIB refer to a paper written in 1985, but the quote itself is from: http://hiv-web.lanl.gov/content/hiv-db/COMPENDIUM/1997/partIII/Gelderblom.pdf which was written in 1997. Hope this helps. By the way, if the theory that HIV causes AIDS was some kind of capitalist drug company conspiracy, I would expect the health departments of countries such as China and Cuba to be resisting the theory, but this is not the case. Cuba in fact has been segregating HIV positive people, to protect their sexually liberated life style. Regards, Peter > >Is there a more recent paper than one from 1985? And do > >those weak SU-TM interactions also change the size and shape of the [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Regards, > Peter I think you are pretty naive in your views about the governments of China and Cuba. Your suggestion as to why the Cuban government has segregated the HIV positive is not one I have come across before. >I think you are pretty naive in your views about the governments of >China and Cuba. They could be puppet regimes of the United States. But I don't get that impression. >Your suggestion as to why the Cuban government has >segregated the HIV positive is not one I have come across before. What ever the reason, the Cubans were sufficiently concerned about HIV to take action, and by now they would know whether the segregated HIV positives went on to develope AIDS or not. Presumably recreational drugs would not be available to these people, and HIV drugs were probably not (initially) available either, so if the immune systems of the infected people declined, it would have to be due to HIV. I have not seen reports from Cuba to this effect, but if it had been found that after being segregated, non of the HIV positive people had become ill, then I expect we would have heard about it. It may be possible to find some information with Google. Regards, Peter > I have not seen reports from Cuba to this effect, but if it had been > found that after being segregated, non of the HIV positive people had > become ill, then I expect we would have heard about it. > > It may be possible to find some information with Google. Hansen H, Groce N. MSJAMA. Human immunodeficiency virus and quarantine in Cuba. JAMA. 2003 Dec 3;290(21):2875. PMID: 14657076 "...In 1994, the quarantine was officially lifted. However, by 2003, half of all HIV-positive Cubans still lived in the sanatoriums..." Swanson JM, Gill AE, Wald K, Swanson KA. Comprehensive care and the sanatoria: Cuba's response to HIV/AIDS. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 1995 Jan-Feb;6(1):33-41. PMID: 7734720 http://www.cubaaidsproject.com/ The Cuba AIDS Project http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/011.html Cuba's "patient #1" died of AIDS in 1995 http://www-personal.umich.edu/~josephwd/Cuba/Barksdale.html Medical Students for Cuba http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/global?page=cr02-cu-00 Cuban AIDS Deaths in 2001: 120 http://www.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNACL533.pdf A PDF file of Cuba AIDS Data > >I think you are pretty naive in your views about the governments of > >China and Cuba. > > > They could be puppet regimes of the United States. But I don't get > that impression. China supported General Pinochet in Chile. >China supported General Pinochet in Chile. Really? I know that Maggie Thatcher enjoyed engaging in metaphorical anolingual activities with him. > >China supported General Pinochet in Chile. > > Really? I know that Maggie Thatcher enjoyed engaging in metaphorical > anolingual activities with him. Yes, really. Look it up. It's in "Mao for Beginners", among other fine books. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.