Another anti-science court case finished

A deadly form of denial to be sure. I wonder since this guy doesn't believe in HIV/AIDS whether he bothers(ed) to take antivirals. The 29 or so anti-HIV drugs can keep a patient alive for 2 decades at least. To be consistent in his delusions he would have to forgo antiviral therapy and die years sooner. There is a Darwin award in here somewhere.

HIV is a good example of how evolutionary thought has influenced medicine.

1. HAART, triple cocktail, is formulated to keep virus levels very low. Less virus, less chance of mutating to resistance. Resistance due to retrovirus's high mutation rate is therapy limiting.

2. There are 29 AIDS drugs with more on the drawing boards. This is because when resistance does arise due to natural selection, one can switch drugs and keep switching. When the patient is out of options,...not good.

3. HIV is a emerging virus, one new to the human population. Not the only one and not the last one. Natural selection predicts that there will be an endless parade of these for various reasons. Not the least because with 6.4 billion large mammals on the planet, we provide a gigantic ecological niche for ambitious pathogens.

4. We now know where HIV came from by tracing the homology using common descent principles. The main one is from chimps, another from monkeys. The lessons here are several but one is that you shouldn't eat your close relatives such as chimps.

Egnor is just plain wrong when he says evolution has nothing to offer medicine. The reality is that evolutionary concepts are more and more making their way into medicine and medical research because they are useful. If he isn't brain dead, he probably knows this and it is probably ticking him off. Still waiting for him to explain how knowing dinosaurs roamed the middle east 5,000 years ago and got on a Big Boat to avoid a Flood contributes to medicine.

The stakes are high here. Forty million people are infected with HIV worldwide, 3 million die every year. That is why Duesburg and Egnor and the other deniers are so pernicious. While they are exercising their right to be blind, taking them seriously can and is dangerous.

And once again a judge does a good job of adjudicating a complex scientific issue, even in the presence of intentional obfuscation. Judges may not have a background in science, but they have training in logic and experience in interpreting the testimony of expert witnesses.

Re "experience in interpreting the testimony of expert witnesses."

Not to mention detecting the presence of unexpert witnesses.

Henry

with 6.4 billion large mammals on the planet, we provide a gigantic ecological niche for ambitious pathogens

http://www.smart-publications.com/articles/MOM-duesberg.php

Sure, AIDS researchers want to believe AIDS is caused by HIV. But Peter Duesberg is obviously not an idiot; he just doesn't agree with the logic behind the HIV hypothesis.

Why are there so many people with HIV who never get AIDS? And so many people with AIDS-like diseases with no HIV infection?

Duesberg has many reasonable objections, but scientists won't listen, just because he does not go along with the crowd. Even though he is a leading cancer researcher.

It resembles the ID debate in some ways. Most scientists are afraid to stray from the herd, however illogical the herd may be.

It resembles the ID debate in some ways.

realPC, this is not a game. This is not some high school debate about "free speech." This is reality.

It is reprehensible at best - reprehensible - to deny the overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Don't give us your rinky-dink "evidence." These are people's lives you are talking about. The illogical one here is you.

Because of the African intelligent design arguments against ARV treatments in South Africa, thousands of people who would otherwise be living and controlling their AIDS are dead and their children, who could have been protected from AIDS, are infected. This is a fact. It is happening. It disgusts me that people so cavalierly allow their so-called "maverick independence" and irrational war with reality result in such horrendous consequences for others far away from their self-righteous, anti-science posturing. It utterly revolts me.

RealPC writes... Most scientists are afraid to stray from the herd, however illogical the herd may be.

Most scientists are afraid to stray from the herd, however illogical the herd may be.

Considering that papers are often rejected because they are not novel the exact opposite is true.

Every scientist dreams of being a Galileo. Most have the honesty to admit they are not. A small fraction delude themselves that they are Galileos

Realpc is a HIV denier. Why am I not surprised?

But Peter Duesberg is obviously not an idiot

Duesberg has many reasonable objections, but scientists won't listen

Ok, explain why it's a "fact" that AIDS is caused by HIV. Duesberg thinks HIV may go along with AIDS, but he says it cannot be the cause. The evidence, as he explains it, shows that other factors cause AIDS. I don't know if his suggestions -- drug use, malnutrition, the AIDS medication itself, etc. -- are correct. However, I don't think you can find much wrong with his logic when he shows how HIV cannot possibly be the cause.

He also explains how AIDS researchers, desperately wanting to be on the right track, distort reality. For example, AIDS is defined as one of the typical AIDS diseases (tuberculosis, etc.) in the presence of HIV infection.

Well how can you be wrong, then? They are using their own hypothesis to define the syndrome. When tuberculosis, etc., occur without HIV infection is not defined as AIDS. So their statistics show that HIV is ALWAYS present in AIDS cases!

Duesberg has proven himself with his cancer research. He is not an idiot, moron, whatever other Panda's Thumb labels you would like to apply.

If Duesberg is correct, the AIDS drugs are not only a tremendous waste of time and money, they are harmful and can actually cause the syndrome. So of course AIDS researchers fight like mad to prevent the public from believing him. They sincerely WANT to believe their own theory. And they don't mind getting the funding either. Duesberg cannot get funding to do his own AIDS research, since he parted from the herd.

Where is the evidence that proves AIDS is caused by HIV? "All AIDS researchers agree" is NOT evidence.

Oh and your idea that science celebrates dissenters is very questionable. Science has become an entrenched establishment, and money and power are at stake. Scientists are not gods. They may try to be fair and open-minded, but they are just as vulnerable to bias and self-deception as anyone.

"Peter Duesberg is obviously not an idiot"

"Ah, but the vast majority of scientists, who disagree with him, are, right?"

I don't think Duesberg is an infallible god, and the scientists who disagree with him are not infallible either.

I am not calling people on either side idiots. I don't think simply calling someone you disagree with an idiot helps to shed light on a problem.

Instead, why not consider the logic and evidence? Why not think carefully about Duesberg's objections, before dismissing him as an idiot. If he turns out to be partially correct, that does not mean all the mainstream AIDS researchers are idiots. It just means their reasoning was partly incorrect. That's how it goes in science, and in life in general. We seldom have perfect information, and we seldom reason perfectly.

I see realpc (or should we call him Phil?) has tried to derail yet another thread. For those of you who are not familiar with his brand of argument, he uses the MSU method (making stuff up). Here is a list of some of the claims he has made on various threads. Of course he has presented absolutely no evidence for any of these claims and he has repeatedly failed to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary. Feel free to add to the list if I have missed anything.

(1) The "Law of Complexity" states that some things complexify themselves at some times by some unknown mechanism for some unknown reason.

(2) The "Theory of Creative Evolution" states that some things get better and better for some reason, or something like that.

(3) The "intelligence" of your body means that you can somehow create beneficial mutations whenever you need them and that this process is entirely "natural" even though there is no known mechanism by which it could occur.

(4) DNA does not "know" enough to "orchestrate" the process of development (and so apparently we don't have any idea how it could possibly work).

(5) Development violates the laws of physics (not the known laws of physics just the unknown ones).

(6) "Natural" means understood by science (presumably anything not yet understood is not natural). I know, this directly contradicts number three, but I'm not the one making this stuff up.

(7) "Complexity" cannot be determined unless we know the purpose and function of something (apparently the complexity changes if the perceived purpose changes).

(8) We all exist in a shared virtual reality and the real reality is outside the matrix. (Wait I saw that movie, he might be right about this one. Anyway, I guess no one can prove him wrong).

(9) Humans are "newer" than dogs. (Even though Canis familiaris arose in Asia about 15,000 years ago). See Science 298:1610-1613 (2002) for example.

(10) AIDS is not caused by HIV.

With respect to number nine, realpc later claimed that he was talking about the ancestors of domesticated dogs, some kind of "dog-like" species. Well it turns out there really are some "dogs" that were never domesticated. They are not in the Genus Canis and they are not ancestral to modern dogs of the species Canis familiaris, but some do have the term "dog" in their common names, so I guess they could count. (By the way, I still don't think prairie dogs or dogfish should count). Some species of wild dogs might even be older than the human lineage. So now realpc, you have the perfect opportunity to test your "theory". You have a definition of complexity (that includes purpose and function) and you have three species of varying ages. All you have to do now is determine the complexity of each species and show that the "newer" species are more complex. I don't know about the wild dogs and humans, (you'll have to ask a philosopher about that), but I do have some ideas about the purpose and function of domesticated dogs. Here are some possibilities: human companionship, helping humans with hunting, protection of humans, source of fertilizer for lawns, essential component of dog shows, etc.

With respect to number ten, the defense was based on the premise that HIV does not exist, not that it does not cause AIDS. I guess even realpc admits that HIV exists. Since Duesberg admits that "HIV may go along with AIDS", then unprotected sex with an infected person would at least represent reckless endangerment.

Duesberg's book Inventing the AIDS Virus was initially co-written with Bryan Ellison, one of his graduate students at the University of California, Berkeley. However, following a 1994 dispute over manuscript changes, Ellison published the manuscript himself, under the title Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS, listing himself as the lead author. A dispute between Duesberg and Ellison resulted, with Ellison charging that Duesberg was "doing favors on behalf of several people in the government" who wished to suppress the book.

Ellison also charged Duesberg with "cooperat[ing] with some of the very hostile factors to have me thrown out of school right before I could submit my thesis and get my Ph.D." For his part, Duesberg stated, regarding Ellison, that "...since he didn't talk to me anymore and didn't show up at the lab, I couldn't pay him anymore."[27] Ultimately, Duesberg and Regnery Publishing sued Ellison, winning a "six-figure verdict" and an injunction against Ellison's manuscript.[28] Duesberg's version of the manuscript was published by Regnery under the title Inventing the AIDS Virus.

Ok, explain why it's a "fact" that AIDS is caused by HIV.

wow i never knew there was such a large number of people who believe AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus. they have only been researching this for the last 40 years or so. sure this might have been a valid argument in the 70's and early 80's, but by then they knew HIV caused it. trust me it would be a wet dream to discover another cause.

even if HIV wasn't the cause it is still something you would not pass along. people who do this kind of stuff should be executed. this is common with things like TB too. that is a special kind of sick right there folks. to have a deadly virus and know it and spread it. only you don't admit it for some delusional reason.

i guess it goes along with the rest of the anti-science movement. I know people who think cloned meat is somehow going to be bad for them. they also say the same for clone vegetables.... i know real intelligence.

Instead, why not consider the logic and evidence?

Why not think carefully about Duesberg's objections, before dismissing him as an idiot.

If he turns out to be partially correct, that does not mean all the mainstream AIDS researchers are idiots. It just means their reasoning was partly incorrect.

That's how it goes in science, and in life in general.

We seldom have perfect information, and we seldom reason perfectly.

With respect to number ten, the defense was based on the premise that HIV does not exist, not that it does not cause AIDS. I guess even realpc admits that HIV exists. Since Duesberg admits that "HIV may go along with AIDS", then unprotected sex with an infected person would at least represent reckless endangerment.

I don't think you can find much wrong with his logic when he shows how HIV cannot possibly be the cause.

(I don't see how filthy language strengthens an argument.)

If AIDS is defined as certain diseases in addition to evidence of the presence of HIV (and that evidence is questionable, by the way), then you cannot fail to find HIV in every AIDS patient!

How many people are HIV positive but never take AIDS medication and never get AIDS? Duesberg claims that this is very common. How many people have diseases normally caused by AIDS, but no sign of HIV? Again, Duesberg says this is common. Do you have evidence that his claims are wrong?

He said: "The HIV-AIDS hypothesis has recycled the same unproductive ideas and arguments for invisible or undetectable HIV, for toxic anti-HIV drugs, and excuses for failing vaccines in various formulations, for twenty-one years."

The only arguments for the HIV hypothesis that I have heard are that every AIDS patient shows signs of having been infected by HIV (true by definition!), or that many HIV-positive patients fend off AIDS by taking AIDS medication. But since HIV does not necessarily lead to AIDS, how can you know it was the AIDS drugs that prevented it? They might never have developed AIDS!

And about dogs, by the way, sometimes the word "dog" refers to the dog family, which includes the ancestors of domestic dogs. That is, obviously, what I meant.

"All dogs -- wild and domestic, extinct and living -- belong to the canid family (family Canidæ). Canids have been around a long time and are the earliest known carnivores (order Carnivora.) In fact, dogs first appeared in the fossil record about 40 million years ago"

http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs/evolution/evolution.html

realpc,

As I stated, whether or not HIV causes AIDS is not the point here. I assume you agree that HIV exists?

I also stipulated that "wild dogs" existed and could be used to test your "theory". I anxiously await your complexity calculations. Perhaps the "Issac Newton of information theory" could help you out. By the way, some test usually precedes use of the term "theory".

"(I don't see how filthy language strengthens an argument.)"

At last we agree on something. I did not use such language. Sorry about those who did.

Lunatic denier PC: How many people are HIV positive but never take AIDS medication and never get AIDS? Duesberg claims that this is very common. How many people have diseases normally caused by AIDS, but no sign of HIV? Again, Duesberg says this is common. Do you have evidence that his claims are wrong?

1: HIV Med. 2005 Mar;6(2):99-106. Links Changing mortality rates and causes of death for HIV-infected individuals living in Southern Alberta, Canada from 1984 to 2003.Krentz HB, Kliewer G, Gill MJ. Southern Alberta Clinic, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. OBJECTIVES: To examine changes over a 2-year period in both the mortality rate and the causes of death in a geographically defined HIV-infected population. METHODS: A database search of primary care information for the dates and causes of death for all patients documented with HIV infection and living in Southern Alberta between 1984 and 2003 was undertaken. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were obtained. Causes of death were then individually confirmed by reviewing the patients' hospital charts, autopsy reports, or death certificates and coded using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revisions. AIDS deaths were reconciled with Public Health Reports. The time span was divided into pre-highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) (1984-1996) and current HAART (1997-2003) periods. RESULTS: Between 1984 and 2003, there were 560 deaths in the 1987 individuals living with HIV infection in Southern Alberta. Of these, 436 deaths (78%) occurred pre-HAART and 124 (22%) in the current HAART period. The crude mortality rate declined from 117 deaths per 1000 patient-years pre-HAART to 24 in the current HAART period. *************************** In the pre-HAART era, 90% of all deaths were AIDS related whereas only 67% were AIDS related in the current HAART era. ********************************* The leading causes of AIDS deaths were AIDS multiple causes (31%), Mycobacterium avium complex (18%), Pneumocystis pneumonia (10%) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (7%). The proportion of non-AIDS related deaths increased from 7% pre-HAART to 32% in the current HAART era. Accidental deaths, including drug overdose (29%), suicide (7%) and violence (3%), hepatic disease (19%), non-AIDS related malignancies (19%), and cardiovascular disease (16%) accounted for the majority of non-AIDS related deaths. No deaths directly caused by drug toxicity were found. Overall, 21% of patients who died were antiretroviral (ARV)-naive. A total of 14% of patients dying from AIDS were ARV-naive in contrast to 35% dying from non-HIV related conditions. Of all those dying from AIDS, 23% died<3 months after their initial diagnosis, reflecting late presentation. In the current HAART era, 87% of patients who died from AIDS were extensively treated, reflecting HAART treatment failures due mostly to multiclass drug resistance (42%), inexorable disease progression despite ARV (32%), lack of ability or interest to be maintained on a lifelong HAART programme (21%) and, rarely, drug intolerance (<1%). CONCLUSIONS: Deaths from AIDS-related causes have decreased significantly, but deaths from non-AIDS related conditions have increased, both as an absolute number of deaths and as a proportion of all deaths in HIV-infected patients. The increasing age of the HIV population, and the increased mean CD4 count, increased proportion of intravenous drug users, increased hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus coinfection rate, and increased history of smoking seen in our population also influenced the mortality rate and causes of death. These factors must also be considered in projecting future trends in mortality of an HIV-infected population.

David Stanton,

I assume that HIV exists and that an infected person should be prevented from infecting others. No one can state with certainty that HIV never causes AIDS. Maybe it does sometimes, maybe something else in the blood of AIDS patients can be transmitted and can spread the disease.

So it would be irresponsible to allow HIV to spread, just in case it is the cause. But we do not have any reasons for being certain that HIV causes AIDS.

I don't have an opinion on Duesberg's theories about what might cause AIDS -- drug use, malnutrition, etc. That may be true some of the time, or maybe not. It doesn't explain the transmission of AIDS to hemophiliacs, which I thought had been established (has it??)

If hemophiliacs have contracted AIDS from HIV-infected blood, that would weaken Duesberg's theories. But maybe both the HIV theory AND Duesberg's theory are wrong. Maybe no one knows! HIV could be something that tends to occur in the blood of AIDS patients, without being the cause. The cause may be something as yet undiscovered.

Duesberg -- who has extensive experience in this area -- says that AIDS does not appear to be caused by a virus. If it were, for one thing, people who are sick with AIDS would have HIV in their system, but they do not. In addition, if AIDS were caused by HIV we might have expected a vaccine by now. But there is no AIDS vaccine in sight, as far as I know.

So there are real reasons to wonder about the HIV hypothesis. Yet it is accepted as a proven fact.

So this does resemble the ID debate. In both cases, we have a theory that the scientific establishment claims as a proven fact. And in both, the accepted theory has some obvious weaknesses. In both, there are small numbers of scientists who dissent from the accepted theory because they find it unconvincing. And in both, the dissenters are simply called idiots and their logic and evidence is ignored. No real communication takes place as insultls are hurled back and forth.

A dispute between Duesberg and Ellison resulted, with Ellison charging that Duesberg was "doing favors on behalf of several people in the government" who wished to suppress the book.

According to Duesberg Ellison has gone on to join some wierd religious sect. Ellison seems to be a certified nutcase.

My question is: why does Duesberg surround himself with complete loonies and creationists like Phillip Johnson?

realpc,

Thanks for clarifying your position. If you choose not to respond to those who use abusive language, that is your perogative. However, you might still want to respond to their arguments and the evidence they present.

I think we can all agree that there are many commonalities between the debates regarding evolution, AIDS and HIV and global warming. This is exactly why science depends on evidence. This is why all ideas should be judged based on evidence. This is after all why evolution became almost universally accepted by the scientific community.

Speaking of which, I am still waiting for your calculations that prove that domesticated dogs, which are after all "newer" than humans, are more complex than wild dogs or humans.

Sure, AIDS researchers want to believe AIDS is caused by HIV. But Peter Duesberg is obviously not an idiot; he just doesn't agree with the logic behind the HIV hypothesis.

Why are there so many people with HIV who never get AIDS?

And so many people with AIDS-like diseases with no HIV infection?

Duesberg has many reasonable objections, but scientists won't listen, just because he does not go along with the crowd. Even though he is a leading cancer researcher.

It resembles the ID debate in some ways. Most scientists are afraid to stray from the herd, however illogical the herd may be.

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Document:Why_I_Quit_HIV

"the leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the last few years has been liver failure, not an AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors, which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years."

Rebecca Culshaw, former HIV researcher

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Document:Why_I_Quit_HIV

"the leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the last few years has been liver failure, not an AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors, which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years."

Rebecca Culshaw, former HIV researcher

"the leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the last few years has been liver failure, not an AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors, which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years." Rebecca Culshaw, former HIV researcher

A comment for realpc to chew on from the world of geology:

When the hypothesis of plate tectonics arrived in the mid 1960s, many geologists, especially older geologists who had spent their entire academic lives explaining the earth in ways that didn't use plate tectonics, didn't accept it. As more and more evidence was gathered and the hypothesis refined, a consensus was obtained and nearly all geologists agreed that the theory explained features of the surface of the earth. Yet a few geologists (especially from what I understand, in the Soviet bloc) never accepted plate tectonics. Their research suffered, not because of censorship by the academic community, but because their explanations didn't work as well as explanations that used the plate tectonic concepts. They weren't courageous mavericks, they were stubborn old (mostly) men who refused to accept reality.

Science is a tool. We use the best tools to come up with the best possible results. In woodworking, you can make a bookcase with modern saws, planes, etc., or with a stone axe. Woodworkers use the best tools not because there is a conspiracy to outlaw stone axes but because the modern tools work better. Anyone who claims to be a scientist without using the best tools (i.e. the ones that have been proven to work the best), or worse, insist on using tools that have been shown to not work, is deluding him/herself. Worse yet, they seem to delude themselves into thinking that these poor tools lead to a reasonable product. And in the case of topics such as evolution, global warming, or HIV/AIDS, this self-delusion can lead to mistakes that threaten human lives and the lives of many other organisms on this planet. What useful techniques or results have creationists, IDiots, global warming deniers, or HIV/AIDS deniers come up with? Contrast that with the real advances that scientific researchers have made using what is today conventional understanding of those topics. Which "tool" do you think works better?

"the leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the last few years has been liver failure, not an AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors, which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years." Rebecca Culshaw, former HIV researcher

In the pre-HAART era, 90% of all deaths were AIDS related whereas only 67% were AIDS related in the current HAART era. ********************************* The leading causes of AIDS deaths were AIDS multiple causes (31%), Mycobacterium avium complex (18%), Pneumocystis pneumonia (10%) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (7%). The proportion of non-AIDS related deaths increased from 7% pre-HAART to 32% in the current HAART era. Accidental deaths, including drug overdose (29%), suicide (7%) and violence (3%), hepatic disease (19%), non-AIDS related malignancies (19%), and cardiovascular disease (16%) accounted for the majority of non-AIDS related deaths. No deaths directly caused by drug toxicity were found.

1: Infection. 2004 Feb;32(1):33-46. Links Human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus coinfection: epidemiology, natural history, therapeutic options and clinical management.Verucchi G, Calza L, Manfredi R, Chiodo F. Dept. of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Bologna "Alma Mater Studiorum", S. Orsola Hospital, via G. Massarenti 11, I-40138, Bologna, Italy. Due to shared risk factors for transmission, coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a very common event. The prevalence of HCV infection among HIV-positive patients averages about 35% in the United States and Europe, but in clinical populations where there is a great prevalence of intravenous drug use as a risk factor for acquiring HIV, this value may be as high as 80-90%. Several studies have confirmed that HIV coinfection accelerates the natural course of chronic hepatitis C and an increased risk of liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and decompensated liver disease has been found in coinfected subjects. Other studies have shown an increased risk of progression to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and AIDS-related death among HIV-HCV-positive persons, suggesting that HCV coinfection may accelerate the course of HIV disease. In addition, hepatitis C may affect the management of HIV infection, increasing the incidence of liver toxicity associated with the antiretroviral regimens. The optimal therapeutic approach to HCV infection in HIV coinfected patients is still uncertain, because of the complex pathogenesis of both infections, potential drugdrug interactions, and the poor literature and information available about safety and efficacy of an interferon (IFN) and ribavirin combination in this clinical population. Available data show that the sustained virological response rates in coinfected persons treated with standard IFN plus ribavirin range from 18-40%, and several studies with pegylated IFN plus ribavirin are ongoing.

"hepatic disease (19%) ... No deaths directly caused by drug toxicity were found."

Not "directly," but hepatic disease is a known side-effect of the AIDS drugs. They could have mentioned that, if they were trying to be informative.

"HAART properly managed can add two decades easy to a patients life. "

Where in the world is the evidence for that?

I don't think it's a conspiracy, but you must admit the drug industry is making a killing from HIV drugs. They have no real motivation to find a cure. It's much more profitable to convince people they will always need expensive drugs to stay alive.

At least look at what the anti-HIV scientists have to say. I will dig up more information for you, when I have time. This is important.

This PT thread is not supposed to be about your HIV denial. But this AtBC thread is entirely for you.

I don't think it's a conspiracy, but you must admit the drug industry is making a killing from HIV drugs. They have no real motivation to find a cure. It's much more profitable to convince people they will always need expensive drugs to stay alive.

"I am still waiting for your calculations that prove that domesticated dogs, which are after all "newer" than humans, are more complex than wild dogs or humans."

Dave Stanton,

I do not believe domestication by artificial selection is an example of the creation of a new, more complex, species. I think it's an example of Darwinist microevolution.

Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that a new species must be more complex than its predecessors. As I said, it's the system as a whole which evolves towards greater complexity, not individual species.

And, again, we have no straightforward way to measure biological complexity. We know, intuitively, that a chimpanzee is more complex than a rabbit, but how could that be measured? Animal IQ tests? Our measurements would impose our own ideas about intelligence.

It's easier to compare one-celled to multi-celled organisms. Obviously we are talking about a jump to a higher level of complexity. And then of course vertebrates represent another obvious increase.

I don't pretend to have the solution to the problem of how to compoare biological complexity between species mathematically. But I can say with certainty that, overall, complexity has increased. It's too obvious to argue about.

Again, that is not to say a species can't lose features it once had, but no longer needs. Nature is not wasteful, and there is no advantage in maintaining unused features. But, as I said, that is Darwinian microevolution, or adaptation.

In addition, if AIDS were caused by HIV we might have expected a vaccine by now. But there is no AIDS vaccine in sight, as far as I know.

— realpc

realpc wrote: In addition, if AIDS were caused by HIV we might have expected a vaccine by now. But there is no AIDS vaccine in sight, as far as I know.

I don't think it's a conspiracy, but you must admit the drug industry is making a killing from HIV drugs. They have no real motivation to find a cure. It's much more profitable to convince people they will always need expensive drugs to stay alive.

At least look at what the anti-HIV scientists have to say. I will dig up more information for you, when I have time. This is important.

realpc,

The hypothesis that humans are "newer" than "dogs" and should therefore be more complex was your hypothesis not mine. Now you are saying that there is no reason to suppose that this should be true if "dogs" are newer than humans.

So basically what you are saying is that there is no way to test your "theory". The only "prediction" it makes is that some things might get more complex by some unspecified measure given enough time, which is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict. I think it would be best to use the term hypothesis until there is at least an actual test that can be performed.

As to why there is no AIDS vaccine, why haven't our magnificent, "intelligent" bodies caused directed mutations to produce immunity yet? That would seem to be the "intelligent" thing to do under the circumstances, if it were possible. Maybe if I just concentrate hard enough I can make it work. Here goes.

Not "directly," but hepatic disease is a known side-effect of the AIDS drugs.

What reason is there to assume that a chimpanzee would be more "complex" than a rabbit? AFAIK, they have basically the same parts, in pretty much the same relative positions.

I'm wondering if the average amount of "complexity" (whatever that is) didn't peak a few (or maybe several) hundred million years ago.

Henry

What reason is there to assume that a chimpanzee would be more "complex" than a rabbit?

(I don't see how filthy language strengthens an argument.)

when I read comments like realpc's comments I can't stop wondering how you guys have managed to become and keep the status of the world's superpower...
I curse my country's educational system (among other things),
but come on...where do you get these guys?
the fact that strikes me is not their lack of education (we have plenty of uneducated etc people over here too),but the fact that they are totally uneducated computer ''geeks''.
here the uneducated usually don't pass their time in front of a computer screen surfing,in fact they usually don't own a computer or don't know how to surf or anyway disklike(find boring) computers.
realpc you know what school is?
better off ,
realpc you know what school kindergarten is?
I believe you need to start over.
you're embarassing your country,the country that sent a man on the moon,the country that I guess and I suppose you hold dear,in front of auslanders.
you know that the www is global,don't you?

the fact that strikes me but the fact that strikes me most

the fact that strikes me but the fact that strikes me most
embarassing embarrassing

when I read comments like realpc's comments I can't stop wondering how you guys have managed to become and keep the status of the world's superpower...

dear Sir_Toejam
thanks for the answer-analysis although the question was more emotional and/or rhetorical.
since I'm a philhistor-historiophile (which term do you use?) and also a friend of geopolitics I might add one more factor or two :-)
....
But more importantly, the laws of physics command:
stupidity is a universal constant.

Still, as I've stated the emotional ,logical and psychological first reaction is great.
After all,You are the Superpower.
After all here in my country I could ,in one way or another,
I could ,at first hand, justify the omnipresence of scientifically non-educated people.
After all , ie technologically compared to you,we're in the dark ages
....
But then again, it's just a phychological reaction,
then again ,stupidity is a global localised and non localised phaenomenon ,
then again ,stupidity a universal constant.

RealPC writes... I think it's an example of Darwinist microevolution.

"What reason is there to assume that a chimpanzee would be more "complex" than a rabbit?"

One obvious difference is the complexity of their social and communication systems. Also the difference between chimpanzees and humans -- our physical complexity does not seem any greater, but our intellectual abilities are, and our social organization is far more complex.

As for me being an idiot who embarrasses my whole country: I have a PhD from a well-known American university, in a scientific subject. And so do many other Darwinism and HIV skeptics. We aren't all kindergarten drop outs.

Most scientists, like most humans, run with the herd. It's much better for your career. Einstein did not respect authority, and therefore he could not get a professor job. But being outside academia gave him the intellectual freedom to continue questioning the accepted views.

There is no shortage of smart, successful scientists who respect authority. Most of them never make a discovery or have an original thought. There are a much smaller number of scientists who are smart, but who are less successful because they care too much about scientific understanding. They just want to know the answers, and don't care if their ideas make the authorities angry.

Duesberg has important ideas about cancer that might lead to a cure. His ideas were ignored for decades, and our society suffered terribly as a result. Why not listen to what he has to say about AIDS? Sure he might be partly wrong, but at least listen. His funding for AIDS research was cut off just because he cared more about truth than being accepted by the herd.

I saw what it's like while in graduate school and I was shocked. Original thinking was strongly discouraged. You had to be a conformist, or else able to act like one. Questioning the materialist orthodoxy was simply not allowed.

I have a PhD from a well-known American university, in a scientific subject. And so do many other Darwinism and HIV skeptics.We aren't all kindergarten drop outs.

— realpc

"There are a much smaller number of scientists who are smart, but who are less successful because they care too much about scientific understanding. They just want to know the answers, and don't care if their ideas make the authorities angry."

Sounds like Darwin to me.

Yes Dave Stanton, Darwin was an independent thinker, and we learned a lot from him. But it's a big mistake to blindly follow anyone. He was right about some things, probably wrong about others.

I strongly disagree with the ID advocates who bash Darwin, and all aspects of his work.

No human being is ever right about everything, and almost all are right about something. We should not make people into gods, but we should not ignore them either. If someone disagrees with me, instead of calling them an insane moron, I should at least hear their point of view. Chances are there is some truth in it, and I may have to modify my own views accordingly.

I have paid serious attention to scientific atheism. In fact, that's how I became interested in science in the first place. I discarded atheism because I found it to be unscientific and illogical overall. But I think atheists' criticisms of organized religion are valuable and partly correct. Their skepticism about supernatural beliefs in general is also valuable and often correct.

I do not ignore or despise people because their opinions are different from mine. But I won't give in and agree wutg them just so they won't hate me.

Darwin was an independent thinker, and we learned a lot from him. But it's a big mistake to blindly follow anyone. He was right about some things, probably wrong about others.

When a person seriously mentions "a cure for cancer", one can safely dismiss any of that person's opinions and ideas on matters scientific.

"When a person seriously mentions "a cure for cancer", one can safely dismiss any of that person's opinions and ideas on matters scientific."

No, I don't expect a cure for cancer any time soon. I meant that ignoring Duesberg's observations may have blocked progress, for decades.

Typical of realpc's evasiveness:

I don't know if his suggestions --- drug use, malnutrition, the AIDS medication itself, etc. --- are correct. However, I don't think you can find much wrong with his logic when he shows how HIV cannot possibly be the cause.

If you don't know whether his suggestions are correct, then how can you vouch for the logic that led to those suggestions? What you're saying, in effect, is that you can't stand behind Duesberg's assertions when they're refuted by a mountain of evidence, but you're still determined to stay on his side anyway, and pretend not to hear or understand the evidence. Just like every other rigid, stupid, cowardly denialist who ever pretended to know some "truth" that the rest of us -- all six-billion-odd of us -- somehow missed.

People like realpc aren't even worth the abuse PG gave him earlier.

I have a PhD from a well-known American university, in a scientific subject.

There's LOTS of well-known American universities, offering degrees in a wide variety of "scientific subjects." Why do you go out of your way to avoid specifying either the institution or the subject of the degree they allegedly gave you? Are you that ashamed of your "education" -- or are your "teachers" that ashamed of you?

(I suspect you got a BS from MSU, ifyaknowwhatimean.)

"If you don't know whether his suggestions are correct, then how can you vouch for the logic that led to those suggestions? "

I meant that I do not necessarily agree with his alternative suggestions. I do not know what causes AIDS. But his criticisms of the HIV theory seem reasonable, to me. I am not a biologist but I can still follow an argument. Duesberg has a lot of objections to the HIV theory, and he is qualified to have an opinion.

That does NOT mean he has the answer to what causes HIV. If someone has good reasons to disagree with a theory, they are NOT obligated to have a better theory.

So I can agree with Duesberg's criticisms of the HIV theory without agreeing with his proposed alternatives. This might be news to some of you here, but a person can be right about some things and wrong about others.

My reason for disagreeing with Duesberg's alternatives is that, as far as I know, AIDS can be transmitted by blood transfusions. If that is true, AIDS must be infectious. How could Duesberg have ignored that? Myabe HIV has been transmitted by blood transfusions, but AIDS has not. Does anyone here know? I asked that before.

If HIV AIDS has been shown, definitively, to be infectious, then Duesberg's alternatives are wrong. But that does NOT mean his objections to the HIV theory are wrong. AIDS might be infectious even if HIV is NOT the cause.

"What reason is there to assume that a chimpanzee would be more "complex" than a rabbit?" One obvious difference is the complexity of their social and communication systems. Also the difference between chimpanzees and humans --- our physical complexity does not seem any greater, but our intellectual abilities are, and our social organization is far more complex.

"Darwin was an independent thinker, and we learned a lot from him. But it's a big mistake to blindly follow anyone. He was right about some things, probably wrong about others."

I absolutely agree. Darwin was wrong about lots of thngs. For example, bears are not the closest living relatives of whales. How do we know? Because no real scientist took his word as "gospel" or even considered it possible that he was absolutely right about everything. Palentologists hunted for and eventually found fossils of intermediate forms. Geneticists performed phylogenetic analyses. We now have multiple independent data sets that all converge on the same answer. Whales were derived from terrestrial ancestors and hippos are the closest living relative to whales. Does that sound like anyone blindly followed Darwin?

The entire field of modern genetics arose after Darwin. The main findings of this field confirm exactly what one would predict if Darwin was right about descent with modification. This is not blindly following. This is independent confirmation. This is how real science works.

I meant that I do not necessarily agree with his alternative suggestions.

Why not? Because you see (but won't admit) a flaw in the logic that leads to them? Because you notice something Duesberg doesn't mention? And if his logic leds to suggestions you question, then what good is his logic, in your opinion?

If someone has good reasons to disagree with a theory, they are NOT obligated to have a better theory.

Actually, after a certain point, they are. You can't replace something with nothing, especially when lives are at stake and people on the ground need to know what they CAN do, not just a lot of carping about what they CAN'T do.

You can only spend so much time mocking other people's answers before you're expected to come up with a better answer yourself.

Comment #172492 Posted by realpc on April 28, 2007 2:59 PM (e) David Stanton, I assume that HIV exists and that an infected person should be prevented from infecting others. ...

— realpc

... No one can state with certainty that HIV never causes AIDS. ...

— realpc

Maybe it does sometimes, maybe something else in the blood of AIDS patients can be transmitted and can spread the disease.

— realpc

So it would be irresponsible to allow HIV to spread, just in case it is the cause. But we do not have any reasons for being certain that HIV causes AIDS.

— realpc

I don't have an opinion on Duesberg's theories about what might cause AIDS --- drug use, malnutrition, etc. That may be true some of the time, or maybe not. It doesn't explain the transmission of AIDS to hemophiliacs, which I thought had been established (has it??)

— realpc

If hemophiliacs have contracted AIDS from HIV-infected blood, that would weaken Duesberg's theories. But maybe both the HIV theory AND Duesberg's theory are wrong.

— realpc

Maybe no one knows! HIV could be something that tends to occur in the blood of AIDS patients, without being the cause. The cause may be something as yet undiscovered.

— realpc

Duesberg --- who has extensive experience in this area --- says that AIDS does not appear to be caused by a virus. If it were, for one thing, people who are sick with AIDS would have HIV in their system, but they do not.

— realpc

In addition, if AIDS were caused by HIV we might have expected a vaccine by now. But there is no AIDS vaccine in sight, as far as I know.

— realpc

So there are real reasons to wonder about the HIV hypothesis. Yet it is accepted as a proven fact.

— realpc

So this does resemble the ID debate. In both cases, we have a theory that the scientific establishment claims as a proven fact. And in both, the accepted theory has some obvious weaknesses.

— realpc

In both, there are small numbers of scientists who dissent from the accepted theory because they find it unconvincing.

— realpc

And in both, the dissenters are simply called idiots and their logic and evidence is ignored. No real communication takes place as insultls are hurled back and forth.

— realpc

"I was talking about biological complexity. Society and communication systems are beside the point."

That is not true. Humans have the biological requirements that make our complex social and communication systems possible. Chimpanzee societies are simpler than ours, so their level of biological complexity must be lower.

"Every scientist dreams of being a Galileo. Most have the honesty to admit they are not. A small fraction delude themselves that they are Galileos"

And some delude themselves into thinking they are a Newton, perhaps of information theory, but there is a stumbling block. As physicist Robert Park put it: "Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right."

That is not true. Humans have the biological requirements that make our complex social and communication systems possible. Chimpanzee societies are simpler than ours, so their level of biological complexity must be lower.

"All AIDS researchers agree" is NOT evidence.

But one crank disagreeing with this overwhelming concensus IS "evidence?" This is a perfect example of the denialist mind at "work."

And in both [ID and HIV/AIDS debates], the dissenters are simply called idiots and their logic and evidence is ignored. No real communication takes place as insultls are hurled back and forth.

In both of these debates, there was PLENTY of "real communication," on a variety of media, taking place over many decades at least, during which it was established that the "dissenters" (who used to be the "establishment" but now portray themselves as helpless victims of evil persecution) had nothing to back up their alternative "explanations;" which is why their tired old arguments are now ignored.

(Are we ignoring you, realpc? No, we're debunking your "facts" and "logic," and you're the one covering your ears and shouting the same talking-points over and over.)

And in both of these debates, the "dissenters" (who, as I've already said, used to be the "establishment") are surrounded by pig-ignorant and dishonest cheerleaders like realpc, who repeat the same tired old arguments, see them conclusively punk'd, junk'd and debunk'd, and then cry about how horribly persecuted they are.

realpc:

"If hemophiliacs have contracted AIDS from HIV-infected blood, that would weaken Duesberg's theories."

If ??? If ??? AIDS has devastated the hemophiliac population due to HIV tainted blood products. It's like you're discussing the history of Europe and saying "If there have been any major wars in Europe in the 20th Century ..."

And, since you tossed your credentials on the table, what subject is your PhD in and what university granted it and when? If you won't say, then we're entitled to presume you a mere poseur.

Mike --- Even if realpc does say, he is still a mere poseur...

http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch2.html

"AZT is designed to inhibit viral DNA synthesis in persons who have antibodies to a virus that is not synthesizing DNA"

"All other viruses and microbes are very active when they cause fatal, degenerative diseases similar to AIDS. There is also abundant generic evidence that this activity is necessary for pathogenicity. Antibodies are evidence for the absence of an active virus, not a prognosis for future disease or death."

Even if HIV antibodies co-occur with AIDS, that is not evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

Defining AIDS as certain diseases plus HIV antibodies guarantees a high correlation between AIDS and HIV, so the correlational data cannot be trusted. Duesberg's complaint is that a virus which is not active or present cannot be the cause of a disease.

How can you deny that his argument makes sense? He can't see how a non-present virus could destroy the immune system.

AIDS may be infectious, but HIV is not necessarily the cause.

The alternate hypotheses that AIDS may be caused by drug use, malnutrition, etc., does not make sense to me. But the HIV hypothesis sounds pretty shaky. I think it's probably something else no one has discovered yet.

in my country (greece) the constitution commands that universities are only allowed
to be founded-run-owned by state.it's free for all but due to oeconomical problems etc
a call for change has been made.
during the past years and especially this last one,
there has been a national debate on connecting them with the market,
changing the constitution allowing nonprofit private ones to exist etc.
(indeed there has been issued an order-directive by the EU to do something like this)
there have been mass strikes,demonstrations,school occupations against the change.
I'm totally pro change.
but if free-market university education means that people like you realpc can have a PhD
in science there is a thought growing "in the back of my head" to join the communists...

"AZT is designed to inhibit viral DNA synthesis in persons who have antibodies to a virus that is not synthesizing DNA"

There's an AtBC thread with his name on it. He can be booted there.

Ok, as an illustration how to fact check, realpc, I, as someone with no medical experience (and very little posting experience as well obviously), will attempt to use the internet to fact check Dr. Duesberg. From realpc's first link, here is Dr. Duesberg's first reason to think AIDS is not caused by HIV:

"First, AIDS is not infectious. For example, between 1981 and 2004, 930,000 American AIDS patients had been treated by doctors or health care workers. But, despite the absence of an anti-AIDS vaccine, there is not a single case report in the peer-reviewed literature of a doctor or health care worker, who has ever contracted AIDS (rather than just HIV) from any one of these 930,000 patients in now
twenty-five years. Likewise, not one of the thousands of HIV-AIDS researchers has ever contracted AIDS from HIV, nor is there an AIDS epidemic among prostitutes anywhere in the world."

So we have three claims by Dr. Duesberg.
1. There are no peer-reviewed case reports of U.S. health workers or doctors who have contracted AIDS (rather than just HIV) from their patients.
I don't think that that is the sort of thing that even gets reported in peer-reviewed journals but the Center for Disease Control keeps pretty detailed records on this (Records are through 1996):
"CDC is aware of 52 health care workers in the United States who have been documented as having seroconverted to HIV following occupational exposures. Twenty-four have developed AIDS. These individuals who seroconverted include 19 laboratory workers (16 of whom were clinical laboratory workers), 21 nurses, 6 physicians, 2 surgical technicians, 1 dialysis technician, 1 respiratory therapist, 1 health aide, and 1 housekeeper/maintenance worker. The exposures were as follows: 45 had percutaneous (puncture/cut injury) exposure, 5 had mucocutaneous (mucous membrane and/or skin) exposure, 1 had both percutaneous and mucocutaneous exposure, and 1 had an unknown route of exposure. Forty-seven exposures were to HIVinfected blood, 3 to concentrated virus in a laboratory, 1 to visibly bloody fluid, and 1 to an unspecified fluid."

So it turns out that Dr. Duesberg was wrong. And not just a little wrong. Completely wrong. Unless you want to make me spend more time finding a peer-reviewed paper.
Total time to look this up: about 5 minutes. Couldn't you have done that yourself realpc?

2. No AIDS researchers have contracted AIDS from HIV.

In the last sentence of the CDC quote, see the 3 exposures to "concentrated virus in a laboratory"? Sounds like AIDS research to me.
Again, could have looked that up yourself, realpc.

3. There is no AIDS epidemic among prostitutes.

Is he serious? I don't have a medical background, but I don't live in a cave, either. AIDS epidemics are occurring in prostitutes all over the world.

Here is one of many, many articles you could have looked up on this subject, realpc (I can get you some more if you want). Why didn't you look up any information on this? Its everywhere! This article is from way back in 1991, for crying out loud. This is old news for just about everybody except for you and Dr. Duesberg.

Weniger BG, Limpakarnjanarat K, Ungchusak K, Thanprasertsuk S, Choopanya K, Vanichseni S, Uneklabh T, Thongcharoen P, Wasi C.
The epidemiology of HIV infection and AIDS in Thailand.
AIDS. 1991;5 Suppl 2:S71-85. Review. Erratum in: AIDS 1993 Jan;7(1):following 147.
Abstract:There were very few AIDS cases reported in Thailand as of 1988, where HIV was introduced relatively late in the course of the AIDS pandemic. Thailand was therefore classified as an epidemiologic pattern III country with regard to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Also in 1988, however, Thailand experienced a major and rapid increase in HIV prevalence among IV drug users (IVDU). The Thai experience with HIV after the rapid spread first among IVDUs has been successive waves of HIV transmission to female prostitutes, then to their non-IVDU male clients, and then into the non-prostitute wives and girlfriends of these latter men in the general population. Three years after being declared a pattern III country, 300,000 people in Thailand were estimated to be infected out of a population of 55 million. Reasons for this unprecedented rapid spread of HIV infection may eventually come from research on sexual behavior and related diseases given the lack of evidence for human host genetic factors or particularly virulent etiologic agent factors to explain the phenomenon. The reason and dynamics behind the timing and rapidity of the 1988 epidemic among IVDUs for now remains unknown. The authors note that the scenario of HIV transmission observed in Thailand also seems to be unfolding in neighboring countries. HIV infection among female prostitutes and heterosexual men is consistently highest in the northern Thai provinces adjacent to Myanmar and Laos. This paper reviews the epidemiology and prevention of HIV infection and AIDS in Thailand, updating previous reports and commentary, and including previously unpublished or not widely available data.

Thanks to the wonders of the internet it took me just 20 minutes to learn that Dr. Duesberg was pulling his information on all three points in reason 1 straight out of you-know-where.

Couldn't you have done that realpc? Quit wasting peoples' time and go learn something.

More contempt and less treating realpc as someone capable or willing to learn or change his views in light of evidence is in order.

More contempt and less treating realpc as someone capable or willing to learn or change his views in light of evidence is in order.

nor is there an AIDS epidemic among prostitutes anywhere in the world."

AIDS Anal Afr. 1998 Feb;8(1):9, 15. Links Prostitution and HIV / AIDS: a report from Abidjan.[No authors listed] PIP: Abstracts in the abstracts book at the Abidjan AIDS in Africa conference in December 1997 provide important data on the extent of HIV infection among female prostitutes and their lack of knowledge and prevention. ***************************** HIV is widespread among Ghana's prostitutes. One survey of 368 prostitutes in the Greater Accra area found that 297 (76%) were HIV-seropositive. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Older ages, length of time working as a prostitute, and having had other STDs were positively associated with HIV infection, while the number of clients per day and price for sexual services were not significant determinants of HIV serostatus. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 66% of the prostitutes became infected during their first year of work in prostitution, %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% and 80% used condoms with their clients. Another study found that the women are motivated by a sense of familial responsibility, but with only a limited scope for money-earning activities. Over the past decade, the number of prostitutes has increased and they are becoming younger, more educated, and more professional in their approach. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 75% of 85 female prostitutes screened for HIV infection in a study in Uganda were HIV-positive ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and 80% began prostitution for economic reasons; only 66% indicated that they would change profession if given an alternative. A number of the abstracts indicate low levels of condom use during commercial sex acts. Finally, a study in a South African mining community saw a 30% reduction in overall STD prevalence as the miners increased their prevalence of condom use from 13% to 29%.

Over the next 20 years, the epidemic would ravage the nation's medical workers. Thousands of needle stick victims would die of AIDS, hepatitis and other blood-borne infections. Tens of thousands more would suffer serious illness from the devastating diseases. Hundreds of millions of dollars would be spent every year on replacing and treating dying and infected workers.

But it didn't have to happen. Needles with simple safety features -- often costing just pennies more to make -- were available at least 10 years ago. Today, however, few have reached the hands of health care workers, even at the nation's most technologically advanced institutions.

One other thing: It remains very important that we continue to insist upon the superiority of induction, precisely because creos/IDists don't understand its superiority.

They really do think that it's just a "matter of interpretation", and that an unevidenced "God" or "Designer" is every bit as good a basis from which to model and think as utilizing the data coming from our senses. This despite the fact that they'd never consider the religious assumptions of an unrelated religion a reasonable basis from which to deduce origins, and actually do not think that such deductive reasoning from their own religion is appropriate in court cases (at least not in the abstract).

Origins is simply different from "ordinary science" or "ordinary evidence" in their view (thanks partly to propaganda, naturally), which relates to their own ignorance about the past as well as the fact that their "solid basis" for knowing the "important things" are undermined by science.

Tolerating such simple biases and propaganda-produced prejudices tends to reinforce their sense that their own deductions from nothing are the equal of evidence-based science. We ought to demand that they come up with reasons which would hold up in court or in the science community, and to be dismissive or even contemptuous when they fail to do so (they do demand as much from us, since they don't know what else to demand from us, and then dismiss the evidence, which they don't understand, when it is presented and explained to them).

Of course this isn't how everyone ought to treat them. There need to be good cops and bad cops, the bad cops being those most responsible for maintaining rigor in thought and in scientific processes (if not necessarily all of the latter, either).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Well, that is as it is, and I only hope that agreeing with you doesn't make this post disappear.

And no, they don't want to be considered to be unintelligent, as you well know.

(yes, the science they agree with is as well, but they really don't know that and suppose that evolution is built upon flimsy grounds where other sciences are not)

— Glen Davidson

a correction for the parabole to be more precise:

rather than just but not on experiments like the ones they have

"What reason is there to assume that a chimpanzee would be more "complex" than a rabbit?" One obvious difference is the complexity of their social and communication systems. Also the difference between chimpanzees and humans --- our physical complexity does not seem any greater, but our intellectual abilities are, and our social organization is far more complex.

I met Peter Duesberg at a retrovirology meeting more than 10 (15?) years ago. We had a brief conversation about HIV/AIDs and the animal retroviruses. Now, before the AIDs epidemic, decades of work had been done on various animal retroviruses like the avian leukosis virus and the mouse mammary tumor virus and their associated diseases. Duesberg denied the disease association for ALL of these viruses, not just HIV. I do not remember his alternative explanation for the animal retroviruses, but it did not remotely explain the diseases appearing in infected lab animals that are genetically homogeneous and obviously have limited "lifestyle choices".

Thank you, raven and Noturus, for the reality checks. realpc may not appreciate your efforts, but I'm sure the rest of us do.

Now let's see if realpc has the guts to show up and admit he was wrong about a pretty important subject...

With regard to global warming, HIV and AIDS and evolution; a wise man once said that a reassuring lie will always be preferred to an inconvenient truth. And I was right!

I know there are some people who just don't want to believe. After all, who would want to live in a world where their short-sighted exploitation of fossil fuels had ruined (or at least dramatically altered) the climate of an entire planet? Who would want to live in a world where their ignorance and irresponsible sexual pracitices were responsible for the deaths of millions? Who would want to admit that they shared common ancestors with every other living thing on the planet, including chimpanzees? Much easier to simply deny all this and carry on as usual. Of course that is how we created the current situation in the first place. Ignoring evidence and wishful thinking will always exact a price in the end.

If you have a better explanation for the evidence, show it. But remember, in order to triumph, your explanation must explain all the available evidence and it must explain it better than the existing explanation. In order to do that you must, at the very least, be familiar with the existing evidence. Why anyone who has not spent a lifetime studying Biology would presume that they were better qualified to interpret the evidence than those who have is beyond me. I think Glen is on the right track in his explanation of the psychology behind this type of thinking.

We should always be open to new ideas, even those that challenge our most dearly held beliefs. But as one poster commented: "We shouldn't be so open minded that our brains fall out."

More than one question is being considered:

- Is AIDS an infectious disease?
- Does HIV cause AIDS?

Duesberg denies AIDS is infectious, because he cannot see how HIV could possibly be the cause.

I do not agree with him on that because the evidence seems to show that AIDS is infectious -- it can be transmitted via blood transfusions, for example, as far as I know. (No, I am not an expert on AIDS and have not spent years researching it. I barely have time to search google now and then. But I doubt I'm the only one here who is not an AIDS researcher and who can't devote hours every day to the problem. I specialize in certain technical areas, and I'm an interested observer in many others. I only get paid for what I specialize in, like everyone else here. I don't think that means I can't have opinions on subjects I care about. If it does, the same disqualification applies to almost everyone else here.)

But Duesberg does seem to have good arguments against the HIV hypothesis:

"AZT is designed to inhibit viral DNA synthesis in persons who have antibodies to a virus that is not synthesizing DNA"

No one here has tried to answer that objection. How do the AIDS drugs work? Where is the experimental evidence that they actually improve the health of AIDS patients?

If you show that deaths from AIDS-related diseases have declined, but deaths overall have increased among AIDS patients, what are we to conclude? It could mean that AIDS drugs are saving lives, or it could mean AIDS drugs are killing people!

So I am not yet convinced that AIDS drugs are helpful. I will be happy to look at evidence.

Raging Bee,

The answers to your questions are apparently, in order, yes and no.

(No, I am not an expert on AIDS and have not spent years researching it. I barely have time to search google now and then...)

But you have PLENTY of time to hijack thread after thread spurting your ignorance far and wide and ignoring the information that has been offered to you, right here, for free, no cumbersome googling necessary. What a transparently lame excuse.

If you don't have time to LEARN about something, then you don't have time to TALK about it. (That's why you'll never hear me spouting off about Japanese literature, to take just one example. (And yes, we're pretty sure Japan exists.))

So I am not yet convinced that AIDS drugs are helpful.

Did you ever talk to, or read an op-ed piece by, someone who was actually taking such drugs? Or do real people and their real experiences in the real world not matter to you?

I will be happy to look at evidence.

Then why haven't you done so already? It's been piling up since 1980. What do you think of the evidence recently presented by raven and Noturus right here on this very thread? It seems you have no time to look at evidence, but plenty of time telling us you'd love to look at it.

realpc, you've gone from a fool to a joke to a pathetic, disgraceful asshat. You have no business in a grownup discussion.

Raging Bee,

The evidence I saw posted here showed that death rates increased overall among AIDS patients, although they decreased from AIDS-related diseases, in one study. It was not an experiement, for one thing, and it did not show that AIDS drugs are helping. We don't know if the patients would have died sooner without AIDS drugs.

Yes I could have missed something in long posts intended to obscure rather than clarify. Where is your high quality experimental evidence showing AIDS drugs are effective?

If there is no HIV in the patients, how are they helped by drugs that fight HIV? There must be a way to answer that briefly and clearly.

The evidence I saw posted here showed that death rates increased overall among AIDS patients, although they decreased from AIDS-related diseases, in one study...

The evidence posted here did far more than that -- it showed that the Duesberg guy, whom you quote extensively and uncritically, had absolutely no clue what he was talking about, and spent years doggedly ignoring growing piles of evidence that contradicted his initial claims, rather than admit he was wrong, as a sensible person would have done.

Yes I could have missed something in long posts intended to obscure rather than clarify.

"Missed" or "ignored?" The posts were pretty clear to me. If they weren't clear to you, it's probably because your mind is too small and fragile to handle the new input. Either that, or you're just pretending they're obscure in order to avoid addressing the issues. In either case, the fact that you call them "obscure" only further proves that you're unfit to participate in this debate.

Where is your high quality experimental evidence showing AIDS drugs are effective?

Well, there's a bunch of AIDS patients here and there saying the new drugs have helped them feel better, live longer, and lead better lives. Where's YOUR evidence showing these people are mistaken?

If there is no HIV in the patients, how are they helped by drugs that fight HIV?

IS there no HIV in the patients?

There must be a way to answer that briefly and clearly.

Sez who? Some rigid little simpleton who refuses to make any effort to learn anything more complicated than "My Pet Goat?" Here, again, is the denialist mind at work: demand evidence, ignore it, demand it again, cry about how complicated it is, and insist that if it's not simple, it can't be real.

I hate to break this to you, Skippy, but sometimes -- especially in really complicated matters like science and medicine -- the correct answers are neither brief nor clear. That's why people have to spend YEARS in school before thay can do any actual practice in such fields.

realpc: Where is your high quality experimental evidence showing AIDS drugs are effective? raging: Well, there's a bunch of AIDS patients here and there saying the new drugs have helped them feel better, live longer, and lead better lives. Where's YOUR evidence showing these people are mistaken?

realpc: If there is no HIV in the patients, how are they helped by drugs that fight HIV? raging: IS there no HIV in the patients?

I will be happy to look at evidence.

— realpc

A bunch of AIDS patients here and there!!??? You call that scientific evidence?

Despite being repeatedly asked to do so, you have failed to provide any better evidence to counter them. (Also, your willingness to equate AIDS patients with people who claim to have seen ghosts, proves your moral and mental bankruptcy.)

Testimony of a bunch of AIDS patients here and there, and long-winded obfuscations, will not help us understand the real situation.

They've helped us develop medicines that have helped them to live longer. Which is more than you and your pal Deusberg have contributed.

A bunch of AIDS patients here and there!!??? You call that scientific evidence?

The actual HIV is not detectable, even in patients who are dying from AIDS.

Realpc - "Duesberg denies AIDS is infectious, because he cannot see how HIV could possibly be the cause. I do not agree with him on that because the evidence seems to show that AIDS is infectious --- it can be transmitted via blood transfusions, for example, as far as I know."

Duesberg denies AIDS is infectious because he cannot see how HIV could possibly be the cause. Yet AIDS is obviously infectious, as anyone who takes 5 minutes to do a google search can learn. Do you see something wrong there?
If you can still say "seems to show" you obviously didn't look anything up.

"But Duesberg does seem to have good arguments against the HIV hypothesis:
"AZT is designed to inhibit viral DNA synthesis in persons who have antibodies to a virus that is not synthesizing DNA""

Is it a good argument? Why? Do you know whether that is even true? I don't. I have no idea. So I will do what you should try. I will look it up.

Let's see. Is AZT designed to inhibit viral DNA synthesis?
Does HIV not synthesize DNA?
I'm feeling lazy today so I will look up AZT on Wikipedia.

"Like other reverse transcriptase inhibitors, AZT works by inhibiting the action of reverse transcriptase, the enzyme that HIV uses to make a DNA copy of its RNA. The viral double-stranded DNA is subsequently spliced into the DNA of a target cell, where it is called a provirus.[8][9][10]"

Looks like the answers are yes to the first question, and no to the second. That took less than 5 minutes.
In fact, there is a wikipedia article on the "Duesberg hypothesis which refutes it pretty well. So I will just refer you there.

There are, as you can see, references, not that you would look them up. In fact, I could pretty much make anything up claim there was evidence and because you never check you would probably believe me. Just like you believe Dr. Duesberg.

If you don't bother to look anything up the only thing you will have to say are uninformed opinions, not arguments. You are like a person who insists it is not raining during a hurricane yet refuses to open the door and look outside. In both cases someone needs to boot your butt outside.

Answering Realpc on his own thread:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=4898;p=57543

Another answer for realpc, or anyone else who's interested:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=4898;p=57549

Defining AIDS as certain diseases plus HIV antibodies guarantees a high correlation between AIDS and HIV, so the correlational data cannot be trusted.

Raging, the HIV test is mainly for HIV antibodies, not HIV. The actual HIV is not detectable, even in patients who are dying from AIDS. That is one of the main reasons Duesberg cannot believe HIV causes AIDS.

"AZT is designed to inhibit viral DNA synthesis in persons who have antibodies to a virus that is not synthesizing DNA"

You misunderstood (possibly too lazy to read carefully?) Duesberg doesn't deny that HIV synthesizes DNA, as does any virus. He denies that HIV is synthesizing DNA in people with AIDS-related diseases. I have not seen anyone claim that HIV is active in AIDS patients. Have you? Has anyone here?

The HIV test does not look for active HIV, because it would not be found. Show me where any HIV expert has claimed otherwise. I really want to know.

realpc:

how lazy can you get?

you stated,"The HIV test does not look for active HIV, because it would not be found" and "He denies that HIV is synthesizing DNA in people with AIDS-related diseases. I have not seen anyone claim that HIV is active in AIDS patients. Have you? Has anyone here?"

see comment 172953
the sensitive PCR assay, which detects the genes of HIV directly showed that in fact the HIV virus was present and multiplying in virtually everybody with symptoms of AIDS, just as predicted by the HIV hypothesis

HIV is a RNA retrovirus - "present and multiplying" = synthesizing DNA via reverse transcriptase

If HIV AIDS has been shown, definitively, to be infectious, then Duesberg's alternatives are wrong. But that does NOT mean his objections to the HIV theory are wrong. AIDS might be infectious even if HIV is NOT the cause.

Are you familiar with the concept of viral load? How, exactly, do you think viral loads reach 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000 copies per mL of blood if the virus is not "active", not synthesizing DNA, or whatever you want to call it? And if reverse transcriptase inhibitors don't really block viral replication because the virus isn't really replicating, why do they cause very specific and very precipitous drops in HIV viral load?

"HIV synthesizes DNA, as does any virus" untrue, the vast majority of RNA viruses do not, retroviruses are almost unique in this aspect of their life cycle.

Katie,

Not everyone agrees that the HIV test measures viral load.

But I think the most important question is -- why are they giving AIDS patients anti-HIV drugs when there is not a single experimental study showing that the drugs improve the health of AIDS patients?

Don't you find that outrageous?

If I have somehow missed these studies, please inform me.

N Engl J Med. 1987 Feb 26;316(9):557-64. We review the rationale for, and progress in, the development of antiviral therapy for the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). A consideration of the replicative cycle of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) can lead to the identification of several steps that represent potential targets for antiretroviral therapy, and several substances that can inhibit the replication of HIV in vitro have already been identified. The 2',3'-dideoxynucleosides are a class of nucleoside analogues in which the 3'-hydroxy group is modified so that it cannot form phosphodiester linkages for nucleic acid chains. Some are potent in vitro inhibitors of HIV replication, possibly acting as chain terminators of viral DNA during reverse transcription. One of these dideoxynucleoside analogues, 3'-azido-2',3'-dideoxythymidine (AZT), has now been administered for up to 18 months to patients with AIDS. The drug has been shown to improve immunologic function, to reverse, at least partially, HIV-induced neurologic dysfunction in some patients, and to improve certain other clinical abnormalities associated with AIDS. The principal toxic effect associated with AZT is dose-dependent suppression of bone marrow, resulting particularly in anemia and leukopenia; however, most patients in whom this toxic effect occurs can subsequently tolerate a lower dose of the drug. The demonstration that AZT can be beneficial in patients with AIDS has removed some of the uncertainty about the rationale for an antiretroviral intervention in HIV infection.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=4898;p=57570

realpc appears to have a brain volume disorder...

realpc,you're just unbelievable,in a thread about a very human but also
very macambre and sensitive subject
how do you keep and keep and keep going,
keep repeating,evading,ignoring,lying,paraphrasing,misquoting,masquerading,repeating,...
repeating,again and again, just in one thread?

you've just excelled yourself! congratulations!

I believe many of us,pc and internet fans worldwide,
have passed a period over the internet fraking around
(ie mirc fake ids,etc) just for fun.
but usually it's just a brief period,a short impulse
that ex post facto seems boring and stupid.

phaenomenologically,therefore,the belief of yours in ID,the general denialism,
hmm, seem to be after all, maybe just symptoms.

symptoms of a desperate need of A LIFE,a cry for HELP.

if indeed it is so ,realpc,
don't be afraid,don't hesitate,don't be shy
just ask,and I'm sure you'll find a reaching hand,a loving hug,
a warm voice...in the company of god after you're dead.
after getting HIV perhaps?after all it doesn't exist,
nor has anything to do with AIDS.

sorry : macambre

"Just how hard have you been looking?"

I have looked pretty hard for a controlled study. Even if it's funded by a company that makes the drug. Nothing so far.

I did see that there have been some accelerated approvals by the FDA! The government likes those rich drug companies, I guess.

Do you guys know what "controlled study" means? I'm starting to wonder.

OK, just a couple of simple questions: If viral load tests don't measure HIV viral load, what do they measure and why? Why does the thing that they measure, whatever it is, drop specifically and precipitously upon treatment with reverse transcriptase inhibitors if it is not replicating HIV? Don't want to hear about clinical outcomes, did not ask about them.

Katie --- You do understand that realpc appears to have graduated (or maybe not yet) from MSE (Making Stuff Up)?

Here. Note "randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled". Took me 2 minutes on pubmed. Got to go do some experiments now. Where will the goalposts go next?

BACKGROUND: Ritonavir is a potent, orally bioavailable inhibitor of HIV-1 protease. We undertook an international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ritonavir in patients with HIV-1 infection and CD4-lymphocyte counts of 100 cells/microL or less, who had previously been treated with antiretroviral drugs. METHODS: 1090 patients were randomly assigned twice-daily liquid oral ritonavir 600 mg (n = 543) or placebo (n = 547) while continuing treatment with up to two licensed nucleoside agents. The primary study outcome was any first new, or specified recurrent, AIDS-defining event or death. Open-label ritonavir was provided after 16 weeks in the study to any patient who had an AIDS defining event. FINDINGS: The baseline median CD4-lymphocyte count was 18 (IQR 10-43)/microL in the ritonavir group and 22 (10-47)/microL in the placebo group. Study medication was discontinued in 114 (21.1%) ritonavir-group patients and 45 (8.3%) placebo-group patients mainly because of initial adverse symptoms. Outcomes of AIDS-defining illness or death occurred in 119 (21.9%) ritonavir-group patients and 205 (37.5%) placebo-group patients (hazard ratio 0.53 [95% CI 0.42-0.66]; log-rank p < 0.0001) during median follow-up of 28.9 weeks, with loss to follow-up of 15 (1.4%) patients. Ritonavir was then offered to all patients; at median follow-up of 51 weeks, 87 (16%) ritonavir-group patients had died of any cause versus 126 (23%) placebo-group patients (hazard ratio 0.69 [95% CI 0.52-0.91], log-rank p = 0.0072). INTERPRETATION: Although earlier intervention with combination therapy may provide much more effective treatment, ritonavir in patients with advanced disease and extensive previous antiretroviral use is safe and effective, lowers the risk of AIDS complications, and prolongs survival.

Sorry, neglected to provide citation with abstract, how silly of me.

Randomised placebo-controlled trial of ritonavir in advanced HIV-1 disease.

The Lancet, Volume 351, Issue 9102, Pages 543-549

D. Cameron et al.

I usually am good at not feeding trolls...

I have looked pretty hard for a controlled study.

Really? In Comment #972920 above, you told us that you "barely have time to search google now and then." Now you expect us to believe you looked "pretty hard" for a study? Who do you think you're kidding?

It's pretty obvious you're lying -- just like you were lying when you said you got a PhD from a "well-known American university" (which you didn't name) in a "scientific subject" (which you didn't specify).

You're an embarrassment to empty pretentious poseurs everywhere. I've heard more convincing bollocks from Lyndon LaRouche!

May I suggest that no one spend more time on this moron? He doesn't listen, lies, is lazy, MSU (makes stuff up), is totally unwilling to admit he's wrong, and he's taking up the time of the "intelligent, educated segment of society" (well, posters at PT) when you all could be doing something more productive.

Face it, realpc will never be educated, will never change his mind, and will never stop repeating his BS. Ignore him.

to continue my thoughts....

Usually, I at least enjoy the takedowns of the creationists, etc. here. Now he bores me. It's like talking to a wall.

Comment #172368 - Raven - "There is a Darwin award in here somewhere."

According to wikipedia Dr. Duesberg has volunteered to be injected with HIV to prove his point. I am beginning to think that might be a good idea.

With regard to controlled clinical trials, the first test of AZT is hard to beat. Approximately 140 patients with AIDS (or AIDS Related Complex) were given AZT therapy and another 140 were given a placebo in a double blind study. The health of both groups was monitored by an independent board. Three months before the previously scheduled end of the trial, only one patient in the treatment group died, but 19 patients in the control group died. Because of these striking results, the independent review board stopped the trial at this point and mandated that all participants be given the treatment.

This is about as clear as clinical trials get. I don't have access to the original publication here at home, but the work is summarized in this freely available review article:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=284196&blobtype=pdf

To claim that there are no controlled trials of anti-HIV drugs is ludicrous and reflects a profound ignorance of the field. It is no disgrace to be ignorant of large areas, but to be so ignorant and then impugn the integrity of very many intelligent, dedicated, hard working doctors and researchers is simply idiotic.

Comment #172968 Posted by realpc on May 1, 2007 5:48 PM (e) Katie, Not everyone agrees that the HIV test measures viral load. ...

— realpc

But I think the most important question is --- why are they giving AIDS patients anti-HIV drugs when there is not a single experimental study showing that the drugs improve the health of AIDS patients? Don't you find that outrageous? If I have somehow missed these studies, please inform me.

— realpc

Someone here claimed that anti-HIV drugs extend life by decades. No one attacked them for being a liar.

Someone else expressed faith in the drugs because bunches of AIDS patients here and there feel they are effective. No one attacked them for being unscientific and gullible.

I am looking for controlled studies that show significant long-term improvements in health and longevity. Anti-HIV drugs can seem effective for a while, but often stop working, as you know.

I will look some more on my break today.

I do appreciate the expert guidance of Katie and others. I really want to understand the HIV-AIDS situation. Yes I am a skeptic and I don't think anyone is going to benefit from the drugs long-term except the drug companies.

But I am also curious. How can some scientists deny that HIV could possibly cause AIDS, while others are have no doubt whatsoever? I have faith in the scientific method, but I don't think scientists are super-human. Just like everyone else, they want to have successful careers and to be respected. It's very hard to be respected nowdays if you don't run with the herd.

Duesberg is an interesting example. They are forced to recognize his contribution to cancer research, so it's hard to simply label him a crank and ignore all of his ideas.

There are thousands of HIV-deniers now. I strongly suspect that the HIV hypothesis will turn out to be at least partly wrong.

None of us know right now. There is still no vaccine and nothing resembling a cure. Even if the AIDS drugs do prolong life a few years, they damage the body overall.

No one attacked them for being a liar.

I really want to understand the HIV-AIDS situation

omigod

realpc the "S" in AIDS is for Syndrome

a syndrome is a cluster of symptoms that taken separately might not be indicative of a single disease

having HIV virus is part of the AIDS SYNDROME
having HIV virus doesnt mean that you actually have AIDS

that bright, well-educated people like duesberg can be simply wrong/delusional sometimes, is to be understood as a SH*T HAPPENS kind of thing ......look at jonathan wells or paul nelson for something similar

There are thousands of HIV-deniers now. I strongly suspect that the HIV hypothesis will turn out to be at least partly wrong.

Yeah, all the most respected scientists are the ones who "run with the herd." Feymann and Hawking... what conformists!

Why do I feel like I know who realPC is on another community, under a different name... his stuff sounds so familiar to me.

Say, realPC, you wouldn't happen to use the name "ankh_f_n_khonsu" over on LiveJournal, would you? You have a rather unnerving amount in common with him.

I have faith in the scientific method, but I don't think scientists are super-human. Just like everyone else, they want to have successful careers and to be respected. It's very hard to be respected nowdays if you don't run with the herd.

— realPU

QUOTE Chimpanzee societies are simpler than ours, so their level of biological complexity must be lower.

realpc i dont know if simpler is really the word youre looking for here
chimp societies arent simple they actually pass on culturally learned info

they have recently found femal chimps making and using spears in one chimp tribe