[Moderated Thread]HIV-NOT the Cause of AIDS say Respected Virologist

[JEROME DA GNOME]

HIV-Not the cause of AIDS say Respected Virologist.

Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. (http://www.duesberg.com/)

On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Duesberg has challenged the virus-AIDS hypothesis in the pages of such journals as Cancer Research, Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapeutics, New England Journal of Medicine and Research in Immunology. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS.



On topic now.

[fls]

Respected by whom?

Linda

[AkuManiMani]

HIV-Not the cause of AIDS say Respected Virologist.

Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. (http://www.duesberg.com/)





On topic now.

What about cases in which there is no prior drug use? And if HIV is not the cause is there evidence that it is present in humans who do not develop AIDs?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Duesberg had some good points in the early days of AIDS research, in that both the experiments indicating that HIV caused AIDS and the experiments indicating that AZT held up the progress of AIDS had significant methodological problems. Back then he was just acting as a good skeptic as far as I can tell.

His problem is that, like a number of other scientists throughout history, he couldn't let go of his hypothesis even when later research bore out the conclusions of the earlier, less rigorous research. It turns out the early research was a bit dodgy but the conclusions were basically right. That can happen.

Fortunately nobody takes him seriously any more, or we'd have even more trouble than we already do trying to manage the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa which is killing millions of people who are not using recreational drugs or living the homosexual lifestyle.

[Fiona]

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/266-5191-1648a.pdf

See also wiki on this man, and follow some of the other links

[Zeuzzz]

HIV-Not the cause of AIDS say Respected Virologist.

Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. (http://www.duesberg.com/)



Not just him, there are many more people in the "AIDS denialist community" Wiki has some good info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_reappraisal
The AIDS denialist community

People critical of the scientific consensus on AIDS include HIV-positive persons, government employees, scientists, doctors, and activists in several countries. One of the most famous and influential AIDS denialist scientist is Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who has been contesting the mainstream view of AIDS causation since 1987.[14] Other scientists include David Rasnick (who worked with proteases and is co-holder of several patents on protease inhibitors similar to those used in the treatment of AIDS)[28] and Rodney Richards (who worked at Amgen during the development of some of the first commercial HIV antibody tests).[29][30] Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR, has expressed sympathy for dissident theories.[31]

Other notable AIDS denialists include Australian academic ethicist Hiram Caton, the late mathematician Serge Lang[32], Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies at Virginia Tech Henry Bauer, journalist Celia Farber and activist Christine Maggiore. [.....]

[skeptigirl]

Yawn.... I do believe the scientific community has moved on.

But, BTW, I believe Duesberg was challenged to infect himself with HIV if he was so convinced it didn't cause HIV-AIDS and he declined. Here's his trumped up excuse: (http://www.duesberg.com/faq.html)Q16: The best way I know to prove the HIV hypothesis wrong is to infect otherwise perfectly healthy people with HIV, don't give them any treatment, and see what happens. I know this type of research has been done with animals. Since you can't experiment on other people, why don't you infect yourself? Maybe you can recruit some followers and have a "population" for a real experiment.

A16: I have considered, even offered, this directly. Here are the problems:

1) In the US, it is not possible to work with HIV without the approval of the National Institutes of Health and the university. Thus I would need an NIH peer-approved grant to do this. Without such a contract I would risk my lab and job.

2) In addition, if 10 years after injecting myself I would still be without symptoms, the HIV-AIDS orthodoxy would call me a bluff unless I had had a grant that allowed for appropriate controls. I have submitted 9 grant applications to study AIDS, including doing the study you mention, but none was approved.

3) In the US there are 1 million HIV-positive persons without any symptoms, and in the world there are an estimated 34 million. Monitoring a few hundred of these for AIDS and non-viral AIDS risks would be a statistically much more relevant experiment than if one person injected himself. But surprisingly such studies are not done. Why not? Guess!It ain't hard to get HIV infected blood and the point isn't to wait for symptoms, the point is to prove he isn't just lying for attention. It's to show he believes his lies, but most people familiar with this guy suspect he doesn't, at least not any longer.

[Olowkow]

Respected by whom?

Linda

Kary Mullis for one....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis

This is just another "denialist" movement that just gets in the way of the facts. AIDS is a "syndrome", and to claim that its symptoms are not the result of infection by HIV seems silly on the face of it. Mullis uses as evidence that no one wants to talk to him about who made the connection between HIV and AIDS. Beyond that, typically, no evidence or arguments that I can find. I suspect researchers just don't want to talk to him...period. Weird, but smart dude. Probably too much LSD.

[Zeuzzz]

But, BTW, I believe Duesberg was challenged to infect himself with HIV if he was so convinced it didn't cause HIV-AIDS and he declined. Here's his trumped up excuse: (http://www.duesberg.com/faq.html)



He may have chickened it, but someone else with the same views beat him too it. And did it on live TV apparently in spain.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/books/rwbdeathly.htm
In 1993, Dr. Willner stunned Spain by inoculating himself with the blood of Pedro Tocino, an HIV positive hemophiliac. This demonstration of devotion to the truth and the Hippocratic Oath he took, nearly 40 years before, was reported on the front page of every major newspaper in Spain. His appearance on Spain's most popular television show envoked a 4 to 1 response by the viewing audience in favor of his position against the "AIDS hypothesis." When asked why he would put his life on the line to make a point, Dr. Willner replied: "I do this to put a stop to the greatest murderous fraud in medical history. By injecting myself with HIV positive blood, I am proving the point as Dr. Walter Reed did to prove the truth about yellow fever. In this way it is my hope to expose the truth about HIV in the interest of all mankind."



He died six months later. Due to an unrelated heart attack.

He's was either mad, or just had a very strong conviction in his beliefs.

[NobbyNobbs]

He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS.

Wait, so, the drug that was developed to treat AIDS instead actually causes it?? So, um...what caused it before the drug was developed?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So it was a co-incidence that 1,000's of people died of AIDS after receiving a blood transfusion containing HIV, was it? :boggled: & :mad:

[Dancing David]

...god?

[Zeuzzz]

And lets not forget Dr Leonard G. Horowitz from Harvard while we're on this topic, and his documentary about various unirthodox views on the origin and cause of AIDS; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8df9-oADP_c (warning: I watched a bit of this, and I think that he's a hypnotist, no joke, something in his eyes)

It so obvious that AIDS was created by the CIA to solve the worlds population problem, how could no one else see it? :rolleyes:


... actually, no, lets forget him.

[dudalb]

Jerome De Gnome supports a crackpot.
Why Am I Not Surprised.
It will be fun to see Jerome make a total fool of himself trying to defend the AIDS denial movement,though.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome De Gnome supports a crackpot.

Explain why this professor is a crackpot.

Explain why you need to imply racism so as to not have to actually talk the topic.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So it was a co-incidence that 1,000's of people died of AIDS after receiving a blood transfusion containing HIV, was it? :boggled: & :mad:

No one in the history of the world has died of AIDS.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What about cases in which there is no prior drug use? And if HIV is not the cause is there evidence that it is present in humans who do not develop AIDs?

There is only speculative evidence that some AIDS patients have what could be speculated is a virus called HIV.

:gnome:

[Wavicle]

Wait, so, the drug that was developed to treat AIDS instead actually causes it?? So, um...what caused it before the drug was developed?
I have often wondered what the AIDS denialist response to this is. I'm not that old, but even I remember cases like Ryan White, a young hemophiliac who caught HIV via blood transfusion and became the national poster child for AIDS at the time. This was before AZT, how did he have AIDS before there was AZT to give it to him?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Fortunately nobody takes him seriously any more, or we'd have even more trouble than we already do trying to manage the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa which is killing millions of people who are not using recreational drugs or living the homosexual lifestyle.


Got it. ZERO facts, just derision for the respected scientists with which you do not agree.

Very skeptical.

:gnome:

[Eos of the Eons]

Duesberg is still, and will always be, a douche bag. Not respected. Not at all. There is no proof of his ill-conceived hairbraned "thoughts" on HIV and AIDS

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I have often wondered what the AIDS denialist response to this is. I'm not that old, but even I remember cases like Ryan White, a young hemophiliac who caught HIV via blood transfusion and became the national poster child for AIDS at the time. This was before AZT, how did he have AIDS before there was AZT to give it to him?

AIDS is a failing of the immune system. Have you noticed that people that have the syndrome of AIDS are ones that have failed immune systems from other factors.

One does not see healthy people living healthy lifestyles contracting HIV and getting AIDS.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Duesberg is still, and will always be, a douche bag. Not respected. Not at all. There is no proof of his ill-conceived hairbraned "thoughts" on HIV and AIDS

Got it. You lack the ability to talk about the subject.

You can only malign the character of scientists with which you disagree.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Respected by whom?

Linda

A winner of the Nobel Prize.

Kary Banks Mullis, Ph.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis)

Dr Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993 for his development of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), a central technique in biochemistry and molecular biology which allows the amplification of specified DNA sequences. Dr Mullis subsequently was awarded the Japan Prize that same year.

[GreyICE]

Jerome not a Troll says respected forum poster.

Oh, no, wait, that one is made up.

[Eos of the Eons]

Very very funny. If you look at recreational drug users that smoke recreational drugs vs those who share needles between HIV infected individuals, well...
Oy, this guy has his head shoved so far...

ahem.

We have pictures of HIV. We know how it replicates. We can detect its enzymes. We have pictures of it replicating in T-cells and then leaving T-cells... taking T-cell cytoplasm with it as it goes... T-cell counts going down as HIV cell counts go up, etc. etc.

Irrefutable proof that douchebag is a big fat, er uh, is a deluded delinquent who is stubborn and unwilling to admit what he can see with his own eyes... that he's so so so so so so sooooooo wrong.

But, like Weil, he don't care. He gets attention by whipping up conspiracies and yelling "lookit me lookit me, I say the opposite of clear reality and get away with it and kill little kids with my total disregard for the facts"

Just look up Maggiore if you haven't before.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Very very funny. If you look at recreational drug users that smoke recreational drugs vs those who share needles between HIV infected individuals, well...
Oy, this guy has his head shoved so far...

ahem.

We have pictures of HIV. We know how it replicates. We can detect its enzymes. We have pictures of it replicating in T-cells and then leaving T-cells... taking T-cell cytoplasm with it as it goes... T-cell counts going down as HIV cell counts go up, etc. etc.

Irrefutable proof that douchebag is a big fat, er uh, is a deluded delinquent who is stubborn and unwilling to admit what he can see with his own eyes... that he's so so so so so so sooooooo wrong.

But, like Weil, he don't care. He gets attention by whipping up conspiracies and yelling "lookit me lookit me, I say the opposite of clear reality and get away with it and kill little kids with my total disregard for the facts"

Just look up Maggiore if you haven't before.



You have now stated that a respected scientist that you disagree with kills children with glee.


Please begin the critical thinking process.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm

Why are we beating this dead horse anyways?

Oh, and when the HIV bud off of T-Cells, it is clearly not a natural behaviour of the T-Cell. That, and the T-cell no longer replicates naturally once infected with HIV, and no longer offers no protection to the human against other diseases, making that person defenceless against other common pathogens. The T-cell counts go down down down unless the retrovirus is dormant. Once active again, you see it happening all over again.

It would be just as nutty to say that herpes viruses don't exist. Those viruses like to lie dormant for years too, and then come out to play once in a while.

Why are we beating this dead horse?

[Eos of the Eons]

Duesberg shows no remorse for the dead child in America, nor does he show any remorse for all the dead people in South Africa. There is blood on his hands, and he does still gleefully carry on. Gleeefully. Dancing on their graves and laughing all the way to the bank. I daresay he is having the time of his life. My opinion, of course. However, there is no evidence to the contrary. Please submit this evidence if you find it.

[Eos of the Eons]

Why are we beating this dead horse?

[Wavicle]

AIDS is a failing of the immune system. Have you noticed that people that have the syndrome of AIDS are ones that have failed immune systems from other factors.

One does not see healthy people living healthy lifestyles contracting HIV and getting AIDS.

Ryan White appears to have contracted HIV from a blood transfusion and developed AIDS from that. Many hemophiliacs were infected in the early 80's through transfusion.

Once a reliable test to detect HIV was developed, infection from blood transfusions dropped and hemophiliacs stopped getting AIDS in large numbers. Today it is incredibly rare. If AIDS is not caused by HIV, why did hemophiliacs start getting AIDS in large numbers in the early 80s before HIV was known and then stop getting it in the late 80s when HIV tests were available?

[Reality Check]

Ryan White appears to have contracted HIV from a blood transfusion and developed AIDS from that. Many hemophiliacs were infected in the early 80's through transfusion.

Once a reliable test to detect HIV was developed, infection from blood transfusions dropped and hemophiliacs stopped getting AIDS in large numbers. Today it is incredibly rare. If AIDS is not caused by HIV, why did hemophiliacs start getting AIDS in large numbers in the early 80s before HIV was known and then stop getting it in the late 80s when HIV tests were available?

Of course this is evidence.
Expect JEROME DA GNOME's standard troll response of "this is supposition not evidence" and a quick change of topic.

[Dr Adequate]

Jerome, instead of starting thread after thread about each of your crazy beliefs, couldn't you just give us a list of all the crazy things you don't believe? Only I think that that would be quicker.

[Dr Adequate]

Why are we beating this dead horse? One good reason would be that the SkepticWiki article on HIV denial is still but a stub ... if people can provide enough good data and links, I'll compile them into an article. Cheers.

[Worm]

AIDS is a failing of the immune system. Have you noticed that people that have the syndrome of AIDS are ones that have failed immune systems from other factors.

One does not see healthy people living healthy lifestyles contracting HIV and getting AIDS.

One sees it all the time. Depends on your definition of 'healthy lifestyle' probably, but (as I understand it) many people have contracted HIV with no other health issues whatsoever.

They may be a member of an 'at risk' group, such as homosexuals, but this deos not make them inherently less healthy.

[Deetee]

Like Eos says, why are we flogging a dead horse?
Here is a site (http://www.aidstruth.org/new/denialism) that debunks all the usual denialist myths.

Hardly any of the "denialists" are active at the moment - they have either realised they were
wrong, and slunk away with tails between their legs, or, in the case of those with HIV, they are dead (http://www.aidstruth.org/new/denialism/dead_denialists) (from AIDS).

Tell you what Jerome - you decide a very specific single area of hiv science you wish to focus on, tell us your objections to the current consensus view, and I'll respond.
Keep spewing ancient, vague claims and you'll end up on my ignore list.

[Lothian]

Jerome. Listen, I don’t care what research you come up with. You are not having sex with me without a condom no matter how much you keep pestering me.

[Ivor the Engineer]

So Jerome,

What is the cause of the illness the conventional scientific and medical community call AIDS?

I think medical professionals on the forum should be flattered by Jerome's belief that the "HIV is the cause of AIDS" theory is a conspiracy.

The assumed level of competence and organisation required to get such a large number of people throughout the world to tow-the-line and not let slip it's all a con is incredibly high.

[fls]

A winner of the Nobel Prize.

Kary Banks Mullis, Ph.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis)

I sorta wish winning a Nobel Prize conferred immunity against holding silly ideas in unrelated fields, but we already know that it doesn't. Isn't it more relevant whether Duesberg is respected by people who have knowledge and experience in the field of AIDS?

Linda

[Ocelot]

No one in the history of the world has died of AIDS.

Ooh very clever. We all know that millions of aids victims have died. Do we all know that the cause of death is never directly AIDS itself but a secondary infection which the body can't fight off due to immune deficiency caused by AIDS. (That's what the I and the D stand for)

I suspect that many people here do actually know that.

However it's clear that if they were without the syndrome the body would in almost all circumstances survive such secondary infections.

To deny that the immune deficiency is the primary cause of the death or even a contributory one is simply wrong. It's like saying that Mark Bolan didn't die from a car crash but from shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries.

Shows you have at least some knowledge of the subject but I fail to see the relevence to the discussion.

[Ocelot]

Explain why you need to imply racism so as to not have to actually talk the topic.

Is it just me or is this an unsubstantiated accusation?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

No one in the history of the world has died of AIDS.

So what did these peopke die of?

I know. I know.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1070846d81f2a03822.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8036)

[paximperium]

I hate HIV deniers. They are scum of the Earth. While many of the other woo believers outthere are amusing and at times mildly harmful, HIV deniers are murderers.

If even a single patient with HIV stops taking their medicines and dies from AIDS because of theese morons, I blame them for this irresponsible garbage.

[Reality Check]

AIDS is a failing of the immune system. Have you noticed that people that have the syndrome of AIDS are ones that have failed immune systems from other factors.

One does not see healthy people living healthy lifestyles contracting HIV and getting AIDS.


What a display of ignorance.

One does see healthy people living healthy lifestyles contracting HIV and getting AIDS, e.g. doctors or nurses who get needle-sticks, hemophiliacs and even some accident victims (in the days before wide-spread testing of transfusion blood).

[Ocelot]

There is only speculative evidence that some AIDS patients have what could be speculated is a virus called HIV.

:gnome:

I'm aware that the HIV virus is difficult to isolate. I'm also aware that it has been isolated from AIDS patients on huge number of occasions. It has been sequenced so that the strain of infection can be determined.

Speculative is not the adjective I'd use to describe this evidence. I'd use the adjective empirical.

In what sense are you using the word speculative?



bad: not financially safe or secure; "a bad investment"; "high risk investments"; "anything that promises to pay too much can't help being risky ...
notional: not based on fact or investigation; "a notional figure of cost helps in determining production costs"; "speculative knowledge"
inquisitive: showing curiosity; "if someone saw a man climbing a light post they might get inquisitive"; "raised a speculative eyebrow"



wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dspeculative&usg=AFQjCNHpHZa1xhn9Gc_-jS9FziCfggiyuA)

This strand of RNA which can be reliably found in AIDS patients can not only be speculated to be a virus called HIV. It most defniitely exhibits all the behaviours of a retrovirus. We have most definitely called it HIV.

Why did you choose such phraseology. I don't understand.

[Dr Adequate]

Ooh very clever. We all know that millions of aids victims have died. Do we all know that the cause of death is never directly AIDS itself but a secondary infection which the body can't fight off due to immune deficiency caused by AIDS. (That's what the I and the D stand for) ... To deny that the immune deficiency is the primary cause of the death or even a contributory one is simply wrong. Actually, it's worse than that. The "syndrome" bit in AIDS refers to the diseases that are caused (or rather permitted) by the immune deficiency, so Jerome's not even telling a half-truth.

[Ocelot]

Fortunately nobody takes him seriously any more, or we'd have even more trouble than we already do trying to manage the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa which is killing millions of people who are not using recreational drugs or living the homosexual lifestyle.

Got it. ZERO facts, just derision for the respected scientists with which you do not agree.

Very skeptical.

:gnome:

Jerome, you missed a couple of Facts.

1) That there is an HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa.
2) Millions of the victims are not using recreational drugs or living a homosexual lifestyle.

These are facts they number "Two" not zero.

There was also an addional opinion about how much worse this would be if more people took Deusberg Seriously.

However if you ignore the facts you then get to make this unsubstantiated comment.

AIDS is a failing of the immune system. Have you noticed that people that have the syndrome of AIDS are ones that have failed immune systems from other factors.

One does not see healthy people living healthy lifestyles contracting HIV and getting AIDS.

Actually millions in the Africa are dying from AIDS, many were born with the disease. Few are homosexual not all have other health problems.

Spare me the wordplay. Don't play games along the lines of well if they've got AIDs then they're not healthy are they. Surely you had another point to make.

People with haemophilia are also unhealthy, however this is not a factor which compromises the immune system. What changed in the late 70s and Early 80s that meant that large numbers of haemophiliacs contracted AIDS if not contamination of Factor VIII with HIV?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products

[NobbyNobbs]

Explain why this professor is a crackpot.

Explain why you need to imply racism so as to not have to actually talk the topic.

Where, exactly, was racism implied? I simply don't see it.

No one in the history of the world has died of AIDS.

Well, Jerome, if you want to be supremely pedantic about it, you're right. But then you have to say that no one has died of a heart attack, cancer, beheading, etc. Yo'd have to say that the only reason anyone ever died was a lack of oxygen being provided to the brain.

However, there may be factors that lead directly to that, such as a heart attack, cancer, beheading, etc. In a similar way, AIDS leads directly to other conditions that cause death.

AIDS is a failing of the immune system. Have you noticed that people that have the syndrome of AIDS are ones that have failed immune systems from other factors.

No, I haven't notived this. Have you? Where? Site?

One does not see healthy people living healthy lifestyles contracting HIV and getting AIDS.

Fasle, false, false. My good friend's uncle died from AIDS. He was quite healthy until his last few years. He ate well, exercised, went rock climbing and biking on a regular basis.

Unless, of course, by "healthy lifestyle" you mean "heterosexual". So I will not imply racism. I will imply homophobia.

[Ocelot]

Duesberg is still, and will always be, a douche bag. Not respected. Not at all. There is no proof of his ill-conceived hairbraned "thoughts" on HIV and AIDS

Got it. You lack the ability to talk about the subject.

You can only malign the character of scientists with which you disagree.

Whereas you of course will be directly addressing Eos argument that Deusberg has no evidence rather than just maligning his/her ability to talk on the subject.

Remember Duesberg is not a member here. Eos is allowed to make a pun on his name. Just like you're allowed to raise unsubstantiated questions about Obama. You're not supposed to just insult Eos. Just like I'm not allowed to turn your cheap rheotrical tircks back on you in the Obama/Sex Ed thread, to show you how easy it is to use them to raise the same questions about you.

Now if you want to address Eos' post I suggest you start by presenting the evidence he/she claims doesn't exist rather than leaving the deabte on a flat insult.

Otherwise some people might get the wrong idea and think that you've chosen the low road simply because you're not aware of any reliable evidence presented by Deusberg.

For myself I'm sure Duesberg has evidence, I'm just not convinced it's in anyway current or reliable.

[Ocelot]

A winner of the Nobel Prize.

Kary Banks Mullis, Ph.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis)

OK then that's one. Kery Mullis, Nobel Prize Laureate respects Duesberg.

I see he also respects Global Warming denialists and defended OJ Simpson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#Controversies

But hey there's bound to be a few. Deusberg apparently did some very good work on cancer before pinning his reputation on HIV denialism. I know he's respected for that.

Duesberg, along with Peter Vogt, was one of the first scientists to discover a cancer gene (oncogene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncogene)). In 1970, Duesberg and Vogt reported that a cancer-causing virus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_%28biology%29) of birds had extra genetic material compared with non-cancer-causing viruses.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg#cite_note-1) At the age of 36, Duesberg achieved tenure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure) at the University of California, Berkeley, and at 49 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Academy_of_Sciences). He received an Outstanding Investigator Grant (OIG) from the National Institutes of Health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institutes_of_Health) (NIH) in 1986, and from 1986 to 1987 was a Fogarty Scholar-in-Residence at the NIH laboratories in Bethesda, Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda%2C_Maryland).

Whats more he's not the only HIV denialist. I'm sure he's respected amongst those circles. His family and friends probably respect him as a human being.

What I think is pertinent is that his HIV denialist theories are no longer respected by mainstream science. Why? because they've been looked into and found wanting. The empirical evidence doesn't back him up.

You'll no doubt want to see the evidence.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm)

That puts him in a rather tricky position. If he admited he was wrong about HIV early on, he might have been able to switch back to mainstream work. Pick up another area of research. However the evidence agaisnt his theories did not come in in one block. Early on he could still legitimately consider his ideas to have some merit. Apaprently he is described by those who know him as a contrarian. He likes to hold alternative theories. He chose to stick with his theories against ever increasing levels of evidence. At this stage he somewhat "type cast" and might find some difficulty find a role in another filed of research. He still has tenure and a hardcore following who will buy his books, attend his lectures and fund his pension if he ignores the evidence against his theories.

The question then becomes on of intent. Is he a true believer or are his actions pragmatic and self centred in ignoring the potential harm that his theories cause.

People have been prosecuted for murder for knowingly passing on the HIV infection. Some of these have cited Duesberg and other HIV denialists in their defence.

It certainly does raise the question of whether Duesberg is responsible for those HIV infections. If you accept, as most people do that untreated HIV infection causes AIDS and death, does he bear partial responsibility for an unknown number of these deaths. If Duesberg knows that he's wrong but propagates theories he now believes to be unsound solely for financial gain then he's culpable but that's probably something only he knows for sure and no court can decide.

It's interesting that you raise this issue, it seems to be one more area where I infer a similar contrarian characteristic in the theories you propagate on this board. However I don't really know to what degree you agree with all of them. For all I know you get a kick out of debating tricky positions. No harm in that in itself.

Let me ask you this though and please answer honestly. If a friend of yours was diagnosed with HIV infection would you advise them to avoid AZT and not bother with those standard practices which are commonly believed to reduce the risk of transmitting this virus?

Remember, though this friend might be hypothetical there will be very real people diagnosed with HIV infections reading your response.

[Ocelot]

You have now stated that a respected scientist that you disagree with kills children with glee.


Please begin the critical thinking process.

I don't think you're rephasing of this point adds anything of substance. The question of whether Duesberg is culpable for the deaths believed to be a direct result of HIV denialism still stands.

It moves on to whether you yourself are prepared to distance yourself from discredited medical advice known to kill innocent people and thus avoid sharing some of the responsibility for these deaths.

[Deetee]

It certainly does raise the question of whether Duesberg is responsible for those HIV infections. If you accept, as most people do that untreated HIV infection causes AIDS and death, does he bear partial responsibility for an unknown number of these deaths. If Duesberg knows that he's wrong but propagates theories he now believes to be unsound solely for financial gain then he's culpable but that's probably something only he knows for sure and no court can decide.
To be "fair" to Duesberg, I think that his theories have been propogated by other HIV-denialists in recent years, and not him (take the OP as a prime example!). He hasn't made any public declaration on HIV for a while, and I guess he just hopes the whole issue would go away, as he was clearly in the wrong.

There are other denialists who have been way more culpable in terms of responsibility for causing the deaths, from the people like Eleni "any time" Papadopolus-Eleopulos of the Perth Group, to people like Christine Maggiore and David Rasnick, who helped persuade Thabo Mbeki that HIV was not the cause of AIDS, therebye condemming tens of thousands of South African children to slow, lingering deaths; and Matthias Raath, who persuades desperate South Africans to forgo conventional therapies in order to take up his offer of useless expensive vitamins.

These people cling onto Duesberg's theories because they feel he lent their own pronouncements an air of respectability and authority, but this has worn very thin in recent years as virtually everyone with a modicum of intelligence can see he was wrong.

[Ocelot]

To be "fair" to Duesberg, I think that his theories have been propogated by other HIV-denialists in recent years, and not him (take the OP as a prime example!). He hasn't made any public declaration on HIV for a while, and I guess he just hopes the whole issue would go away, as he was clearly in the wrong.

Yes fair enough. I checked and you're right. Looking on his site I see that his publication record peters off in the late nineties. However I do note that he is still asking for donations to continue his research.

Your help is needed! Prof. Duesberg's findings have been a thorn in the side of the medical establishment and drug companies since 1987. Instead of engaging in scientific debate, however, the only response has been to cutoff funding to further test Professor Duesberg's hypothesis. You can show your support by contributing a tax deductible donation to help support Prof. Duesberg's lab at the University of California Berkeley. Over 95% of your donation goes directly to Professor Duesberg's research.

Although to be fair, the page in question was last modified nearly 4 years ago according to the header information.

ETA, one new paper in 2003

http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html

[Deetee]

OK then that's one. Kery Mullis, Nobel Prize Laureate respects Duesberg.

I see he also respects Global Warming denialists and defended OJ Simpson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#Controversies

But hey there's bound to be a few. Deusberg apparently did some very good work on cancer before pinning his reputation on HIV denialism. I know he's respected for that.

Much as I hate to ad hom anyone, I do believe that when someone talks about being confronted by glowing alien racoons in his back yard, which then say "Good morning Doctor" and perform an alien abduction on him, like Kary Mullis does, he loses out in the credibility stakes somewhat.

[JJM]

Duesberg was a respected scientist. However, he went astray (as a previous poster observed). Another, previous poster asked how he accounted for AIDS in people with hemophilia prior to HIV screening. For each such question, Duesberg developed a post-hoc explanation. (In that case, he, foolishly, said it was a natural reaction to being injected with foreign proteins. he has similar rationalizatons for every observed fact about HIV-AIDS.)

When I read his early arguments (and they were mere arguments, bereft of data) I had the sad feeling that he had a mental problem.

[Upchurch]

No one in the history of the world has died of AIDS.
Likewise, no one in the history of the world has died from gun fire.



It's just the bullet ripping through their organs. Guns have nothing to do with it. Right, Jerome?

[~enigma~]

No one in the history of the world has died of AIDS.
Ok...guess what they died of was not caught because they had AIDS...you sir have no idea what your talking about. Best to keep your mouth shut so nobody knows how foolish you really are.

[Ysidro]

Why are we beating this dead horse?

Because some people can't help but respond to trolls?

[Loss Leader]

One does not see healthy people living healthy lifestyles contracting HIV and getting AIDS.


What a poor, poor debating tactic Jerome is using.

The above statement is, of course, a tautology. Any person who contracts HIV or has it develop into AIDS is merely labeled by the poster as an unhealthy person or one living an unhealthy lifestyle. Thus, the statement is never made false because the definition of "healthy" just expands and contracts to fit the argument.

One might see a common theme in the arguments from certain posters. They rely entirely on semiotic sleights of hand. Unfortunately for them, many of these posters are far, far too stupid to pull off this trick successfully.

The argument being tautological and unfalsifiable, it is justifiably ignored as worthless.

[dudalb]

Jerome is suffering from an extreme case of Anti Establishment phobia....he automaticaly hates and distrusts any thing he feels is "Establishment Opinion".
This is why he falls for every stray crackpot that comes along no matter what the topic.
And his inablity to make a reasoned argument is even more obvious when he strays out of his usual hunting ground in politics into science, where he does have quite as much wriggle room.

[Rocko]

Ryan White appears to have contracted HIV from a blood transfusion and developed AIDS from that. Many hemophiliacs were infected in the early 80's through transfusion.

Once a reliable test to detect HIV was developed, infection from blood transfusions dropped and hemophiliacs stopped getting AIDS in large numbers. Today it is incredibly rare. If AIDS is not caused by HIV, why did hemophiliacs start getting AIDS in large numbers in the early 80s before HIV was known and then stop getting it in the late 80s when HIV tests were available?

Indeed. And the British courts were satisfied enough with the link to award damages to the people who had contracted the disease after transfusions.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

To be "fair" to Duesberg, I think that his theories have been propogated by other HIV-denialists in recent years, and not him (take the OP as a prime example!). He hasn't made any public declaration on HIV for a while, and I guess he just hopes the whole issue would go away, as he was clearly in the wrong.

The OP is a link to his web-site.

:rolleyes:

[Loss Leader]

The OP is a link to his web-site.



Which has not been updated since 2006. And which lists his last scientific paper as being written in 2003.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Which has not been updated since 2006. And which lists his last scientific paper as being written in 2003.

Which has nothing to do with the claim that the OP was using his name to propagate the idea without his acceptance.

Are you reading the posts before you respond?

[Reality Check]

AIDS is a failing of the immune system. Have you noticed that people that have the syndrome of AIDS are ones that have failed immune systems from other factors.

One does not see healthy people living healthy lifestyles contracting HIV and getting AIDS.

Can you state your evidence (not supposition) for this claim? A list of peer-reviewed papers would be good.

Are you aware of the studies that have shown that there is no correlation between AIDS and for example drug use?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What is "HIV-NOT"?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Can you state your evidence (not supposition) for this claim? A list of peer-reviewed papers would be good.

Socio-demographic and clinical profile of AIDS patients in
Jimma referral Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia
(http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:if34sp0pZWoJ:www.cih.uib.no/journals/EJHD/ejhdv18-no3/203.pdf+aids+patients+demographics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

The most commonly reported
age group was 20-29 years for both sexes. Sexual contact
with multiple partners, a history of STDs and injections
received outside medical institutions were the three
major risk factors identified.

[blutoski]

What a poor, poor debating tactic Jerome is using.

The above statement is, of course, a tautology. Any person who contracts HIV or has it develop into AIDS is merely labeled by the poster as an unhealthy person or one living an unhealthy lifestyle. Thus, the statement is never made false because the definition of "healthy" just expands and contracts to fit the argument.

One might see a common theme in the arguments from certain posters. They rely entirely on semiotic sleights of hand. Unfortunately for them, many of these posters are far, far too stupid to pull off this trick successfully.

The argument being tautological and unfalsifiable, it is justifiably ignored as worthless.

It even has a name: "No True Scotsman."

The type specimen goes like this.

Claimant: "No Scotsman would be a wife beater."
Skeptic: "What about this Scottish guy who beat his wife?"
Claimant reponds: "Well, if he was beating his wife, he wasn't a true Scotsman, so my claim stands."

And yep, I get this argument about HIV all the time. Take my friend's mom who was born with a congenital bone disorder such that she required minor surgery on her femur in the mid '80s. She was back on her triathlon bike in a few months and made the national team. Shortly, though, she was unable to continue training, and was diagnosed with AIDS. HIV titres were high, CD4 titres were low... you know the drill. Investigation confirmed that the blood transfusion during the hip surgery came from a donor who was HIV+, and lo: other recipients from that donor became infected too. Hep C, as well, unfortunately. There has been a settlement.

My HIV denier colleague's best effort when faced with this counterexample says that training for triathlons is an AIDS-inducing "unhealthy lifestyle".

Mmm-hmm. You just keep telling yourself that.



My wife and I both did AIDS research in the '90s, and we've both met Duesberg. He is smart, and sincerely believed his earlier claims, but he was - and is - wrong. And yes, tragically, I think that he's realized it now, and is groping around for a way to salvage his reputation for history. Publicly renouncing his earlier ideas does not seem to be on the agenda, though. He seems to be just winding it all up into a martyr complex.

The above-cited work The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition contains no new research, no new facts, no new theories. It is a rehash of their previous work with no thesis, no conclusion, nothing but a screed explaining that the authors are unfairly barred from funding just because of the technicality that they haven't been able to show they make any sense.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And yep, I get this argument about HIV all the time. Take my friend's mom who was born with a congenital bone disorder such that she required minor surgery on her femur in the mid '80s. She was back on her triathlon bike in a few months and made the national team. Shortly, though, she was unable to continue training, and was diagnosed with AIDS. HIV titres were high, CD4 titres were low... you know the drill. Investigation confirmed that the blood transfusion during the hip surgery came from a donor who was HIV+, and lo: other recipients from that donor became infected too. Hep C, as well, unfortunately. There has been a settlement.


Unsubstantiated stories add nothing to the talk.

:gnome:

[NobbyNobbs]

Unsubstantiated stories add nothing to the talk.

:gnome:

I can never find the irony meter smiley.....

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I can never find the irony meter smiley.....

Only if I were posting unsubstantiated stories.


Are you aware of what irony is? You seem to be misinformed here.

:gnome:

[Reality Check]

Socio-demographic and clinical profile of AIDS patients in
Jimma referral Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia
(http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:if34sp0pZWoJ:www.cih.uib.no/journals/EJHD/ejhdv18-no3/203.pdf+aids+patients+demographics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
1 is not a list.

The link actually supports that AIDS is contracted by patients that have been in contact with a blood and sexually transmitted disease vector ("multiple partners, a history of STDs and injections"). You may have heard of it - the HIV virus.

Where are the papers stating that AIDS only happens in patients with "failed immune systems from other factors".

Where are the papers stating that no AIDS patient is one of your "healthy people living healthy lifestyles".

AIDS is a failing of the immune system. Have you noticed that people that have the syndrome of AIDS are ones that have failed immune systems from other factors.

One does not see healthy people living healthy lifestyles contracting HIV and getting AIDS.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

1 is not a list.

One at a time pal.

The link actually supports that AIDS is contracted by patients that have been in contact with a blood and sexually transmitted disease vector ("multiple partners, a history of STDs and injections"). You may have heard of it - the HIV virus.

The study equates the terms HIV/AIDS as the same as HIV or AIDS. There is no distinction in the terminology. HIV is AIDS is HIV/AIDS.

Sorry about you not understanding, but this study confirms exactly what I stated. Sick people living unhealthy lifestyles acquiring a syndrome.

[Reality Check]

One at a time pal.

The study equates the terms HIV/AIDS as the same as HIV or AIDS. There is no distinction in the terminology. HIV is AIDS is HIV/AIDS.

Sorry about you not understanding, but this study confirms exactly what I stated. Sick people living unhealthy lifestyles acquiring a syndrome.

Wait a minute - you are quoting a paper that states HIV and AIDS are the same thing in a thread that you started about the two not being related. You realize that this is evidence againt the statement of Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. :D.

What is the unhealthy lifestyle of the children that got AIDS from their mothers?
What is the unhealthy lifestyle of the wives that got AIDS from their husbands?
What is the unhealthy lifestyle of the husbands that got AIDS from their wives?

Also do not quote mine. Here is the full abstract

Background: A number of studies conducted in Jimma have shown that HIV/AIDS is a serious public health problem in the area. But the profile of HIV patients and the risk factors for aquiring HIV infection have not been studied.
Objective: This study is aimed at determining to the modes of clinical presentation, sociodemographic characteristics and risk factors accounting for the exposure to HIV infection.
Methods: A five year retrospective review of HIV/AIDS patients registered in Jimma hospital was conducted. All HIV/AIDS patients that were registered in Jimma Hospitals AIDS control programme (ACP) were studied by collecting data from ACP formats and individual medical records. Data were analyzed by SPSS-PC computer software.
Results: A total of 925 patients were studied. Male to female ratio was 1.1 to 1. A majority of the patients are from urban areas and the mean age was 27.8 years; (30.6 years for males and 25 years for females). A majority of the patients i.e., 426 (46.1%) were in the 20-29 years age group. Unemployment was the common among 173 (20%) subjects followed by housewives and soldiers and /or ex-soldiers. Multiple sexual partnerships, a history of STDs and sex with commercial sex workers were the three major risk factors identified, in 54.8%, 48.1% and 24.9% of the cases, respectively. Three quarters of the patients had weight loss, followed by fever in 650 (70.4%) and diarrhoea in 421 (45.4%). Tuberculosis was the commonest specific diagnosis. Other previously rare presentations were also noted.
Conclusion: The change observed in the distribution of HIV/AIDS cases in Jimma indicates the maturation of the HIV epidemic. The heterosexual nature of the transmission indicates the need for intervention aimed at reducing risky sexual behaviours. [Ethiop.J.Health Dev. 2004;18(3):203-207]

[blutoski]

Unsubstantiated stories add nothing to the talk.

:gnome:

?

The settlement was a matter of public record. It was the fallout from the Krever Report, and this information is, what, a decade old now and you say it's 'unsubstantiated'? How hard does a denier have to work to be that isolated from reality?

Canada's Red Cross thought HIV was 'a lifestyle disease' and did their screening by candidate selection instead of through chemical testing of the donated blood, despite the fact that many other countries had switched to HIV testing already. It pretty much destroyed the Red Cross in this country, and they are no longer allowed to be involved in blood. Blood operations in Canada have been taken over by the government.

Here's a mainstream media timeline: [Canada's tainted blood scandal: A timeline (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/taintedblood/bloodscandal_timeline.html)]

There's a book about it: [Gift of Death (http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Death-Confronting-Canadas-Tainted-Blood/dp/0006385753)]

Here's a recent article about the settlement payout: [Hep C victims caught in 'waiting game' (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=500292)]

ETA: the Krever report contains addenda that connect recipients with contaminated donors. They're referred to as 'tracebacks'. Here's a link to the Krever Report: [Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada (Krever Commission) (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/com/krever-eng.php)]

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Wait a minute - you are quoting a paper that states HIV and AIDS are the same thing in a thread that you started about the two not being related.

You have obviously been taken in. The point in the equation of the terms AIDS and HIV is to make the one that is not real real.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

?

The settlement was a matter of public record. It was the fallout from the Krever Report, and this information is, what, a decade old now and you say it's 'unsubstantiated'? How hard does a denier have to work to be that isolated from reality?


Hep C?

Did you even read what you wrote?

[blutoski]

Hep C?

Did you even read what you wrote?

Yep. Obviously you didn't.

The Krever Report was about the blood testing failures of the Red Cross. Both Hep C and HIV. While the title in the article discusses Hep C, the content discusses HIV as well. Note that 99.9% of the recipients of the settlement were Hep C patients. The remainder were HIV patients, or comorbid with both infections.

I'll make it easy for you. Here's a section of the content: They had been shut out of a $1.2-billion deal the former Liberal government offered hep C and HIV patients infected between the two dates.

With all due respect, you'll understand that I have no time for this, right? You clearly have no interest in learning. You demand extraordinary effort of others and then not only do you not even read the material, but then have the gall to accuse it of being inadequate even though it is *exactly* what you demanded. And more.

As I said, we're done. You're a waste of time, and I'd advise others on the forum to think about whether they have better things to do than spar with a sophist.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Yep. Obviously you didn't.

The Krever Report was about the blood testing failures of the Red Cross. Both Hep C and HIV. While the title in the article discusses Hep C, the content discusses HIV as well. Note that 99.9% of the recipients of the settlement were Hep C patients. The remainder were HIV patients, or comorbid with both infections.

Got it, you posted evidence of Hep C as evidence of HIV.

:rolleyes:

[Reality Check]

You have obviously been taken in. The point in the equation of the terms AIDS and HIV is to make the one that is not real real.
You have obviously been taken in. The point in the equation of the terms AIDS and HIV is that HIV is the cause of AIDS and so the terms can be used interchangeably

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You have obviously been taken in. The point in the equation of the terms AIDS and HIV is that HIV is the cause of AIDS and so the terms can be used interchangeably

Have you found the virus yet?

[blutoski]

Got it, you posted evidence of Hep C as evidence of HIV.

:rolleyes:

No, you didn't read the Krever Report, which has supplemental material I explicitly recommended. This shows that the patients who had HIV had HIV+ donors, the patients who had Hep C had HC+ donors, and the patients with both had donors who tested positive for both. ie: patients who did not have HIV+ donors did not develop AIDS, and patients with HIV+ all developed AIDS.

100% correlation with HIV=AIDS hypothesis; 0% correlation with HIV DNE AIDS hypothesis.

The other aspect of the Krever report was that it included the problem with lifestyle factors. All of the HIV+ donors passed the criteria for not having risk factors.

The third aspect was that of the recipients: there was no correlation between risk factors and whether the recipient developed AIDS. The only predictive element was that they had a HIV+ blood donor.

[Reality Check]

Have you found the virus yet?
Yes I have.

[trvlr2]

Jerome, the right thing to do , is to get some HIV from Reality Check, and inject yourself.
Or, just fall on your pencil.

Advocating suicide or violence to another member is strictly against the Membership Agreement. Don't do it again.

[blutoski]

Jerome, the right thing to do , is to get some HIV from Reality Check, and inject yourself.
Or, just fall on your pencil.

The lab where I work is a secure area (it's CCDC level 4) but that doesn't stop suicide patients from attempting to break in and inject themselves. Nobody ever has, of course.

(note: we also get the annual pre-Hallowe'en break-in attempts because the sangs know we have refrigerators filled with blood in the lab)

Nevertheless, Duesberg has covered this proposal. Since it's acknowledged in the HIV->AIDS model that symptoms can take awhile to manifest, he asks a very reasonable question about timeframes for settling such bets. ie: if the patient is HIV+ but has normal CD4 counts, say, five years later... which hypothesis does this refute, if either? (my opinion: ambiguous, and testing on one patient is not informative, ethics aside)

Realistically, we have to ask critics what will satisfy them rather than telling them how to satisfy themselves. But only the ones who are serious and mentally stable.

[a_unique_person]

Duesberg had some good points in the early days of AIDS research, in that both the experiments indicating that HIV caused AIDS and the experiments indicating that AZT held up the progress of AIDS had significant methodological problems. Back then he was just acting as a good skeptic as far as I can tell.

His problem is that, like a number of other scientists throughout history, he couldn't let go of his hypothesis even when later research bore out the conclusions of the earlier, less rigorous research. It turns out the early research was a bit dodgy but the conclusions were basically right. That can happen.



Reminds me a lot of the Global Warming debate.

[Ocelot]

Which has nothing to do with the claim that the OP was using his name to propagate the idea without his acceptance.

Are you reading the posts before you respond?

Sorry Jereme I must ask for clarification. Which post made such a claim.

[Ocelot]

AIDS is a failing of the immune system. Have you noticed that people that have the syndrome of AIDS are ones that have failed immune systems from other factors.

One does not see healthy people living healthy lifestyles contracting HIV and getting AIDS.

Can you state your evidence (not supposition) for this claim? A list of peer-reviewed papers would be good.


Socio-demographic and clinical profile of AIDS patients in
Jimma referral Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia
(http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:if34sp0pZWoJ:www.cih.uib.no/journals/EJHD/ejhdv18-no3/203.pdf+aids+patients+demographics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

That study, I do not think it means what you think it means. I certainly see no evideence in it to support the supposition that all these people had failed immune systems from other factors.

[Ocelot]

Unsubstantiated stories add nothing to the talk.

:gnome:

Let me get this right. Are you suggesting that Blutoski might have made this up? Or are you simply more interested in cases whihc have been widely reported. If so then why didn't you respond to the muliple rebuttals of your claim that referenced the widely reported people who contracted HIV from contaminated blood products including factor VIII.

[Ocelot]

Sorry about you not understanding, but this study confirms exactly what I stated. Sick people living unhealthy lifestyles acquiring a syndrome.

Sorry since when is being breast fed an unhealthy lifestyle leading to an impaired immune system?

From the study you cited...

Pediatric HIV occurs commonly by perinataltransmission from the mother to the infant. The rate of transmission appears somewhat higher in Africancountries, with a 39% rate reported from Zaire andZambia, partly due to the contribution of breast-feeding in the transmission (18,19). In the present study, pediatric HIV constitutes 6.4% of the cases. Negassa andKefenie’s finding and the National ACP reports weremuch lower, 1.6% and 1.9%, respectively, where under reporting was considered.

If you can't actually quote the words from the study that say for example "100% of patients had impaired immune systems from other factors" then I suggeste you're placing an interpretation upon it which is in fact your subjective opinion being reinforced by confirmation bias.

I've read the study. I don't think it says what you say it says. Why do we differ on this?

[Ocelot]

You have obviously been taken in. The point in the equation of the terms AIDS and HIV is to make the one that is not real real.

Please clarify. Which is it that you claim is not real.

A) The retro virus which has been isolated from AIDS patients, sequenced, had it phylogentics analysed as strains are tracked across the globe and been photographed in action budding off from infected cells.

B) The syndrome killing millions in africa and around the world.

I just want to make sure which preposterous claim you're making because earlier you suggested that both AIDS and HIV were "speculative" whatever you might have meant by that.

As such this appears to a be a leap forward in that you now acknowledge that at least one of these is real.

[Ocelot]

Got it, you posted evidence of Hep C as evidence of HIV.

:rolleyes:

No he posted evidence of Hep C AND evidence of HIV.

You asked for evidence of HIV you got it. What's the problem?

[Ocelot]

Jerome,

I see you're no longer responding to my posts. I'm inferring cowardice from this. If you can steel yourself to reposnd to just one of my posts make it this one.


Let me ask you this though and please answer honestly. If a friend of yours was diagnosed with HIV infection would you advise them to avoid AZT and not bother with those standard practices which are commonly believed to reduce the risk of transmitting this virus?

Remember, though this friend might be hypothetical there will be very real people diagnosed with HIV infections reading your response.

I believe that this is the most important issue in this debate and ask other posters to include it in all their reponses to Jerome.

[NobbyNobbs]

Only if I were posting unsubstantiated stories.

Ahem.

No one in the history of the world has died of AIDS.

There is only speculative evidence that some AIDS patients have what could be speculated is a virus called HIV.


Have you noticed that people that have the syndrome of AIDS are ones that have failed immune systems from other factors.

One does not see healthy people living healthy lifestyles contracting HIV and getting AIDS.

[rats]

With all due respect, you'll understand that I have no time for this, right? You clearly have no interest in learning. You demand extraordinary effort of others and then not only do you not even read the material, but then have the gall to accuse it of being inadequate even though it is *exactly* what you demanded. And more.

As I said, we're done. You're a waste of time, and I'd advise others on the forum to think about whether they have better things to do than spar with a sophist.
Blutoski, I'm very glad you didn't go away as your posts here have been interesting and informative, as have a number of others.

The black hole thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112936) almost convinced me to ignore Jerome, I found his posts so frustratingly challenging to comprehend, however in both threads the responses from knowledgeable forumites have made reading them more than worthwhile.

In summary today I have learnt a lot about HIV, AIDS, and how to refute many denialist arguments. So thank you all, even Jerome for raising the subject.

[Ocelot]

Glad to see you back in the thread Jerome.

Perhaps you could answer this question.

Let me ask you this though and please answer honestly. If a friend of yours was diagnosed with HIV infection would you advise them to avoid AZT and not bother with those standard practices which are commonly believed to reduce the risk of transmitting this virus?

Remember, though this friend might be hypothetical there will be very real people diagnosed with HIV infections reading your response.

[Darat]

Stop the personal attacks and off-topic remarks.

[Darat]

Since it seems folks are struggling to keep to their Membership Agreements thread is being made a [Moderated Thread].

[Ixion]

That is fine if Duesberg wants to believe that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. I have worked with HIV in a Level 3 laboratory, and I, for one, will be always taking all the precautions necessary. I do believe HIV is the cause of AIDS and I don't want to be accidentally the subject of a failing immune system years from now, even though I do not take intravenous drugs, have not needed blood transfusions, and have a strictly heterosexual relationship with my wife. Duesberg may have done some science that has earned him some respect in the field, but likewise, he has supported his role as an HIV/AIDS denialist, and that has taken some respect away.

The virus has been isolated, multiple times, even though Jerome does not wish to believe it.