BUYING THIS BOOK WILL HELP TREAT PEOPLE WITH HIV IN AFRICA!!

BUYING THIS BOOK WILL HELP TREAT PEOPLE WITH HIV IN AFRICA!!
Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy

Seeking Stories of AIDS Denialism

Have you or someone you know been harmed by AIDS Denialism? If you, or someone you care about, have been advised to stop taking HIV meds, ignore HIV test results, purchase a 'natural' cure etc., please email me.

aidsandbehavior@yahoo.com

All information will be kept confidential.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Can Peter Duesberg be Trusted on Cancer?

This week's News Week Magazine raises questions regarding Peter Duesberg's credibility as a cancer researcher. Duesberg is best known for his AIDS Denialism. What many may not know is that Peter Duesberg maintains a small laboratory privately funded by Robert Leppo where he researches potential causes of cancer.

Peter Duesberg was among the first scientists to isolate cancer-causing genes and cancer-related retroviruses. Early in his career, Duesberg worked with other Berkeley scientists, including acclaimed molecular biologist G. Steve Martin, to discover the first cancer-causing genes—oncogenes. The Berkeley Group was among the first to demonstrate that retroviruses carry oncogenes that transform normal cells into deadly cancer cells.


Understanding the genetics of cancer brought about new and sophisticated technologies that have become critical in cancer prevention and treatment. Peter Duesberg’s work in cancer also led to his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. The citation for his membership to the Academy reads:

The first true oncogene, src, was identified and mapped by Duesberg. He also chemically mapped the entire viral genome and then duplicated these feats for three major mouse sarcoma viruses and some half-dozen avian sarcoma and leukemia viruses.

Having done important work on the genetics of cancer, Peter Duesberg made what appears to be a radical shift in his thinking in the early 1980s. To put it simply, he changed his mind about the cause of cancer. During this time, he published papers in the distinguished journals Nature and Science in which he completely dismissed the role of retroviruses and oncogenes in causing cancer.

He refuted his own contributions and criticized other cancer researchers who had embraced oncogenes as a cause of cancer, including prominent and influential researchers such as J. Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus, whose work on oncogenes— just across the bay, at the University of California San Francisco—led to a Nobel Prize in 1989.

Duesberg shifted his view of cancer toward a theory proposed by the German scientist Theodor Boveri (1862–1915), who in 1914 proposed that chromosomal mutations, not gene mutations, collectively called Aneuploidy are the cause of cancer. Aneuploidy is the name given to cells that develop an abnormal number of chromosomes.

Aneuploidy can result from exposure to environmental toxins including radiation, chemicals, and other carcinogens. Duesberg takes the extreme position that Aneuploidy is not the effect of cancer, but rather the opposite; that Aneuploidy resulting from life style is the sole cause of all cancers.

Duesberg simply extended his new view that viruses do not cause cancer to also explain AIDS.
The question is, can we trust Peter Duesberg’s cancer research? Duesberg blatantly ignores science to propagate his belief that HIV does not cause AIDS. He cherry picks research results for the sake of argument. Duesberg uses every trick in the denialst playbook to distort reality regarding HIV causing AIDS. Can Peter Duesberg be at once an AIDS denialist and a trusted cancer scientist? Should we forget about the harm he has caused to people affected by AIDS, including his role in promoting AIDS denialism in South Africa?

New Insights from an Old Student

In contemplating Peter Duesberg’s credibility on cancer, insight can be gained from a former student’s reflections on his time with Duesberg. Respected neuroscientist Samuel Pfaff recently shared his experiences as Duesberg’s student at Berkeley in the article “Making the Most of Opportunities and Challenges” by science writer Robin Mejia.

When neuroscientist Samuel Pfaff was a postdoc at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, he and his future wife often visited her family in Pasadena, California. On one of those visits, the couple decided to take a side trip to San Diego. As they drove down Torrey Pines Road, he saw the Salk Institute for Biological Studies perched on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean.

"I still have a really vivid memory," Pfaff says. "I remember thinking, "Anyone who runs a lab there has to be one of the luckiest people in the world. They must have the perfect career.' "
Today, many would say almost the exact same thing about Pfaff. The scientist doesn't just have a lab at the Salk Institute: He sits in Jonas Salk's former office--or part of it at least; the office has been subdivided--next to Salk's favorite window, which features a removable glass pane that Pfaff takes out some days to let in the sea breeze.

Pfaff's life may look charmed from the outside, but his path to the Salk Institute presented a mix of opportunities and challenges, occurring, often as not, when they were least expected. The first time he saw the building that has since become his scientific home, he was recovering from a difficult graduate experience at the University of California (UC), Berkeley: It was the late 1980s, and his graduate adviser, the renowned virologist Peter Duesberg, had become an outspoken skeptic of the then-new proposition that HIV causes AIDS. Pfaff recalls that he and Duesberg were barely on speaking terms by the time Pfaff finished his Ph.D. Pfaff was uncertain whether he would be able to find the kind of independent research position he sought.

Early promise, early challenges

Raised in Rochester, Minnesota, Pfaff discovered his affinity for science early. When he was in high school, a teacher suggested he talk to a neuroscientist at the Mayo Clinic, which led to Pfaff's first position in a biology lab. "I started as a volunteer. I'd go straight from school," he says. "For somebody my age, it was just an incredible opportunity to be involved in making discoveries."

From Rochester, Pfaff went to Carleton College in Northfield, 40 miles from home. Although research options were limited at Carleton, he confirmed his love of science there and discovered developmental biology. He was thrilled when, in 1983, UC Berkeley accepted him as a graduate student. And after a series of rotations, he settled into Duesberg's lab, where he hoped to learn microbiology.

"He was truly a hotshot at that particular stage of his career," Pfaff recalls. "He was well-funded, maybe one of the best-funded labs [at Berkeley]. His students were publishing lots of papers, going to great postdocs." When he first arrived there, Pfaff found Duesberg inspirational, devoted to science, and always at the bench. Pfaff was working in Duesberg's lab when he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986.

Then, Pfaff says, things started to change. Duesberg became more and more critical of other scientists and, particularly, of research being done on HIV and AIDS. In 1987, Duesberg published a paper arguing that HIV is harmless. He maintains that position today; it's one that's made him a scientific pariah.

Being Duesberg's student at the time the senior scientist was staking that position was a challenge. "He was losing the respect of other scientists. I wondered what that would mean for me," Pfaff recalls. "[At scientific meetings], I remember the feeling of embarrassment telling people this is the lab I work in and fearing they wouldn't come to my poster, thinking I'd talk about HIV and AIDS, when my research had nothing to do with it."

He says lab meetings became difficult to stomach and that, being both young and stubborn, he probably didn't handle his disagreements with Duesberg very gracefully. "There was, I'm sure, a lot of body language on my part that he didn't appreciate. ... I just sort of stopped talking to him. Even though we might be standing right next to each other [at the bench], we'd be trying not to acknowledge each other. Looking back, I'm not proud of my behavior," he says. "I just wanted to do enough research to finish my dissertation and get out of there."

"I think he was the least happy of my graduate students," Duesberg says. Duesberg does not recall that the two stopped speaking but concurs that it was not a successful match.

Finding his way

Given that he was trying not to speak to his adviser, Pfaff moved forward on his own. Eventually, he managed to finish his Ph.D. research and publish two papers on different oncogenes, but he was not particularly proud of the work. (He says his committee members commented that the dissertation seemed average, and he didn't disagree.) The experience left him drained. He wasn't ready to give up on a career in science, but he felt certain he wasn't qualified to apply for postdocs at major research institutions.

"I didn't feel I would even be considered by some of the better laboratories in the country. Maybe I had low self-esteem. I wasn't getting any career advice," he says. At that point, he and his girlfriend (now his wife) had been maintaining a long-distance relationship for 3 years while she pursued a Ph.D. at Vanderbilt University. Unsure what to do next, Pfaff decided to see if he could find a position in a lab at the school. William Taylor, a scientist there, was starting to do molecular biology in frog embryos, a system that had fascinated Pfaff as an undergrad.

Taylor recalls that he asked about Pfaff's graduate experience, but he was more interested in the young scientist's abilities than his mentor's views. "I asked and he implied that those were Peter's ideas, not his," says Taylor, now director of the Molecular Resource Center at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis. He offered Pfaff a postdoc position. "Sam was by far the brightest person in the lab," Taylor says. "It was like having another PI [principal investigator] in the lab; it was amazing."

For Pfaff, the time in Taylor's lab was a chance to work with a mentor who took an interest in his research and his career. "It gave me a chance to reestablish myself in science," he explains. By the time his wife finished her Ph.D., Pfaff's project was wrapping up, but he still felt unable to compete for the kind of position he dreamed of. "I thought I could probably be considered for positions where my primary position would be teaching and I could maybe dabble in science," he recalls.

At about that time, a mutual friend introduced Pfaff to Thomas Jessell, a neuroscientist at Columbia University. Jessell says he felt Pfaff had picked up useful virology skills in Duesberg's lab regardless of Duesberg's position on AIDS. Pfaff's work in Taylor's lab showed that the young scientist "could work on problems in a rigorous way," says Jessell, now Claire Tow Professor of neuroscience, biochemistry and molecular biophysics and co-director of Columbia's Kavli Institute for Brain Science. "I think I just got the idea that Sam was very competent." It didn't hurt that Pfaff brought microbiology skills that Jessell needed at the time. He offered Pfaff a postdoc.

"When I went to Jessell's lab, I knew it was just an incredible opportunity, and I also knew it was my last chance if I was going to stay in research science," Pfaff recalls. Pfaff again switched systems, helping Jessell's lab start doing mouse genetics. His work on how the selective expression of LIM homeobox genes regulates the development of neurons in the embryonic spinal cord helped set the stage for future research in Jessell's lab and, later, Pfaff's own. "It was our first real foray into gene targeting," Jessell says. "I think it made it clear that [the problem] was approachable."

Independence

As that project came to an end, Pfaff finally felt ready to apply for the kind of research positions he'd been thinking about since high school. He received offers from "about a half-dozen institutions," he says.

The Salk Institute didn't offer the biggest financial package, but it did offer the La Jolla bluffs. Even more important, it offered a collegial environment and colleagues Pfaff could envision as future collaborators. He accepted the offer, and in 2005 he cleared the last hurdle, becoming full professor there. In 2008, he was named a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator. He continues to study the fetal development of the spinal cord.

Pfaff says he hasn't spoken with Duesberg since he left Berkeley, and Duesberg says he hasn't had any new graduate students in his lab since he began arguing against the link between HIV and AIDS. Pfaff says his experience in the lab at Berkeley has shaped how he runs his own lab today: He considers mentoring a key component of his job.

"I tell students, 'There will be some point in your career where things will not be optimal.
You'll have to deal with some aspect of disappointment,' " he says, noting that it's easy to do good work when everything's going well. "You're defined by what you do when you encounter challenges."

147 comments:

  1. The quote at the end of the Newsweek piece is as close as I've ever seen Duesberg come to acknowledging what he has done.

    "The whole dissident idea attracts a lot of crazies," he says, his voice trailing off into a sigh. "And then all of a sudden, without realizing it, you've become one of them."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I feel the Newsweek article proves that Duesberg's self destructive personality has far greater consequences that affect so many others than just HIV patients.
    Per this article, it seems Aneuploidy may be a very important link in understanding cancer. But because Duesberg cannot at least let go of his error on HIV, even without admitting he was wrong, then his anueploidy research is dismissed for 20 years thus causing distress and perhaps death to millions of cancer patients who could have benefitted from that research. But because he was too stubborn and egomaniacal to let go of AIDS, he was summarily dismissed on aneuploidy as well.
    Even if he is proven correct on anueploidy it is no help to the millions who could have benefitted from that research within the past 20 years. Thanks Big D!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  3. For me the key point is that we cannot trust Peter Duesberg on anything. He shows no respect of the scientific process. How can we say he seeks the truth about cancer while propagating lies about AIDS? That last sentence in the Newsweek article is quite telling.

    Duesberg is a flawed character. He is damaged goods. I saw the same Duesberg that the Newsweek reporter saw in Oakland. Her description of the man is right on spot.

    A dimension to Duesberg that I think warrants attention is how he has been exploited by a band of conspiracy thinkers, psychopaths, cranks, and frauds. That will be another aspect of this story worth telling.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Crowe posted the following on the Newsweek story. He has decompensated to the point where his paranoia is completely uncontained.

    "Duesberg's refusal to recant has cost him his career - no consulting contracts, no paid speaking engagements, difficulty publishing, no government or pharmaceutical grants, no grad students.

    His critics have all the perks, privileges, prestige and money that comes with being part of a well-funded establishment.

    Who you gonna believe?"

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The whole dissident idea attracts a lot of crazies," he says, his voice trailing off into a sigh. "And then all of a sudden, without realizing it, you've become one of them."

    Is David Crowe one of the crazies Duesberg is referring to?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Duesberg is unwilling to admit he is wrong about HIV, jtdeshong? And restore his career and perks? When he was willing to give up the same to say he was wrong about retroviruses and oncogenes?

    Duesberg grew up in Germany under Hitler. He saw the many go along with the consensus. Maybe only afterward did he find out about the few who had stood up for what was right - and did not at all get rewarded at the time for their stand; much the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  7. First, Anonymous, you are so certain of your opinion you do not write your name. Quite courageous of you.
    Next, Deusberg is so noble that you say he is the opposite of Hitler. Perhaps he is more like Hitler in that he is too egomaniacal in his "version" of integrity to admit that he actually has no integrity at all. Hitler thought he was superior to Jews just as Duesberg thinks he is superior to every other scientist in the world. Yep, I think that is the better comparison.
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous,
    Sadly for Duesy all the evidence points to him being wrong about retroviruses not being able to cause cancer. He was on the right track with his prior work before he went nutty. Sadly when you go down an irrational path like he did logic and evidence no longer mean anything. That things other than aneuploidy can cause cancer is well known. Heck, I recall a paper in which just the src gene was inserted in normal cells which then became immortalized (cancer). This doesn't follow Duesy's aneuploidy-only idea. That he would cling to it shows how far he's gone. So no, it is not likely that reason would guide him to admit he was wrong about HIV.

    ReplyDelete
  9. JTD,

    The reason why Duesberg's cancer research has been ignored for the past twenty years is because of people's general inability to seperate the message from the messenger and in this case the science from the scientist. Duesberg's research is ignored because the world CHOOSES to ignore it. Don't blame him for it, blame the scientific community at large. This blog alone plays a vital role in causing Duesberg's cancer research to go ignored and if I remember correctly, it was Seth who not too long ago poo-pooed Deuseberg's Aneuploidy research.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Denial runs deep at this blog.

    Welcome to LaLa Land.

    Noreen has discovered that the immune system does not protect us against disease and if only we live a clean and nutritious life, No AIDS. No worries. Her personal experience in rural South Carolina negates 3 decades of medical science.

    Good for you Noreen, good for you.

    And this anonymous guy thinks the virus is THE virus, like one sole lonely particle rather than millions that bring you down to 61 T-Cells.

    Put the two above comments together and you get the dangerous side of AIDS Denial.

    I have known plenty of people with 0 T-cells.

    But none for more than 1 year.

    And since I have read about Christine Maggiore's fraudulent 'HIV tests' portrayed in the AIDS Denial movie House of Numbers, I do not believe any of these denialist's 'medical lab reports.'

    Who was the AIDS Expert that Maggiore saw and told her that her initial test was not positive?

    Was that Duesberg or Rasnick?

    Who is running Noreen's labs? Some large animal vet in Orangeberg? Henry Bauer, perhaps?

    Tell the world there is no HIV - stop taking drugs and live a clean life - no worries.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's worth contrasting Samuel Pfaff's experience as Duesberg's student with that of Bryan Ellison.

    In contrast to Pfaff, Ellison was pulled completely into the pseudoscience and conspiracy theories of HIV Denial. A large part of his time as a PhD candidate appear to have been spent writing Denialist articles and co-writing Duesberg's Denialist book rather than doing actual research. This in and of itself was an abuse of the role of PhD supervisor. Then the saga took a tragicomic turn.

    The intended publishers for Duesberg's book wanted to soften (ie correct) some of the most blatant false claims in the book. Duesberg and his creationist buddy Phillip Johnson wanted to agree to the changes. Ellison refused and unilaterally got the book published with a different publisher. This caused a rift between the supervisor and student with Ellison moving further and further in to mor e and more bizarre conspiracy theories where even Duesberg was in on it too! Duesberg launched a legal suit against Ellison and terminated his PhD canditature. Ellison subsequently joined an Hasidic conspiracy theory sect.

    Can anyone else think of a more effective way to stop getting PhD students?

    I don't buy the excuse that Ellison was just a crazy person. Duesberg is directly responsible for the crazies that he surrounds himself with. He's responsible when he appears with David Crowe, Gary Null, Robert Scott Bell and all the other fruit cakes he associates with.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Seth
    Michael Geiger has posted the following at the Newsweek comments. Why don't you respond to him?

    "The most laughable words of AIDS GURU 3rd Rate psych professor Seth Kalichman: "They are old ideas that never gained support, and so, they are not a part of science".

    Such words are very telling of Kalichman's own scientific ignorance. Continental drift, Darwins theory of evolution, and many other now completely accepted scientific theories were also rejected for many years. Yet Newsweek deems that Kalichman the psych professor is the one with sufficient understanding of microbiology and retrovirology and to somehow know that HIV is the cause of aids, and therefore Dr. Duesberg and the ever growing numbers of dissident scientists, researchers, and doctors must be wrong. How utterly and completely laughable."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous

    Thanks for posting Michael Geiger’s comments here. Truth is Michael Geiger is more of a victim of AIDS Denialism than most people realize. He has lost close friends to AIDS, some were partners so we can only suspect he may have been at risk. To my knowledge he has not been tested since potential exposure. AIDS denialism is an escape for those who have tested HIV+, like Christine Maggiore, Noreen Martin, and Ms. Stokely. But we should not forget that denialism also allows people at risk to deny their risk. I also have no need for a back and forth with Geiger. He has expressed negative feelings about mental health professionals in the past. Seems like he has had some bad experiences. I believe he once shared when psychologists tried to help him but failed. Finally, in the scheme of things he does not influence people like Duesberg does. In the end, it is just sad.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sethy, Sethy, Sethy!

    You have it all wrong, baby boy. Perhaps you should consider applying your psych knowledge to the emotional impact on gay men of such as that more than 20% of the citizenry still believe that AIDS is a punishment for homosexuals by god.

    The Pew Trust did a survey back in 2007 that showed 23% STILL believe this. http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=311

    Meanwhile, the gay children of these 20 percent still often grow up to be stigmatized, despised by their families, friends, and churches, and thereby emotionally stressed out by their sexuality, and therefore made physically ill by the chronic emotional stress directly due to such condemnations of their very being by those who should love and accept them the most, exactly as they are.

    The good news is that homophobia and its lack of acceptance for gays is indeed slowly but steadily declining and eroding away. As gays become more and more accepted in society, and as more societal tolerance and equality is demanded by and given to gays, there will undoubtedly be less and less gays who carry personally internalized death wishes and intense self loathing shame and guilt and fear and the intensity of internalized negativity that ultimately results for many gays in self destructive behaviors as well as in physical illness from the chronic stress of internalizing such painful negative emotionality.

    So, please Seth, please put on your thinking cap for a change, and get to the source of the issue of why gay men were both very self destructive as well as physically ill. You already in your own work clearly showed that stress creates illness, so get to the point already, of how homophobia and hatred for gays, and the intense emotional pain and stress caused by it, was really what was, and often still is, at the core and source of the nearly the entirety of the aids epidemic here in the US!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Michael, your logic is a bit hard to follow.

    Are you saying your friends, the ones you cared for, died of collapsed immune systems caused by homophobia?

    Are you saying that all of those gay men who lived 'clean lifestyles' and died of AIDS were stressed?

    And what of those gay men who did not life the clean life of Peter Duesberg and also have not died of AIDS?

    The infants throughout the world who have died of collapsed immune systems...which self-destructive behaviors are they guilty of?

    Can you show me where I(or anyone else) ever did a study showing that stress causes the selective depletion of CD4/T-cells?

    Are Africans dying of homophobia?

    Does this sound like a broken record? (you and I are old enough to know what records were)

    And Michel, what do you think Peter meant when he told Newsweek...“The whole dissident idea attracts a lot of crazies. And then all of a sudden, without realizing it, you've become one of them."

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Are you saying your friends, the ones you cared for, died of collapsed immune systems caused by homophobia"?

    First of all, Seth, most of those I personally cared for were stressed out by many things, quite often beginning with the self loathing shame and guilt of being gay, but later most particularly chronically and intensely stressed by the diagnosis of death by HIV that was given to them. Those who died nearly all died from being first of all weakened by stress, then finished off by the toxicities of the medications, particularly AZT.

    "Are you saying that all of those gay men who lived 'clean lifestyles' and died of AIDS were stressed?"

    Yes, the very diagnosis of early death by aids creates chronic stress in many of them, and most of the ones who succumbed were indeed those who had been rejected or put down by or stressed out by the families rejection of them for being gay.

    "And what of those gay men who did not live the clean life of Peter Duesberg and also have not died of AIDS?"

    I don't know what you are asking me here, please clarify in plain english.

    "The infants throughout the world who have died of collapsed immune systems...which self-destructive behaviors are they guilty of?"

    Surely you understand that even infants can become completely stressed out. Or are you talking about the ones who died from drug toxicities such as Christine Maggiore's daughter? By the way, I myself have no doubt that children often pick up the stress from their caretaker. EJ was wrapped around Christine's shoulder 24/7, and prior to EJ getting ill, Christine herself was very stressed out as well. I have no doubt the child picked up on Christine's stress. How could she not have done so?

    "Can you show me where I(or anyone else) ever did a study showing that stress causes the selective depletion of CD4/T-cells?"

    You are as capable of finding the many studies that link lowering of CD4 cells to stress as I am. If you need to, then simply google "chronic stress" and "CD4", or "chronic stress" and "thymus gland", since the thymus gland is where CD4 cells are matured and released (except in many cases of intense chronic stress).

    "Are Africans dying of homophobia?"

    I would not doubt that some are, but surely you are smart enough to know that living in abject poverty with no job, no money, no future, very poor diet, poor drinking water, etc, is more than enough stress to make anyone ill, particularly if they are trying to take care of starved screaming infants who are playing in the sewer that runs beside their shanty with flys flying from their feces onto their meagre food supply.


    "Does this sound like a broken record? (you and I are old enough to know what records were)"

    Yes indeed, I still have a wonderful record collection, and much prefer it to many digital recordings. Much warmer sound, I think.

    "And Michel, what do you think Peter meant when he told Newsweek...“The whole dissident idea attracts a lot of crazies. And then all of a sudden, without realizing it, you've become one of them."

    Perhaps you should ask him for clarification on this matter yourself, Seth, as when I read it, I thought him to be saying it facetiously, not literally. He often jokes around quite facetiously, and still has a wonderful sense of humor.

    ReplyDelete
  17. By the way, Seth, my dear psych friend, I am not quite understanding your own logic.

    Are you saying that being disowned by your family for being gay, or being told that you are going to hell for being gay has no impact on any individuals internalized stress level?

    Are you saying that the impoverished in Africa do not suffer intense stress levels?

    Are you saying that stress has no bearing on immune system health?

    Are you saying that chronic stress doesn't suppress immune function?

    I really do find your logic a bit difficult to follow, particularly since your own papers warned hiv positives that higher incidences of actual illness followed from stress. Are you now retracting that?

    Love and kisses,

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  18. Michael, perhaps you can share with us how it is that two HEAL San Diego members, Jerry Colinard and Sandi Lenfestey, have died so far this year.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I personally feel very, very sorry for Geiger. He has demonstrated time and again that he is a one note song. And "Stress" is old, tired and devoid of beat, rhythm and melody.
    If I were a friend of Geigers, I would be very embarassed for him and angry about the way the describes his dearly departed friends. They were obviously very weak both mentally and physically if stress killed them. OR, they probably just faked their deaths to get away from his belligerent, know~it~all, blow hard personality.
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  20. I see Michael is still promoting his "homophobia=stress=AIDS" hypothesis.

    Funny how there's a large group of gay people who seem to be virtually immune to getting AIDS unless they have other risk factors like injecting drug use.

    They're called "lesbians". Apparently they don't count as gays in Michael's peculiar little world, and never suffer the same homophobia-related stresses that "real" gays suffer...

    Last time I asked Michael about the low rates of AIDS in this little known subgroup in the gay community, he told me that it was because lesbians don't get the same range of STIs that gay males get.

    I found this an intriguing and possibly insightful thought. Has anyone ever checked out the hypothesis that AIDS might be somehow related to a sexually transmissible agent of some kind?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Michael, perhaps you can share with us how it is that two HEAL San Diego members, Jerry Colinard and Sandi Lenfestey, have died so far this year".

    I will be more than glad to share that with you, because I myself had personally witnessed their own self destruction.

    Jerry Colinard was a very high strung person who managed to be such a vociferous dissident that he alienated all of his friends. Most of his friends were also hiv positives, and Jerry made it his mission in life to attempt to convert them. Such behavior cost him their friendships, and left many of his friends no longer willing to talk or be around him. As time went on, Jerry became very depressed and withdrawn and lonely. I myself had not seen him in the last year of his life, but I could well enough tell that he was stressed out, depressed, angry, and upset every time I did see him before he secluded himself and dropped out of life and got ill. I myself told Jerry repeatedly that there was much more to being healthy than simply not taking aids drugs. That good health begins with good mental and emotional health. Unfortunately, I am not god, and even I cannot save people from themselves.

    And for Sandi Lenfesti.... When Sandi's son became diagnosed, Sandi went into a panic, along with her husband. Sandi took the dissident tact, and her husband demanded the kid be taken to an aids doc. Sandi was terrified that the kid would suffer or even possibly die from the side effects, and did all she could to keep from doing so. However, she ended up taking on her husband, the aids docs, the county government, and many of her friends. Soon, she found herself alienated by most of the people she knew, including her husband. They went through a very angry and traumatic divorce. During the divorce and custody hearings, Sandi was painted as a nutcase denialist, even though she herself had lived more than 20 years without aids drugs. After which Sandi was not even permitted to see her children except for a couple of hours a week, and only with a court appointed supervisor that Sandi had to pay for. Sandy's husband was absolutely abusive to her, and left her destitute. She became obsessed with getting her kids back, and failed. She became more and more emotionally distraught and grieved, and apathetic, and eventually quit even eating. Not too long after that, she became ill. Finally when Christine died, Sandi finally lost all will to live. She died a week after Christine did.

    Again, I myself had personally discussed all of this with her, and told her how destructive her anger and grief were, and urged her to get help. She did not do so, and slowly turned into more and more of a stressed out emotional wreck until she too died. Not of aids, of a broken heart.

    Thanks for asking.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  22. Snout said: "Last time I asked Michael about the low rates of AIDS in this little known subgroup in the gay community, he told me that it was because lesbians don't get the same range of STIs that gay males get."

    Ohhh really Snout? And just where did I tell you that, and just exactly what all did I tell you that you have either forgotten or failed to now share on the subject of why Lesbians seldom get aids?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Lesbians, as far as I know, are not exposed to all of the pathogens that gay men are. After all, I know of no lesbian bathhouses nor have I ever seen a lesbian at a bathhouse."

    "Lesbians, other than common herpes, also have far fewer std infections than gay men, and therefore also have far fewer treatments with antibiotics for repeated syph, gono, etc."


    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2008/12/christine_maggiore_dies_from_p.php#comment-1297279

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mind you, your comment about about lesbians and STIs was almost two years after you promised to give up trolling the web with your denialist delusions if Mrs Eleopulos-Papadopulos and Dr Turner lost the Parenzee hearing:

    "What I will do in the case that the appeal is turned down....

    "I will agree to shut up eternally on the dissident issue and I will refrain from ever again posting any dissident beliefs on this or any other site, and furthermore, I will take up arms with the opposing side, and I will henceforward be twice as determined to espouse only the establishment views."



    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/02/hivs_dover.php#comment-349709

    ReplyDelete
  25. I don't plan on returning to this site, but I did want to leave a brief comment. There is only one thing that actually matters here, and that is the truth about what AIDS is, and how to keep people from dying of it. So all this bickering, and divisiveness, and calling people morons (yes, you, Dr. Kalichman), etc., does not matter at all, makes you all look stupid, and obstructs the one conversation that needs to happen. In fact, everything offered here is fairly useless, for the reason that it does not directly address the truth, instead focusing on the politics and prestige of who is right or wrong. We need science, open minds, and good common sense. The egos can stay at home!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks Alex.

    I should clarify that this is my authors' blog for the book Denying AIDS. The focus is on AIDS Denialism, pseudoscience, and those who propagate myths about AIDS. It is not a site for the science on AIDS. I would refer you to the AIDS Truth website for AIDS science that directly addresses denialism.

    There is no debate about whether HIV causes AIDS, or about the validity of HIV tests, or about the effectiveness of HIV treatments. AIDS scientists debate many issues and questions, but the issues raised by AIDS Denialists were settled years ago.

    I try to refrain from calling people names. I know I am not always successful. An aim of this blog is to expose AIDS deniers for who they are and what they are up to.

    So thanks for coming by, even if just this once.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Seth,

    As to your question: "what do you think Peter meant when he told Newsweek...“The whole dissident idea attracts a lot of crazies. And then all of a sudden, without realizing it, you've become one of them."

    I did ask Peter what was meant by this, and his response was a classic Peter response:

    "Geiger, Could you please ask the damsel, who wrote the piece, what she meant. I am curious too.

    Peter

    ReplyDelete
  28. Snout, you're awesome!

    Mikey, for someone who accuses others of saying "lalalalalalalalaaaaa- I can't hear youuuuu" I sure see you doing a lot of that yourself. Really!? You can't figure out why lesbians would have a much lower rate of HIV than male homosexuals? Really, Mikey? I realize it has probably been a long time since you've had to consider the inner workings of a woman's nether regions but it isn't exactly rocket science here.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This is ridiculous.
    Everyone knows that Lesbians experience greater acceptance from their families than Gay men. And everyone knows that no kids except Gay kids are rejected by their families.

    The stress that Gay men experience is unique and that is why they get AIDS.

    Plus, we all know from reading Henry Bauer's work (that would be his AIDS book not his Loch Ness Monster book) that women have a different immune system than men. Another reason why Lesbians do not get AIDS. Not to mention the race difference in immune systems that Dr. Bauer talks about. Everyone knows that Black Lesbians do not get more AIDS than White Lesbians but the difference is genetic. I am sure Dr. Duesberg would deny a genetic basis, He would also sure joke that there is a Homogene...but he is not any more homophobic than he is racist...he is just a funny kinda guy.

    Lets stick to the facts!

    ReplyDelete
  30. The clip posted at Newsweek was phenomenal! I know you must be passionate about the work you do and it was extremely apparent in the clip. The millions of people who have died and that are still fighting are gracious to you for speaking out on the issue. It's amazing that even with proven facts denial still exists and can be spoon fed to those who are trying to understand HIV/AIDS.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Michael, you are so predictable. Here you are AGAIN speaking for people! I just love, love, love the way you are so pathological that you just can not help yourself.
    You admit to not having seen this Jerry person in the last year of his life, but you know what killed him.
    And with Sandi, you paint an incredibly sad, pathetic picture of a person who is beyond insane! Eventhough she is losing her kids, she holds onto that typical denialist attitude: "I am 100% right and EVERYONE else is wrong." Can you not see just how sad, destructive and deadly your strange, archaic little world is? Denialism is just lies blinded by ego. How many more of your friends deaths' have to stare you in the face before you get a grip on reality?
    You do know there are other women (and men) out there who have gone thru just this exact same divorce/losing kids scenario and did NOT die from the stress, right? Nah, I doubt you can admit that.
    Geiger, you really do display a very pathologic, sad personality that probably runs off more of your friends than Jerry ran off. Why not take a look at the parallels of your life with Jerry's and make some adjustments?
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  32. What is the HIV virus you mention in the video? Is it similar to HIV?

    ReplyDelete
  33. ImMikiesBoner,

    Don't forget that in the UK more parents disown their heterosexual sons than their homosexual sons. After all only that can explain why heterosexuals are the majority of HIV+ in the UK (link courtesy of JT). Darn those British heterophobes!

    ReplyDelete
  34. I will be more than glad to share that with you, because I myself had personally witnessed their own self destruction.

    Isn't HIV Denialism a wonderful cult?

    You lose your non Denialist friends, spouses, children. Eventually you only have fellow Denialists for company.

    If you have the misfortune to progress to AIDS and die your former "friends" will then come up with ad hoc excuses for why you died that involve you secretly taking poppers or alcohol or ART, or Geiger's favourite blame-the-victim, you wanted to be ill and die.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Here's a great clip by Montagnier on Youtube, explaining why HIV CAN be harmless, and why tests and drugs are sometimes a mistake:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKyIBYKoT20

    ReplyDelete
  36. Bill,
    The problem with that is 1) we don't know the full context of the conversation, 2) we are not given an explanation by Montagnier as to what he meant. All we are given is a short, cherry-picked quote without context that is put in the movie in an attempt to validate the maker's denial.

    Can a person be exposed to HIV and clear it out? Think about this logically. An average of only 1 in 200 needle sticks transmit the virus in such a way that it takes hold in the immune system. Not every sexual act with an HIV infected individual leads to transmission of the virus. Makes sense to say that if you are lucky that your immune system will clear the virus out. The problem is that this has to happen before the virus has a chance to take hold in the body. I suspect that it was to this that Montagnier was referring.

    Now before you go off on an ill-informed tangent and claim that this is something only the super-special HIV can do and thus it shows that it is all a plot by "Teh Manz' to blah blah blah, you should know that such risks on exposure is NOT unusual or limited to HIV. Other blood-borne, sexually transmitted diseases also act similarly. Take the HepC virus. Not every needle stick with HepC-infected blood leads to infection. Not every sexual act with a HepC infected person leads to transmission of the virus. As with just about ANY other virus, if the immune response is sufficient, the virus can be cleared out before it takes hold in the body (for example with HIV, establishing reservoirs). A week ago the TV show "Trauma: Life in the ER" followed a doctor at Vanderbilt Medical Center who had accidentally cut himself with a scalpel covered in the blood of a HepC+ gunshot victim during surgery. Since he was lucky and did not contract HepC, does this mean HepC is a harmless virus?

    What is silly is when denialists with little or no education in biology or, more specifically, virology, make these wild claims that HIV is so special. HIV is a virus. HIV behaves the way many other viruses do. Many viruses can escape the immune system and establish a permanent, chronic infection in the body despite vigorous antibody production (Herpes Simplex, HepC, HepB, Epstein Barr, ect...). Many viruses do not currently have vaccines (Herpes Simplex, Epstein Barr, most retroviruses). Most viruses (none that I can think of, actually) are not 100% transmissible. Many viruses affect different populations disproportionately, be they by gender, orientation, race, ect... and so on and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Bill,
    there is plenty of evidence that people exposed to HIV can generate a strong immune response and clear the virus within days or weeks.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC509124/

    The evidence that anyone with an established persistent HIV infection can clear the virus is virtually non-existent.

    If Denialists really believe this is possible then where are all the HIV+ Denialists who have cleared the virus?

    If it is simply a matter of good nutrition then why haven't all Denialists cleared the virus?

    The simple truth is that people like Jack Levine, who follow the Denialist recommendations, eat well, avoid "toxins" etc, still remain infected, still progress to AIDS and still die.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sounds more like Montagnier describing his hopes for therapeutic vaccination. This is from his editorial in the Wall Street Journal last year:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455090257552591.html

    "The objective is to make the infected patient's immune system fully competent, after only partial restoration by an antiretroviral treatment reducing the viral load in the blood to undetectable levels. But some infectious particles will persist in the blood. We should analyze the nature of such particles and look for their origin. At the same time, the immune system should be fully restored by proper adjuvants.

    We can then begin vaccination using genetically manipulated viral antigens. Thereafter, antiretroviral therapy is stopped. If the vaccination has succeeded in reprogramming the immune responses (humoral and cellular) against HIV, there will be no rebound of virus multiplication and signs of its presence will disappear. If the vaccine fails, virus multiplication will resume and antivirals should be given again.

    We want to extend what Mother Nature bestows upon a few lucky individuals (infection without disease) to a majority of patients. This will remove the burden of life-long drug therapy and prevent the HIV infection from evolving into disease."

    It's sort of interesting that Leung seems to swallow the word "nutrition." I don't think they'd mind if Montagnier got bent out of shape, they could use the publicity.

    ReplyDelete
  39. What surprises me is that the subject of studies like that one (from 1998 no less) seem to be brand spanking new revelations to denialists. It just goes to show how little research people like Bill do on their own. Bill, if you are at the very least 11 years behind the curve (and it seems from other comments you made that you are a good decade or more even further back) perhaps you should take some virology courses? Maybe, as I ahve suggested to other denialists, you should go to a local college and take some basic biology and then follow it up with immunology and virology. Things may make much more sense to you without the need for a giant conspiracy if you did this.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Bill
    Can you explain what Dr. Montagnier meant when he wrote...

    "The treatment by combined antiretroviral therapy has, without doubt, changed the prognosis of this lethal disease, from death condemnation to an almost “normal” life. However, the virus is still there, ready to multiply when the treatment is interrupted, and not all HIV-infected patients of the developing world have access to it! And the epidemic still
    kills 2–3 million people each year. There is, therefore, an absolute necessity to resolve these problems, and basic research, as well as clinical research, has to be continued."

    From Montagnier (2009) 25 Years after HIV Discovery: Prospects for Cure and
    Vaccine (Nobel Lecture). Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 5815 – 5826

    ReplyDelete
  41. Why are you morons asking me questions?

    Luc Montagnier won the Nobel Prize. Gallo didn't, because he was a fraud. Here's the transcript:

    Dr. Luc Montagnier: “We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system.”

    Interviewer (Brent Leung): If you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?

    Dr. Luc Montagnier: Yes.

    Interviewer: If you take a poor African, who’s been infected and you build up their immune system, is it possible for them to also naturally get rid of it?

    Dr. Luc Montagnier: I would think so.

    Interviewer: That’s an important…

    Dr. Luc Montagnier: It’s important knowledge which is completely neglected. People always think of drugs and vaccine.

    Interviewer: There is no money in nutrition, right?

    Dr. Luc Montagnier: There is no profit, yes.

    It speaks for itself. You have ignored nutrition and have focused way too much on drugs and vaccines, because you are not scientists, but unwitting dupes.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Billy, Billy Billy. First off let me correct two things.

    First, there is LOTS of money in nutrition. If you need proof of this simply look at your buddy Rath or Null or any of the legions of supplement companies.

    Secondly, it is possible that if one could build up an individual's immune system to be like those of, say the women in the study Chris cited, that those exposed would not get infected. The question is how to do that and what factors are needed. This is an area of research that is ongoing. Unfortunately there is NO evidence showing that simply giving people good nutrition will magically make AIDS go away and never come back. Are you suggesting that the prostitutes in Nairobi (see Chris' link) somehow have better nutrition than the others around them?

    The problem with Montagnier's quote is that it has no real context as he is not given the screen time to explain what he means by "building up the immune system". I suspect he took for granted that the idiot interviewing him would know what he meant.

    Lastly, look at your little transcript. Who brings up the topic of nutrition? Was it Montagnier or Leung? Did Montagnier actually say that nutrition would make AIDS go away or are you inferring this because it is what you already believe?

    Again, that certain people can be exposed and never infected has been known for a long time now. Why are you suddenly now acting like this is something new? Do you read anything about AIDS that isn't on denialist sites?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Lol!

    In this corner, we have Nobel Prize winning scientist, Dr. Luc Montagnier, discussing the importance of naturally clearing HIV, and the misplaced focus of drugs and vaccines.

    In the other corner, we have......an anonymous 20-something year old internet troll, Poodle Stomper.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Also, here's a nice, important debate in the UK about AIDS, in connection with House of Numbers.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/shop/events/5402473/spectator-debate-a-world-without-aids.thtml

    Dr. Joseph Sonnabend is the key. He really was the first to question the viral theory of AIDS, because he was actually treating the afflicted in New York, and saw that the small segment of gay men were abusing themselves with drugs, just like the straights in the hippie drug culture in the 70's. Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll was sure fun, but there were some casualities.

    For gays, the homophobia and sex angle screwed it up all the logical medical inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Bill
    You should be nicer. We are all trying to help you.
    See above quote for Montagnier out of denial. and for Sonnabend, see
    http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/sonnabend

    Please do not post again until you read these and reconcile how they do not jive with what you have pointed out. Be a realist.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Dr. Joseph Sonnabend is the key"

    http://www.gmhc.org/health/treatment/ti/ti1911.html#3

    If Joe Sonnabend shows up in time to see the film, he's going to eviscerate Brent Leung. I'm also hoping he'll share some of what he heard Charles Geshekter saying about African women during the Mbeki AIDS panel debacle.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Bill, Montagnier and Sonnabend bott publicly state that HIV causes AIDS and that ARVs are an effective treatment for HIV infection and AIDS.

    If you are going to cite them as authorities then do you accept their views about HIV causing AIDS? Or do you only accept the soundbites that appear to support your views?

    The argument from authority logical fallacy can bite back.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Chris,
    You are making the error of thinking Bill is interested in facts. He will simply accept what he hears or reads about on denialist boards. I will be interested to hear what Billy has to say about Dr. Sonnabend now that he knows that the good doctor is not a denialist at all.

    So what will it be Billy? Will you continue to accept Dr. Sonnabend as a reliable authority knowing that he is in fact not a denialist and accepts HIV's causal role in AIDS or will you claim he was bribed/intimidated/threatened/ect... by the man as a way to maintain your denial? Can you man up and admit that you are wrong or will you continue in denial? (This is rhetorical, by the way. I think we all know which way you will go.)

    ReplyDelete
  49. I am interested in what Dr. Sonnabend says at the debate in the UK. I was particularly impressed with Dr. Sonnabend's slam of Dr. Fauci in the House of Numbers.

    You guys are lost.

    ReplyDelete
  50. So Billy are you still accepting Sonnabend as a credible authority?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Montagnier's GhostOctober 17, 2009 at 3:07 AM

    Seth, I can explain to you what Montagnier meant when he said this:

    "The treatment by combined antiretroviral therapy has, without doubt, changed the prognosis of this lethal disease, from death condemnation to an almost “normal” life. Seth However, the virus is still there, ready to multiply when the treatment is interrupted, and not all HIV-infected patients of the developing world have access to it! And the epidemic still
    kills 2–3 million people each year. There is, therefore, an absolute necessity to resolve these problems, and basic research, as well as clinical research, has to be continued."

    He meant that the drugs are not the answer, which is consistent with what he says in that brillant movie, House of Numbers.

    Now, can you explain what he meant when he said something about important knowledge being comletely neglected because there is no profit in it? Or perhaps you have another explanation for why this important knowledge is being completely neglected?

    Dr. Luc Montagnier: "It’s important knowledge which is completely neglected. People always think of drugs and vaccine."

    Is Montagnier a big pharma conspiracy theorist?


    Chris, Montagnier is not saying that certain genetic mutants can fight off the virus. He is saying that a good immune system can.

    Also he is not saying that people don't get infected. He is saying that the infection isn't chronic. So does the study you are citing.

    Chris, perhaps you can help me a bit with that study. One would think that even a transient infection would be able to induce an antibody response, no? But the study participants were not considered immune to HIV if they were sero-converts or sero-converted during study follow-up.

    How is that, Chris?

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Chris, perhaps you can help me a bit with that study. One would think that even a transient infection would be able to induce an antibody response, no? But the study participants were not considered immune to HIV if they were sero-converts or sero-converted during study follow-up."

    Ghost,
    Do you not understand immunology or did you simply not read the study he cited (or both)? If the answer is that you don't understand immunology, it may serve you better to drop the arrogant tone and simple ask. You may look less stupid if you are actively seeking information instead of simply remaining blissfully ignorant in denial. If you haven't read the paper (which would likewise explain a lot) perhaps you should do so now as it would answer your question.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I was hesitant to paste in a quote from Montagnier because I feared it would deteriorate into a cherry picking contest – something almost as undesirable as a full debate with denialists.

    Montagnier is no more an AIDS denier than Gallo and Moore. Funny how the denialists only started to cherry pick him after the Nobel. Whoever said Nutrition is not important? Who said (in reality, not House of Numbers) that other co-factors are not important? One major co-factor is whether someone is on ARVs.

    Taking Montagnier, Fauci, Curran etc. out of context and juxtaposing them next to pseudoscientists and AIDS Deniers is the crime of House of Numbers.

    Unlike most denialists works it is not obvious to the non-expert to see that House of Numbers is a fraud. So we have to let people know, and we are.

    Taking anyone’s words out of context is just plain unfair. It would like my asking you what did Peter Duesberg mean when he quipped said “"Did you hear that the Germans have invented a new type of microwave oven? It seats 300 Jews."
    Just joking, right?

    ReplyDelete
  54. “"Did you hear that the Germans have invented a new type of microwave oven? It seats 300 Jews."
    Just joking, right?

    Kalichman, you are one disgusting piece of shit.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I think you must have meant hat Duesberg is is one disgusting piece of shit. He said it in public, not me...ask him some time...

    ReplyDelete
  56. There you go lying again, Seth. Duesberg never said that and you know it. First, you lie your way into Duesberg's conference as "Joe Newton," now you fabricate quotes about him. You're obsessed with Duesberg. Wierd.

    Maybe, you're the one who needs some psychological therapy, Seth.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Montagnier's GhostOctober 17, 2009 at 7:47 PM

    Yawn, yawn,

    I wonder if Seth is going to give up and censor me on the second post already because this is beyond pathetic.

    Come on boyz, you can't "debate" that nut Michael Geiger forever and pretend you've got hairy chests, ok?

    May I remind you there are people watching, and I am going to post this elsewhere, so, Chris, stop hiding behind Poodle barking from inside the gate and educate me. This article is even freely available, so every Snout-endowed creature can go check for itself.

    And Seth, fer cripessakes, you're supposed to be an adult. . . Who's talking about Monty being an AIDS denier. I asked if he was a big pharma conspiracy theorist.

    So, Johnny One-Note, are you going to answer or censor? Either way Bauer's having a chuckle at your expense if you don't buckle up.

    Of course, you could also just make it a debate between me and Poodle. To the victor the spoils. How about that? I won't call it foul if you whisper advice in its ear.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Ghost, "debating" denialists is tedious. One of the main reasons is they seem to be incapable of simply making a point, and prefer to insinuate or merely hint at what they are trying to assert. This form of rhetorical game playing then allows them to wriggle out of their lies when challenged. No one can really be bothered with such childish baiting.

    The most obvious thing about the clip showing Leung and Montagnier is that they are talking at cross purposes. Montagnier is talking about the factors involved when an HIV exposure results in chronic infection. Most exposures don’t result in chronic infection and it is important to study how to prevent this.

    What you have failed to grasp is that seroconversion to HIV positive status means chronic infection. Exposures that do not result in chronic infection do not produce seroconversion to HIV positive status.

    There are multiple factors involved, including variations in cell receptors, specific cell mediated and humoral responses, infectious load, variations in viral genetics, mucosal integrity, and co-infections (for example with causes of genital ulcer disease). Montagnier thinks that nutritional status may be one important factor determining whether exposure results in chronic infection, especially in populations where malnutrition is common.

    Montagnier thinks this aspect has been neglected relative to higher tech interventions to prevent exposure progressing to infection such as microbicides, vaccination and pre and post-exposure prophylaxis with antiretroviral drugs. There may be some truth to his complaint, but there’s nothing remarkable about it. When was the last time you heard a research scientist complain that his particular field of interest attracts too much attention and funding?

    Unfortunately, Leung evidently doesn’t have a clue about what Montagnier is talking about. He thinks he’s talking about what happens after chronic infection has established, after the person has seroconverted for HIV. In the interview, Montagnier doesn’t realise that Leung has completely failed to grasp what he’s talking about.

    Perhaps that was an honest misunderstanding on Leung’s part at the time of the interview. Montagnier’s first language is not English, and his accent is so thick that the producers thought it necessary to add subtitles to the clip. But to persist with that misunderstanding even through editing, post production and promotion requires the kind of deliberate and intentional dishonesty we have come to expect from HIV/AIDS denialists.

    House of Numbers is a profoundly fraudulent film that deliberately misrepresents the genuine scientists who were deceived into taking part. As we all know by now, it is not (as it purports to be) the journey of an open minded and independent film maker “just asking questions” – it is a carefully crafted disinformation piece produced by the Rethinking AIDS cult and their friends and financial backers. Their dishonesty deserves, as always, to be treated with contempt.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Bill, I did not lie my way into Duesberg's conference. I used my nickname "Joe Newton" so that I could observe Peter, David, Claus, Bobby, Davey, Tom, and the other AIDS Deniers in their natural habitat.

    I am not fabricating quotes. Duesberg is well known to make racist, sexist, and homophobic remarks...as reported by Discover, Newsweek etc. I witnessed some sexist remarks at the conference. Now, I did not hear him make the Germans microwave Jews joke. Several other people who I trust to tell the truth were there. See, it all comes down to trust. I trust these people are telling the truth. Why not ask Peter, I bet he laughs and says he knows the joke well.

    I would not say I am obsessed with Duesberg. He is sort of hobby. Although I confess, that is itself weird.

    Ghost of Monty, to repeat myself, whoever said that good nutrition is not important for good health? Who said that multiple factors do not facilitate HIV disease? And who said that prolonged excessive stress is not unhealthy?

    Only misguided patients, misinformed public, and fraudulent scientists say that good nutrition can cure AIDS, HIV does not cause AIDS, and stress causes AIDS.

    AIDS Deniers twist facts to fit their cognitive distortions. Delusional thinking rules.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Bill, I did not lie my way into Duesberg's conference. I used my nickname "Joe Newton" so that I could observe Peter, David, Claus, Bobby, Davey, Tom, and the other AIDS Deniers in their natural habitat.

    Jeez, you can't even honestly describe your lies, without lying again!

    First, it was a Cancer conference, not an AIDS conference. Such notable cancer researchers as Thomas Ried attended and presented. Wayt Gibbs from Scientific American gave the keynote address. Some of the presenters were published in the journal Cellular Oncology.

    http://iospress.metapress.com/content/b126h5l662h36u18/fulltext.pdf

    Second, you misrepresented your identity. You claimed to be "Joe Newton." Why not simply tell the truth: " I, Professor Seth Kalichman, Psychology Department at University of Connecticut, would like to attend your cancer conference, because I am obsessed with your denialist views on AIDS.

    Face it, Seth, YOU LIED.

    Third, you write:

    "Now, I did not hear him make the Germans microwave Jews joke."

    You have no evidence that he made such a remark. You're simply lying again, because you are obsessed with trying discredit Duesberg.

    Talk about cognitive distortions! How does it feel to be a liar, Seth?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Montagnier's GhostOctober 18, 2009 at 1:49 AM

    What you have failed to grasp is that seroconversion to HIV positive status means chronic infection. Exposures that do not result in chronic infection do not produce seroconversion to HIV positive status.

    Lol! Thanks a lot for that "explanation", Snout.
    As you so sharply observe, I don't understand. Montagnier says it takes a good immune system a few weeks to rid the body of a non-chronic infection. That's at least as long as the average influenza.

    Why no antibodies?

    What's the hard and fast rule of HI-virology you are referring to that says you can rid yourself of HIV only up to the point when antibodies are produced?

    Montagnier thinks that nutritional status may be one important factor determining whether exposure results in chronic infection, especially in populations where malnutrition is common. thinks this aspect has been neglected relative to higher tech interventions to prevent exposure progressing to infection such as microbicides, vaccination and pre and post-exposure prophylaxis with antiretroviral drugs. There may be some truth to his complaint, but there’s nothing remarkable about it. When was the last time you heard a research scientist complain that his particular field of interest attracts too much attention and funding?

    Snout, are you telling us that Montagnier's particular field of interest is nutrition?

    Whatever it is, Montagnier is not complaining of too little attention. He is saying it is being completely neglected in favour of drugging people.

    It is noted that you think a misplaced focus, which, according to your HIV beliefs and the beliefs about the importance of nutrition of everybody who is not a pharma shill, has cost hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths is a trivial matter.

    Unfortunately, Leung evidently doesn’t have a clue about what Montagnier is talking about. He thinks he’s talking about what happens after chronic infection has established

    Snout, how do you know what Leung thinks? He is asking questions and Montagnier answers in the affirmative. Nothing more.

    Dear Seth, to repeat myself, I wasn't talking about nutrition, neither was Montagnier, according to some of you, um sometimes. He was saying that the industry can only think in expensive high-tech patentable non-solutions.

    That's the industry you're spending every waking hour, and probably a good deal of your sleeping hours as well, throwing your considerable weight behind.

    BTW, when it comes to toe-cringingly transparent shilling you and Snout don't hold a candle to these guys, and that's a compliment:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG1jr0gOg9g

    Notice that towards the end of his self-contradictory dramatisation, Gupta slips up and tells the truth in his eagerness to dissuade Cooper from getting tested. Hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  62. May I remind you there are people watching, and I am going to post this elsewhere, so, Chris, stop hiding behind Poodle barking from inside the gate and educate me.

    You are going to repost your ignorance elsewhere? What is that going to prove other than your own incompetence.

    It is impossible to educate somebody who is determined to hold on to their ignorance.

    If you are truly interested in understanding the topic then get a textbook on immunology. Look at the difference between cell-mediated and humoral immunity. Learn about the different timing of different immune responses after exposure to an antigen. Learn about HIV-specific CD4 cells.

    If you really want to learn something then look at this paper.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12241933

    Hmmm. Exposure to low doses of malaria antigens. Generation of a malaria specific cell-mediated immune response but no antibodies. Sound familiar?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Bill
    Take it easy or you will lose your psychotic ranting privileges on my blog.

    Call it lie if you like. Whatever. The story of Joe Newton is not exactly news. I came out David Crowe just before the book was published. Joe's work had been done. His story will be told again tomorrow in Boston.

    Lets be clear though, at least as clear as you can be. I never misrepresented myself. Never said I was HIV+. Never said I was anything but a curious student looking for answers to questions about alternative theories on AIDS. In retrospect, I should have said I was Brent Leung, then I could have a movie too.

    So tread lightly Bill. Careful who you call a lier. Your heroes say HIV does not cause AIDS.

    ReplyDelete
  64. See Billy?
    Chris can explain cell vs. humoral mediated immunity without me "barking from inside the gate". I was merely trying to give you a chance to redeem yourself and come up with the answer for yourself before you look like a complete buffoon, as I have done for Mikey before (he didn't take the chance either). Not suprisingly, this is exactly what the paper Chris cited was discussing; HIV specific CTL (Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte) response. This is why I asked you whether or not you understood immunology or had bothered reading the paper. You are making your "qualifications" very obvious here.

    I don't think anyone here would mind someone has honest questions regarding the subject (as you clearly do not have a background in biology) but your attitude is what makes people here respond so harshly to you.

    So Billy, can you man up and admit that Chris is right in this case? Can you admit that your background in immunology is limited enough that perhaps you should not rely on yourself (or similarly limited denialists) to decide which papers make sense or don't? Or will you continue in denial?

    *Bark*

    ReplyDelete
  65. Bill. Good point. It was a Cancer conference, not an AIDS conference.
    So what why were so many Rethinking AIDS people there, or is Kalichman lying about that?

    David Rasnick
    Claus Koehnlein
    Tom Bethel
    David Steele
    Robert Leppo

    Why would they come to a Duesberg Cancer conference if it was all about Cancer and not about Duesberg?

    Help us out Bill?

    ReplyDelete
  66. I read your book Denying AIDS a couple of weekends back (couldn't put it down) and would just like to thank you for writing it. A terrific read, very deft and helped one to understand the phenomenon from many angles. Was grateful for it.

    It pleases me to think the royalties from the book I purchased will go to treatments for people with HIV. Denialism seems in many ways harder to counter than the virus itself.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Chris & Barkie,

    What I sought an honest answer to was where I could find the cardinal rule of (HI-)virology that says:

    "If antibodies against the virus appear it means by definition that the immune reponse, including the cell-mediated arm, has failed"

    With youse all's deep knowledge in the biological sciences I trust you noticed that such a rule was not mentioned in Chris's abstract to the malaria study, but perhaps that's because malaria is not a virus? (-:

    I trust you also noticed that what was described there was hardly what you'd call a "natural infection history".

    ReplyDelete
  68. Spirit of Denial,
    Try reading about persistent viral infections.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=mmed&part=A2431
    There are many viruses that, by the time the body mounts an antibody response, have infected reservoir cells and are then never cleared from the body. EBV, VZV ....


    Denialists of all flavours, including Evolution Denial, Global Warming Denial, spend far too much time trying to find "faults" with the science and far too little time trying to understand it.

    Your questions are like the Creationist rhetorical "If man is descended from monkeys then why are there still monkeys". Rather than being a fantastic argument against evolution it instead reveals the abysmal ignorance of most creationists.

    PS. I was camping on a large sand island this weekend and I apologise for not being able to answer your stupid questions as quickly as you would have liked.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Dr. "Poodle Stomper," the world reknowned genetics grad student asks:

    So Billy, can you man up and admit that Chris is right in this case?

    I have no idea what you are talking about. Chris "The Keno Kid" Noble may exude a brilliant mindset when talking about Keno, but on any other germaine subject he gets a big, fat zero:

    http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=infotech_pubs

    Perhaps, in the next decade he will grace with a follow-up paper on the Stochastic Recurrences of the New Jersey Lotto.

    As for you, why would anyone listen to you over Luc Montagnier?

    Duesberg is not quite right; Gallo was way off by light years. In its essence, AIDS is a disease of nutritional deficiency and chemical toxicity.

    If you dorks want to actually cure AIDS and reduce the suffering of those afflicted, you would shut up, clear your minds and focus on those two things.

    ReplyDelete
  70. What's the hard and fast rule of HI-virology you are referring to that says you can rid yourself of HIV only up to the point when antibodies are produced?

    One other reason “debating” denialists is tedious is that they rarely bother to familiarise themselves with the basic science. Instead they rudely demand that you do their work for them. And as Chris says, it’s impossible to educate someone who is determined to hold on to their ignorance.

    There are numerous studies demonstrating that HIV positive status indicates present, not resolved, HIV infection. One of the earliest was conducted over 20 years ago: Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 detected in all seropositive symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2298875

    Snout, how do you know what Leung thinks? He is asking questions and Montagnier answers in the affirmative. Nothing more.

    Leung’s misapprehension that Montagnier was saying that people with established HIV infection can clear the virus by attending to nutrition is being actively promoted by the House of Numbers team as a supposed “bombshell” revelation – the climax of the film. In fact there is nothing earth shattering about Montagnier’s as yet unproven but quite plausible hypothesis that malnutrition may be one of the factors determining whether exposure results in chronic infection.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/House-of-Numbers/40491054861?v=feed&story_fbid=154770035689

    House of Numbers is a piece of fraudulent propaganda by utterly unscrupulous individuals.

    --------------------------

    I was camping on a large sand island this weekend and I apologise for not being able to answer your stupid questions as quickly as you would have liked.

    Was that Fraser Island, Chris? Beautiful place.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Montagnier's GhostOctober 18, 2009 at 7:45 PM

    Chris,

    Your rote answers are as stale as the Duesberg argument you apparently think I am advancing.

    Let's try again:

    I was not claiming it's a cardinal rule of virology/immunology that antibodies equal immunity.

    It is you and the study authors who are claiming that antibodies in this case equal no immunity (persistent infection).

    How?

    ReplyDelete
  72. It is you and the study authors who are claiming that antibodies in this case equal no immunity (persistent infection).

    There are several viruses, of which HIV is only one, where there is a persistent chronic infection despite the presence of antibodies. If you have antibodies to EBV you have a persistent infection!

    In your desperation to find some reason to disbelieve HIV you hastily discard vast portions of virology and immunology that you do not understand.

    Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to find documented cases of people seropositive for HIV who have cleared the virus and are no longer positive by HIV DNA PCR.

    It would be great news if indeed HIV could be cleared after a persistent infection has been established but the reality is that there is simply no evidence to suggest that this is currently possible. But hey, go ahead and prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  73. And Ghostie, who ever said that persistent infection = no immunity? Do you think immunity is simply on or off? This is a false dichotomy. You have so many misconceptions that it is hard to know where to start.

    The antibody response to HIV still limits the amount of viral replication but it does not and cannot clear the virus from reservoirs in resting CD4 cells.

    Why are you so determined to expose your ignorance?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Billy,
    Dr. "Poodle Stomper," the world reknowned genetics grad student asks:

    Sorry Billy, I'm not a Dr. My degree is an M.S in molecular biology. I realize this is difficult for you to understand (especially since you previously referred to me as a "$10/hour post doc" when I made it clear I'm not a "Doc" but an MS. You can't be a "post doc" if you are not in fact "post" your "Doc").

    "As for you, why would anyone listen to you over Luc Montagnier?

    The trouble is not that it is Snout, Seth, Chris and Poodle vs. Montagnier. The problem is that a bunch of illiterates like yourself are making much more out of a cherry-picked quote with no context than is warranted. Seeing as you did not even understand the concept of cell-mediated immunity, I find it hilariously hypocritical of you to question the credentials of others when you have demonstrated an inability to understand even the most fundamental aspects of biology. So why should anyone liaten to you, Billy, over thousands of AIDS researchers that actually know their science?

    "In its essence, AIDS is a disease of nutritional deficiency and chemical toxicity."

    And I assume you have some sort of real data to back this up? No? How surprising. If you do, however, please do feel free to share.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Ok Bill.
    Lets stop dancing around the real issue. When did you test HIV+? What makes this so hard for you to deal with? Michael Geiger has been candid about it - he lost multiple friends to AIDS. Some in his arms. The trauma he experienced is akin to what people experience in war. Maggiore had a little kid when she was diagnosed. What makes it so hard for you to face your HIV infection? I know you honestly believe that AIDS is caused by nutrition and chemicals. But why do you believe this? What is it protecting you from?

    How about some straight forward talk Bill rather than the silly back and forth.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Seth wrote:

    "I know you honestly believe that AIDS is caused by nutrition and chemicals. But why do you believe this? What is it protecting you from?"

    Let's get it straight -- I posit that AIDS is caused by a nutritional deficiency and a chemical toxicity .

    As you are well aware, a person's immune system is dependent on his food intake. If lots of food, good immune system; if too little food, usually poor immune system.

    Many diseases are caused by a vitamin deficiency .

    Scurvy was initially thought to be an infectious disease. It looks like an infectious disease, but it is caused by Vitamin C deficiency.

    Pellagra was initially thought to be an infectious disease, it too looks likes an infectious disease. But, it is caused by a Vitamin B3 deficiency.

    Diabetes, in essence, is a hormone deficiency ie, too little production of insulin.

    If you look at the first cohort of AIDS patients, true, they were all young gay men.

    See the first NY Times article in 1981:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/03/us/rare-cancer-seen-in-41-homosexuals.html?scp=5&sq=rare%20cancer%20kaposi&st=cse

    But, they were chronically infected and mostly using drugs:

    Many of the patients have also been treated for viral infections such as herpes, cytomegalovirus and hepatitis B as well as parasitic infections such as amebiasis and giardiasis. Many patients also reported that they had used drugs such as amyl nitrite and LSD to heighten sexual pleasure.

    The amyl nitrates and LSD were the "chemicals," hence the "chemical toxicity" feature of AIDS.

    The "nutritional deficiency" is found in the heroin addicts with AIDS and the poor starving Africans.

    Occam's Razor: You don't need a novel retrovirus, found only in Gallo's fraudulent petri dishes. You just need to avoid drugs, and maintain a healthy nutritional diet, which maintains a strong immune system.

    Montagnier was right.

    When did you test HIV+?

    Have tested, but haven't tested HIV, Seth. Jeez, you really are a moron.

    ReplyDelete
  77. And Bill, don't forget to answer my questions.

    Do you know how many of the thousands of HIV+ "dissidents" have ever cleared the virus with good nutrition?

    How many?

    Can you get the story straight? Are you saying that HIV can be cleared from the body or are you denying that it exists? Try picking a consistent story and sticking to it.

    While you are at it can you provide the full unedited transcript of Leung's interview with Montagnier? What were the questions before and after the soundbites that made it into the film?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Montagnier's GhostOctober 19, 2009 at 5:58 AM

    Chris,

    I have to "find documented cases of people seropositive for HIV who have cleared the virus and are no longer positive by HIV DNA PCR"?!

    So that's how science works?

    Ok, I have an assignment for you as well: Check up on what year it was determined that antibodies against "HIV" means "persistent infection". Next check how many studies by then had sought to find instances of antibody-positive, proviral DNA-negative subjects.(Hint: when did PCR come into use?)

    Then we'll talk burden of proof.

    In the meantime:

    Results: We describe a case of HIV infection acquired in Thailand by heterosexual transmission, where a commercially available HIV proviral DNA PCR assay remained negative despite a typical evolving serological profile consistent with seroconversion. Conclusion: These data support the use of HIV DNA PCR tests only as a second line supplemental test to licensed standard HIV diagnostic testing strategies

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12600648

    Chris, you are careful to say "proviral DNA". Does that mean there is an extra requirement we should know about, or will any old HIV DNA do?

    For instance, this passage is found in a study named "Low HIV-1 proviral DNA burden detected by negative polymerase chain reaction in seropositive individuals correlates with slower disease progression":

    During 1989, 316 members of a cohort of homosexual men were tested for HIV-specific DNA by the polymerase chain reaction . . . a pair of gag-region primers. Of 125 HIV-seronegative subjects, 123 (98.4%) were PCR-negative while 158 (82.7%) of 191 HIV-seropositive subjects were PCR-positive. [leaving 33 subjects with antibodies but no detectable HIV DNA]

    The "proviral" part from the headline has disappeared in the abstract, indicating they are always one and the same in terms of your requirements, Chris. Can you confirm that?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Montagnier's GhostOctober 19, 2009 at 6:09 AM

    Chris, to your second,

    I am not asking what antibodies can or cannot do in this case. I am asking why detectable production of antibodies represent a specific point of no return?

    That is, no more screwing around with inconclusive correlation bug hunts like the one you've just sent me on. Biology now:

    Why is it acceptable that the cell-mediated arm of the immune system can clear an HIV infection, but if antibodies happen to appear, it is a sure sign that the total immune response has failed?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Bill,
    Ok, step up to the plate then. Give us the evidence which support the idea that AIDS is "nutritional deficiency and a chemical toxicity". There are thousands of papers going from the discovery of HIV to the discovery of its receptor use to its detection in seropositive individuals. Studies have shown conclusively that it kills CD4 T-Cells. Studies have shown sexual transmission and perinatal transmission. Studies have shown it as the only predictive factor leading to AIDS. So do tell, where is the evidence that it is chemical/nutritional? Why then did people like Raphael Lombardo and Maggiore die off anyway despite a healthy lifestyle and no drugs?

    Where is your evidence, Bill? And I sure hope it can trump hundreds and thousands of actual peer reviewed data and your illiteracy in biology. Do you have it?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Denializing MontagnierOctober 19, 2009 at 8:23 AM

    From AIDS Myth Exposed http://tiny.cc/6mMek

    "Montaigner (sic) hasnt crossed over. However, I am always intrigued by him, as he always makes contradictory statements. One minute HIV is the cause of AIDS, the next minute HIV needs cofactors, the next minute, as he says in this video ( I think he says it, as its hard to understand him with his thick accent) that a healthy body can kill off Hiv infection. He always seems to be rather insecure about what he believes, for someone who founded the virus and initially claimed it causes AIDS. He is the same person who publicly stated in the early 90's that Hiv may be a harmless virus. At least with Gallo, as wrong as he is, he sticks to his beliefs and has never waivered on the idea that HIV causes Aids."

    ReplyDelete
  82. Oops Snout,

    I seem to have overlooked you there.

    The Jackson et al paper you cite is probably one of the stalest documents in HIV shilling history, so allow me to offer you some science 101:

    1. You don't go a single pond to prove that all swans are white, right? Neither do you produce a single paper and say that there is 100% correlation between PCR and antibodies.

    What you can do is go to a single pond to disprove the notion that all swans are white. Since you're in Australia, there might be such a pond nearby.

    2. What's the gold standard of the Jackson et al paper? The best answer is there is none. The second best answer is: the antibody test
    (WB).

    The "isolation" or correspondence, or whatever you prefer to call it, between the tests is formulated thusly:

    "We isolated HIV-1 or detected HIV-1 DNA sequences from the PBMC of all 409 HIV-1 antibody-positive individuals".

    The high-lighted word was an "or" not an "and", Mr Snout. Ergo the antibody test (over)rules HIV DNA, yes? My initial point, yes? How did that come about? Something must have happened previous to this early paper to establish such a hierarchy, yes?

    You can of course attempt to say it's the p24 antigen test Jackson et al consider the gold standard, since they call it "HIV isolation". Do you want to try that option?

    Chris implicitly claims the HIV DNA test is the gold standard, since in his challenge to me no detectable HIV DNA overrides the antibody test with regard to current infection.

    So the question before us gentlemen seems to be, which is it, and why?

    Chris: I have re-read your posts; I don't know where I got the idea from that you required something that explicitly stated "proviral" HIV DNA. Sorry about that.

    ReplyDelete
  83. So that's how science works?

    Yes, pick a standpoint and find evidence to support it.

    You and Bill appear to be arguing that HIV can be cleared from the body in a matter of weeks using good nutrition.

    If that really is so then it should be trivial to get some of the "ever growing" number of HIV+ dissidents and put them on a diet. Get them tested after a few weeks for HIV DNA, RNA, antigens, viral culture ... whatever. Is the virus gone?

    What are you waiting for? Start now. Go for it.

    Unfortunately, the reality is that you don't actually believe this to be the case at all. Bill let it slip that he doesn't believe that HIV exists in the first place. It's all just a silly denialist rhetorical game.

    It is also a game that I am not going to play.

    Produce some evidence that HIV can be cleared with good nutrition or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  84. In the midst of his mostly pointless, unqualified expressions of opinion, Dr. Kalichman asked me one fairly clear, intelligent question:

    I know you honestly believe that AIDS is caused by nutrition and chemicals. But why do you believe this?

    I gave him a lengthy response. His reaction?

    Ok Bill Whatever.

    Now, there's a logically sound rebuttal!

    His favorite expression, when he is befuddled:

    Call it lie if you like. Whatever.

    Seth, you react more like a sorority girl, than an esteemed faculty member at a major University. Whatever!







    "The facts (1) that HIV uses CD4 as it primary receptor, and (2) that CD4+ T cell numbers decline during AIDS, are only an unfortunate coincidence that have led us astray from understanding the immunopathogenesis of this disease."

    ReplyDelete
  85. Alert readers will note two popular denialist argumentoids in Ghost's last post.

    The first is the "all scientific knowledge is provisional, therefore I can claim any evidence-free assertion I like" gambit. This is sometimes known as the Post Modern Approach to Science or PMAS.

    The second, of course, is the hoary old denialist favorite, the "Gold Standard Thingy Gambit" or GSTG. This is an argumentoid within the Goalpost Shifting category of Rhetorical Argumentoids, much loved not only by HIV/AIDS denialists but also by creationists, Obama-birthers, 9-11 Truthers and most other species of internet cranks.

    See, in the 20 years or so that denialists have been playing the GSTG, not a single one has ever defined in any coherent form what they mean by a "gold standard" or what this mythical beast would actually look like. This allows the goalposts to be shifted endlessly, eventually allowing them to deploy the "HIV Has Never Been Isolated Gambit" or HHN-BIG. This is the bedrock position of a certain hospital technician and a retired ED doc who grandly call themselves the "Perth Group", or "biophysicist Eleni Eleopulos Papadopulos and the phycicians [sic] who sit with her on the faculty of the University of Western Australia's medical school"

    http://www.rethinkingaids.com/Portals/0/RaArchive/1999/RA9912PapadopFinalAct.html

    What in fact they mean by the HHN-BIG is that HIV has never been isolated according to their own personal satisfaction, and in fact never can be for the simple reason that they are half-witted cranks. The bizarre assertion that they have any association whatsoever with a respected Australian medical school makes their delusional self aggrandizement just that little bit more pathetic.

    The "GSTG" to "HHN-BIG" to "Convince the Delusional" sequence has been played out thousands of times on internet discussions such as this one.

    I just thought I might save everyone a bit of time.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Montagnier's GhostOctober 20, 2009 at 2:10 AM

    Chris,

    I don't know what Bill appears to you to be arguing.

    I am merely asking a simple question, repeatedly:

    Why is it that from the very beginning of HIV science, that detectable levels antibodies are viewed as definite proof that the subject has acquired a "persistent infection"?

    The authors of the African study you referenced explicitly state that, even if there is evidence of HIV antigen specific priming of the cell-mediated immune response, detectable antibodies mean persistent, irreversible infection.

    The question of how this belief came to be accepted as an immutable law of Nature has nothing to do with whether HIV exists and what it is.

    If you consider this a silly rhetorical game, I suggest to you that you are on the wrong blog.
    Is it not the purpose of this blog to explore and expose irrational and dangerous beliefs rather than discussing hard science? The belief in question clearly thrives independently of scientific fact.

    Come on Chris, give us an insight into your mind. If you don't want to play silly games, like telling people to go do their own clinical studies, what have you been doing on these blogs for so long that if you'd had a positive HIV test on the first day, you would qualify as a long term non-progressor by now?

    What's in it for you this endless bitching and sniding and repetition of the same old points about a musty Duesberg paper. Now you tell us that all you're aspiring to is preaching to the choir. I can see what someone like Kalichman would think he is accomplishing, but what about you, Chris, where do you get off?

    ReplyDelete
  87. "I gave him a lengthy response. His reaction?
    Ok Bill Whatever.
    Now, there's a logically sound rebuttal!"

    Bill the problem is that your "lengthy response" contained NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. You have yet to provide a shred of proof for you hypothesis that "nutritional deficiency and chemical toxicity" causes AIDS. You blabber on about irrelevant crap and call it a lengthy response. Lengthy, yes but a valid response? Where is the data to support your claim? Studies (for example Choo et al which can be found here in full) have shown that drugs have nothing to do with the T-Cell decline, only HIV. Look at the study. 4 groups of people were tested; Drug users and non user both HIV+ or HIV-. Only the HIV+ groups (drug users and non drug users) declined in CD4+ T-cells. This is called evidence, Bill. I show mine now you show yours?
    (P.s. this isn't the only such study, others have concluded the same).

    ReplyDelete
  88. Snout, The Gold Standard Thingy is one of the odder delusions. You are right, it is driven by the Pure Virus Myth. You are also right about the Perthies promoting the Pure Virus Myth. But Australians cannot take all of the Blame. DeHarven has the same rant. His vast experience in the 1950's makes him the expert. And of course Henry Bauer's non-specific protein delusion is about as incoherent as they come.

    Monty's Ghost, the proof of persistent infection is continued disease progression. Can a person have persistent antibodies and a cleared virus? That would be a cure. There is no such case. Sane hope for a cure. The insane cannot wait, so you believe the disease does not exist.

    I personally do not care what you believe. I just wish your bubble was sound proof so others could be protected from your insanity.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Poodle has provided an interesting study, which I will and digest. I can already see a conceptual flaw, though:

    We found no clinically meaningful associations between use of marijuana, cocaine, poppers, or amphetamines and CD4 and CD8 T cell counts, percentages, or rates of change in either HIV-uninfected or -infected men.

    The salient association would be between (a) drugs, (b) CD4 counts and (c) ADVERSE CLINICAL REACTIONS to the drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  90. As an aside, continued FAILURE with HIV Vaccine:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125603405226896225.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

    When first publicly disclosing the outcome of the Thai trial in September, researchers said the vaccine had lowered the risk of infection by about 31%. That result was modest but statistically significant, meaning it wasn't the result of a fluke. That announcement, coming after two decades of failed HIV vaccine trials, garnered headlines around the world.

    Now, two other analyses of the trial data suggests that the results could have been due to pure chance, and therefore the vaccine may not have conferred protection to people after all. The additional data are published today in the New England Journal of Medicine and will be more fully discussed today by researchers attending an AIDS meeting in Paris.

    25 years of failure and counting -- yet you still don't question what these AIDS researchers are doing?!!?

    ReplyDelete
  91. PS writes:

    This is called evidence, Bill. I show mine now you show yours?

    Ok, I read the Chao paper you linked. It's not a bad observational study. They do avoid the confounding factor of anti-viral treatment, by stopping at 1996.

    It contains however, several well-known epidemiological biases, including: selection bias, information bias, design bias, exclusion bias, publicity bias, and non-response bias.

    The authors do acknowledge some of these in the Discussion section: "For HIV-uninfected men, 22% of the study visits had missing CD4 and CD8T cell measurements since the study protocol did not dictate their measurement on all HIV seronegatives throughout the study."

    PROBLEMS:

    1. The study is funded by the NIH, which has already taken the position that AIDS has a viral cause and funds no other scientific hypotheses.

    2. The study continuously uses the term "HIV infected," but nowhere verifies this fact. Most likely, this is conflated with "reactive on Elisa test and Western Blot for antibodies." But, antibodies are NOT synonomous with active HIV infection. (At least, no such validation study has been undertaken.)

    3. The study has a HUGE selection bias, because it ONLY examines gay, drug-using, men. Why is this? There were no straight women "infected" with HIV? There were no Lesbians "infected" with HIV? I thought HIV infects everybody -- why study only this select population.

    This is the equivalent of taking a political poll about gay marriage in the Deep South or the merits of George Bush in San Francisco. The results are greatly skewed.

    4. For some reason, the study focuses exclusively at the purported correlation between drug use and T4 cells, but totally ignores CLINICAL SYMPTOMS, even though some of the subjects died.

    "Our study was subject to several potential limitations, including uncontrolled confounding, potential bias caused by missing data and non-random loss to follow-up (e.g., drop-out due to death or advanced diseased), and potential bias induced by multicolinearity between drug use." (Page 5).

    5. The study, to its credit, does note conflicting results from other studies. "Although an adverse effect of use of cocaine on CD4 count has been suggested by others (citations omitted), this association was not observed in our study, even in those who used cocaine weekly or more frequently.

    6. The study favorably cites James, Poppers: large cancer increase and immune suppression in animal tests. AIDS Treat News, 1-2.)

    This study had a large control group (3226) of HIV-"uninfected", gay men, who COMMONLY used illegal substances (61% marijuana, 30% cocaine, 58% poppers, 17% speed).

    According to Duesberg's theory, this group, should have developed AIDS-defining diseases.

    According to conventional theory, this group should NOT have developed AIDS-defining diseases, because they did not experience major decreases in T4 cell counts.

    Yet, for some reason, the Paper is oddly silent on this point. Were these men healthy or not? What symptoms, if any, did they have FROM THEIR REPEATED DRUG USE?

    This group should have been much healthier than the HIV infected group, according to conventional theory, but the authors punt on this crucial question, and focus only on surrogate markers CD4 counts.

    And, of course, the authors don't cite Rodriquez from JAMA

    "Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline only minimally in untreated persons. Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses
    in HIV infection."


    nor do they cite Roderer in Nature Medicine:

    "The facts (1) that HIV uses CD4 as it primary receptor, and (2) that CD4+ T cell numbers decline during AIDS, are only an unfortunate coincidence that have led us astray from understanding the immunopathogenesis of this disease."


    Back in your court, Poodle Stomper: I cite Duesberg in Genetica:

    http://duesberg.com/papers/The%20AIDS%20Dilemma.pdf

    Ignore the conclusions, but focus on the data linking drug use with AIDS defining-diseases.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Poodlestomper

    Bill offers us some excellent examples of how Deniers misunderstand published papers. Just look at the criticisms. It is hard not to laugh. Seriously, I plan to use the above comment in my talk on Friday. It is a gem.

    I will let this go on long as you are enjoying it. Let me know when you get as bored as the rest of us. Bill will nit pick you forever on this.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Montagnier's GhostOctober 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM

    Au contraire, dear Snout.

    It is you who are attacking different goal posts with very, very little substance I might add.

    I know that being an HIV believer means per definition that you believe in the magic of words, but merely inventing abbreviations for my arguments does not amount to a refutation. Sorry.

    You have repeatedly been educated as to the virus as gold standard as well as your gambit, the gold standard test.

    Choose any definition you like, Mr Snout, and tell me what is the gold standard used in the Jackson et al paper? I bet you can't.

    Do you agree with their definition of isolation?

    Dear Seth:

    I just presented you with several cases of HIV DNA clearance in the presence of antibodies. Have you forgotten so soon? Scroll up about 12 Comments.

    Do you want cases of non-progression to clinical disease in the presence of antibodies? Try googling "elite controller".

    Poodle:

    Really now, the old, recycled MACS cohort thing. pallleease.

    Try this one baby:

    "Conclusions: Crack-cocaine use facilitates HIV disease progression by reducing adherence in those on HAART and by accelerating disease progression independently of HAART."

    Or this one:

    "Use of crack cocaine independently predicts AIDS-related mortality, immunologic and virologic markers of HIV-1 disease progression, and development of AIDS-defining illnesses among women."

    Or this one:

    "The consumption of some drugs has been proved to be a risk factor that alters the normal immune function, and could be involved in the lack of immunological response in patients treated with HAART. . . A total of 176 patients (61%) had acquired HIV-1 infection through intravenous drug use. These individuals had a significantly worse CD4 cell count recovery, which remained significantly different through all the study period…In our series, intravenous drug use and not HCV co-infection determined the amount and speed of the increase in CD4 cells counts . . . The relationship between illicit drug use and the immune system has previously been established and supports our findings. Opiates and cocaine can suppress the functional activities of human peripheral blood mononuclear cells, which are known to play a key role in host defence against intracellular opportunistic pathogens . . . In summary, a long-term poorer increase in the CD4 cell count despite a successful virological suppression is more frequently observed in naive HIV-1-infected patients who acquired their infection by injecting drug use."

    Or this one:

    "we found the following independent predictors of faster progression to AIDS: CD4+ count between 200 and 500 (hazard ratio: 3.6; 95% CI = 1.5-8.4); CD4+ count less than 200 (HR: 13.6; 95% CI = 5.4-34.2); and history of drug use more than 12 years"

    ReplyDelete
  94. Look, the paper does show a non-correlation between drug use in gay men and drop in T4-cell counts.

    But, so what? T4 cells fluctuate, are not the end-all and be-all indicator of morbidity or mortality, are not highly correlated with HIV (Rodriquez) and are caused by many different things.

    Seriously, I plan to use the above comment in my talk on Friday.

    Are you posing as "Joe Newton" at this talk and can I come?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Silly you. I do not pose as Joe Newton. I am Joe Newton.

    Henry Bauer poses as a 'scientist'.

    Peter Duesberg poses as a sane person.

    Celia Farber poses as a jounalist.

    David Rasnick poses as a human being.

    David Crowe poses as thinker.

    You guys really gotta let this Joe Newton thing go. I was not 'discovered', I came out. I did not use it to hurt denialists. In fact, just the opposite. Joey is the most interesting part of my work on Denying AIDS. More people know about Joe the more books I sell. I am happy to share my life and times as Joe Newton anytime.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Ghostie, you are still playing silly rthetorical games.

    I keep on asking you for an example of a single person who has cleared HIV. You keep on failing to answer. The simple reason is that you know very well that HIV can be found in virtually 100% of all people who seroconvert.

    There may well be people who clear the virus after seroconversion but they are extremely, extremely rare. A small percentage of people infected with HIV manage to control the virus so well that the viral load is 'undetectable' but the vast majority of people with HIV have detectable HIV RNA and HIV antigens.

    There is one example of a person who may have cleared the virus but this is clearly the exception rather than the rule.

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

    There is no immutable or ironclad rule. Viruses don't care about rules but in over 25 years of looking the evidence that anybody can clear the virus after seroconversion is effectively zero.

    There is nothing at all unusual about this as it is alos true of other viruses such as EBV. Look at somebody seropositive for EBV and you will find the virus still in their body. They may control the virus but they don't clear it.

    Now try answering my questions.

    Do you have any evidence that HIV can be cleared in a matter of weeks using good nutrition?

    Do you accept that HIV exists? If not why the f... are you pissing around with questions of whether HIV can be cleared?

    ReplyDelete
  97. I just presented you with several cases of HIV DNA clearance in the presence of antibodies.

    Did you actually read the papers that you cited?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12600648

    The person described in study had a viral load off the scale and high levels of HIV antigen.

    The commercially available HIV DNA test did not pick up the infection because the primers used did not match the particular subtype of HIV. When the same primers that were used in the more modern HIV viral load test were used then HIV DNA was detected.

    Try reading the actual papers rather than just the abstracts.

    There is genetic variation even within the highly conserved regions of the HIV genome and some primers may miss some subtypes.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Montagnier's GhostOctober 20, 2009 at 4:18 PM

    the primers used did not match the particular subtype of HIV. When the same primers that were used in the more modern HIV viral load test were used then HIV DNA was detected.

    That's it, Chris, you've got it. And you can use the exact same argument, only perhaps hypothetically, with the other example I gave you, and all future examples

    It is always possible to suppose that the test wasn't good enough. If the virus isn't detected, you modify the test. Or you try a different lab. If it's still not detected, you can say well, this must have been a very special variation. Maybe another test - maybe next year's test will get it. Maybe re-testing will get it. That's why you've sent me on a bug hunt as I told you above.

    Do you have any evidence that HIV can be cleared in a matter of weeks using good nutrition?

    I don't know why you keep asking me that question. I have repeatedly told you that this is not my concern. Do you have any evidence "HIV" was there in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  99. OH MY! Such non~sense has transpired since I have been out of town!
    Crazy Bill! Is that your stage name?
    Are you a stand up comedian?
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  100. Silly you. I do not pose as Joe Newton. I am Joe Newton.

    Ok, that's just wierd, Seth.

    Funny, your University of Connecticut webpage doesn't mention "Joe Newton"

    http://socialpsych.uconn.edu/sethckalichman.htm

    Does the Dean of UConn know that you fraudulently attend cancer conferences as "Joe Newton"?

    It looks like some wierd, Norman Bates, schizophrenic thing. When you lie and slander people who disagree with the viral theory of AIDS, you magically transform into "Joe Newton"

    Between "Joe Newton" and Chris "the Keno Kid" Noble, you have quite a colorful cast of oddballs here.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Ghost, I think you misunderstand me.

    I am less interested in engaging your arguments than describing them and outlining their natural history. The Gold Standard Thingy Gambit has been played out so often on threads like this that it has a well-known sequence, and a well-known “conclusion”.

    First, denialists assert the supposed absence of a supposed “gold standard” as a critical flaw in HIV/AIDS theory. Problem is, no denialist in the history of denialism has ever cogently defined what they mean by this glittering beast. In your reply above you try to make it incumbent on me to define it. No dice, Ghostie, it’s your term, it’s your claim. You tell us precisely what you mean by it.

    Usually, after many fruitless exchanges, the “argument” evolves into one as to whether HIV exists, and after a bit of to-ing and fro-ing it becomes clear that what is under discussion is whether HIV has been “proven” to exist according to some arbitrary criteria set by a certain technician in a medical physics lab and a retired ED doc - who claim to their internet audience that they sit on the medical faculty of a prestigious university. Unfortunately, this claim bears no resemblance to what we non-denialists like to call “reality” - they have no such connection with that or any other university and the criteria they have set are universally considered nonsense by every working virologist in the world. Even Duesberg rolls his eyes at it.

    Denialist arguments commonly employ a number of well-recognised but dishonest rhetorical strategies. The Gold Standard Thingy Gambit played out in full (as it has been many hundreds of times) demonstrates at least three: shifting goalposts, followed by a demand for impossible and/or impracticable evidence, and ultimately resting on a fake argument from a fake “authority”.

    The Gold Standard Thingy Gambit is a pointless boondoggle – unless of course you can surprise us all by being the very first denialist in history to clearly and cogently define precisely what it is you mean by your use of the term “gold standard”.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I don't know why you keep asking me that question. I have repeatedly told you that this is not my concern. Do you have any evidence "HIV" was there in the first place?

    This is the typical Denialist runaround.

    Bill quotes Montagnier and interprets this as saying that HIV can be cleared with good nutrition.

    Bill now avoids answering any questions about this but for some unfathomable reason you still seem bent on making some incomprehensible point about the Montagnier quote.

    Neither of you can provide a single example of somebody clearing the virus with good nutrition but you don't care.

    In fact neither of you appear to accept that HIV exists which makes the whole exercise fucking pointless.

    Talking with Denialists is like trying to nail jelly to a tree. You never state what you actually believe. You take rhetorical positions that you don't believe in simply for the sake of an argument. You are simply trolling.

    Why should anybody spend time providing evidence that HIV is sexually transmitted, for example, when the typical Denialist response when presented with evidence is to fall back to denying that HIV exists?

    Why does Bill use Montagnier with his Nobel prize as an authority when he clearly does not believe that Montagnier isolated HIV?

    The reality (unless you believe that all scientists doing AIDS research are part of a vast conspiracy) is that scientists have been trying desperately to find a cure for HIV, to clear the virus from people who are infected with it. So far it can't be done.

    If you know how to do this then please tell the world.

    Surely, this would be a big win for Denialists. Surely, amongst the vast number of HIV+ 'rethinkers' someone has cleared the virus with all the good nutrition and supplements they are taking.

    The unfortunate reality is that HIV+ Denialists remain HIV+, still have detectable viral loads and still progress to AIDS despite any good nutrition.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Bill
    You are a putz.
    Everyone at UConn knows about Joey. They did long before Bauer, Geiger and other AIDS Deniers wrote long psychotic letters to the Dean, my publisher etc. You should write one too. I am collecting them for my next book.

    Joey helped the AIDS Deniers more than hurt them. Allowed me to be certain they are not evil criminals. Just misguided nut cases.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Bill, you keep on avoiding the questions but it is worth trying once more.

    Do you have any evidence that HIV can be cleared in a matter of weeks with good nutrition?

    If you don't accept that HIV exists then why are you attempting to argue that HIV can be cleared?

    ReplyDelete
  105. The Gold Standard Thingy Gambit is a pointless boondoggle – unless of course you can surprise us all by being the very first denialist in history to clearly and cogently define precisely what it is you mean by your use of the term “gold standard”.

    Can we use the definition offered by Owens et al in JAMA?

    “The evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of PCR for the diagnosis of HIV infection in infants is particularly difficult because there is no reference or ‘gold standard’ test that determines unequivocally the true infection status of the patient.."

    ---Owens DK et al. A Meta-analytic Evaluation of the Polymerase Chain Reaction for the Diagnosis of HIV Infection in Infants. JAMA. 1996 May 1;275(17):1342-1348

    or how about Dr. Daar et al?

    “Primary infection was defined as a confirmed positive virologic test result with either a negative HIV antibody assay result or an indeterminate Western blot. Because there is no virologic gold standard, we assumed that levels of plasma HIV RNA had a sensitivity of 100% for diagnosing primary infection.
    ---Daar ES et al. Diagnosis of primary HIV-1 infection. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Jan 2;134(1):25-9

    A virological 'gold standard' would involve a method of detecting the actual virus from an AIDS patient. Not antibody, not RNA fragments, not P24, but actual virus.

    Do you have such method?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Queridos!
    I don't think Luc Montagnier is going the way of Duesberg extactly, but if his career continues this way, soon it won't matter what he says.
    He is an author on a recent paper claiming that super-diluted pathogens set up aqueous nanostructures that emit electromagnetic signals and the pathogens can spontaneously regenerate in them!
    http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for.html

    But even with this crankiness, Montagnier is not so cranky to suggest that HIV infection can be cleared through diet and exercise. He has enough marbles left to know better!

    Un abrazo,
    Fulano de Tal

    ReplyDelete
  107. Bill, before you move on to your next rhetorical argument can you answer these questions?

    Do you have any evidence that HIV can be cleared in a matter of weeks with good nutrition?

    If you don't accept that HIV exists then why are you attempting to argue that HIV can be cleared?


    Why are you appealing to Montagnier's authority from winning a Noble prize if you don't accept that HIV exists?

    ReplyDelete
  108. It looks like Chris "the Keno Kid" is in an agitated state.

    Umm, Chris, I don't think I have addressed you this entire thread.

    I think the phenomenom you are groping with is called "seroreversion." It's not limited to infants born to HIV+ mothers, either.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=HIV+seroreversion&btnG=Search&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

    As for your questions:

    Do you have any evidence that HIV can be cleared in a matter of weeks with good nutrition?

    I haven't made this claim. But since HIV has a 10-year latency period between "infection" to symptoms, how could this even be established to your satisfaction?

    When animal studies were performed, and chimpanzees were infected with HIV, none of them contracted AIDS.

    "It is true that HIV does not cause AIDS in chimpanzees" -- Blattner, Gallo, Temin, Science, Vol. 241, 514-517, (1988)

    If you don't accept that HIV exists then why are you attempting to argue that HIV can be cleared?

    It's not a question about whether I "accept" that HIV exists. It's a question about whether Gallo's mitogen stimulated cancerous t-cell lines is sufficiently similar to actual AIDS patients, where only INDIRECT measures are claimed to detect HIV infection.


    Why are you appealing to Montagnier's authority from winning a Noble prize if you don't accept that HIV exists?

    I'm not appealing to his authority, although he won the Nobel Prize, which certainly gives him more credibility than that charlatan, Gallo. Montagnier simply spoke candidly about HIV:

    Dr. Luc Montagnier: “We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system.”

    Interviewer (Brent Leung): If you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?

    Dr. Luc Montagnier: Yes.

    Interviewer: If you take a poor African, who’s been infected and you build up their immune system, is it possible for them to also naturally get rid of it?

    Dr. Luc Montagnier: I would think so.

    Interviewer: That’s an important…

    Dr. Luc Montagnier: It’s important knowledge which is completely neglected.

    If you don't like it, take it up with Montagnier.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Bill,

    Seroreversion is not equivalent to eradication of the virus.

    In your google search the second hit is a paper entitled "Absence of True Seroreversion of HIV-1 Antibody in Seroreactive Individuals" which concludes "Review of this database demonstrates no evidence for true seroreversion of HIV-1 antibody status. We conclude that if seroreversion occurs at all, it is exceedingly rare. In fact, most (if not all) cases of apparent seroreversion represent errors of attribution or testing."

    3) You are being illogical if you accept Montagniers apparent opinion on one matter when you clearly do not accept his opinion about the existence of HIV.

    4) The opinions (real or imagined) of anyone including Montagnier mean nothing compare to evidence. Where is the evidence?

    5) Bringing up the subject of whether HIV can be cleared when you don't accept that HIV exists in the first place is the behaviour of an internet troll. What is the point of providing you with evidence that at this time HIV cannot be eradicated after chronic infection if you are simply going to deny that HIV exists?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Bill,
    The study is funded by the NIH, which has already taken the position that AIDS has a viral cause and funds no other scientific hypotheses.

    Irrelevant. Their position is based on supporting data. This is no more valid than a flat earther saying that NASA's publications are invalid because they have taken the position that the Earth is round.

    The study continuously uses the term "HIV infected," but nowhere verifies this fact. Most likely, this is conflated with "reactive on Elisa test and Western Blot for antibodies." But, antibodies are NOT synonomous with active HIV infection. (At least, no such validation study has been undertaken.)

    Irrelevant. That the presence of antibodies correlates with the presence of virus has been previously established. Simply because you don't understand evidence does not make it incorrect.

    The study has a HUGE selection bias, because it ONLY examines gay, drug-using, men. Why is this? There were no straight women "infected" with HIV? There were no Lesbians "infected" with HIV? I thought HIV infects everybody -- why study only this select population.

    My guess would be availability played a role. As the largest infected group at the time it makes sense that they are the most available. It isn't rocket science. If you truly are unaware why there would be so few lesbians who are infected then you need a serious lesson in the female anatomy.

    For some reason, the study focuses exclusively at the purported correlation between drug use and T4 cells, but totally ignores CLINICAL SYMPTOMS, even though some of the subjects died.

    Hence the title. The purpose was to examine the consequence of drugs on populations of immune cells. Clinical symptoms were not the target of this study. Again, not rocket science.

    The study, to its credit, does note conflicting results from other studies. "Although an adverse effect of use of cocaine on CD4 count has been suggested by others (citations omitted), this association was not observed in our study, even in those who used cocaine weekly or more frequently.

    Yes, a smaller sample number study suggested there may be an adverse effect. Like any other study, it would have to be reproduced. This study was much larger and did not show this.

    *irrelevant blah blah...* Yet, for some reason, the Paper is oddly silent on this point. Were these men healthy or not? What symptoms, if any, did they have FROM THEIR REPEATED DRUG USE?

    See above. That was not the purpose of this paper. Take the time to READ IT.

    According to Duesberg's theory, this group, should have developed AIDS-defining diseases.

    According to Duesberg's hypothesis, the group with declining CD4 cells should be only those on drugs. He says as much here when he states “If both AIDS-correlates, drugs and HIV, were given unbiased consideration, the choice between drugs and HIV, or antibodies against HIV, would be easy. It would appear more rational to conclude that drug intake "has an integral role in CD4 depletion ... and AIDS" (3) than HIV or antiviral antibodies.” However this is not the case. Duesberg's hypothesis failed. It isn't just symptoms he claimed were due to drugs, it was also CD4 decline. This and other studies have shown this claim incorrect.

    -- End Part 1 --

    ReplyDelete
  111. -- Part II --
    And, of course, the authors don't cite Rodriquez from JAMA

    And you clearly do not understand the paper you whine about them not citing. Read Rodriguez's own explanation for lay people here. This has been explained again and again. How is it you don't understand this yet?

    nor do they cite Roderer in Nature Medicine: "The facts (1) that HIV uses CD4 as it primary receptor, and (2) that CD4+ T cell numbers decline during AIDS, are only an unfortunate coincidence that have led us astray from understanding the immunopathogenesis of this disease."

    I wonder if you read the WHOLE paper by Roederer. Not only is it a “News & Views” piece, but he was referring to his point that HIV destroyed more than just CD4 lymphocytes. Rather the ENTIRE PARAGRAPH (which you should have read along with the rest of the paper rather than CHERRY PICKING) says:
    The facts (1) that HIV uses CD4 as it primary receptor, and (2) that CD4+ T cell numbers decline during AIDS, are only an unfortunate coincidence that have led us astray from understanding the immunopathogenesis of this disease. HIV leads to a destruction of all T-cell subsets, irrespective of CD4 expression. Ultimately AIDS is a disease of perturbed homeostasis. Only when we understand how the body regulates T cell numbers will we be able to find the mechanism(s) by which HIV destroys the immune system.

    See Bill, it helps to read and not Cherry Pick.

    Back in your court, Poodle Stomper: I cite Duesberg in Genetica.

    Try quoting someone that has experience in AIDS research. Or at least a credible source. Of course, seeing as you simply regurgitated the Roederer cherry picked line without knowing the whole point, it is apparent that you don't have the slightest clue what a credible source is (Hint, Rethinking AIDS is NOT one of them).

    - Barky

    ReplyDelete
  112. On seroreversion, Dr. Root-Bernstein debunked your feeble debunker:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5m8229g784t7815/

    2) Seroreversions are common. Between 10 and 20 percent of HIV-seronegative people in high risk groups have T-cell immunity to HIV, and may have had one or more verified positive HIV antibody tests in the past.

    Also, read this very clearly: I haven't denied that HIV exists.

    Perhaps, as a follow-up to your scientifically scintillating paper, "Stochastic Recurrences of Jackpot Keno" we will see:

    1. Stochastic Recurrences of Jackpot Lotto

    2. Stochastic Recurrences of Jackpot Bingo

    3. Stochastic Recurrences of lying psychology professors

    4. Stochastic Recurrences of uninteresting, ill-informed computer geeks, who like to kibbitz about AIDS on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Seroreversions are common. Between 10 and 20 percent of HIV-seronegative people in high risk groups have T-cell immunity to HIV, and may have had one or more verified positive HIV antibody tests in the past.

    The evidence does not support Root-Bernstein's assertions.

    As I pointed out earlier in the thread people like the Nairobi prostitutes that have been exposed to HIV may develop HIV specific T-cell immunity without becoming chronically infected and without seroconverting. This does not in anyway support the assertion that somebody with an established infection can clear the virus with good nutrition or any other known treatment.

    The number of anecdotal reports of people initially seropositive for HIV and then seroreverting are so small that clerical errors and errors with testing are a much more likely explanation. Seroreversions may indeed occur but they are not common.

    Ask all of your HIV+ Denialist friends. If they get tested again they still test positive.

    Also, read this very clearly: I haven't denied that HIV exists.

    What do you mean when you write "You don't need a novel retrovirus, found only in Gallo's fraudulent petri dishes."?

    Montagnier didn't isolate HIV?

    I have asked you if you accept that HIV exists and you didn't answer.

    Perhaps, as a follow-up to your scientifically scintillating paper, "Stochastic Recurrences of Jackpot Keno" we will see:

    Bill. That isn't my paper. Your google skills are as poor as your scientific understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  114. "A virological 'gold standard' would involve a method of detecting the actual virus from an AIDS patient. Not antibody, not RNA fragments, not P24, but actual virus."

    Well, actually that's not what most people mean by "gold standard", but I *yawn* see where you're going with this. You don't like the usual methods of virus identification like culture, antigen and antibody detection, PCR, or electron microscopy.

    And what, pray tell, would be a method of virus identification acceptable to you, Bill?

    A birth certificate?

    Perhaps you'd like to see its teensy weensy driver's licence?

    Maybe you'd like a character reference handwritten and signed personally by an accredited deity?

    A mention inscribed on gold plates and buried on a hillside somewhere in New York State?

    Do tell.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Montagnier's GhostOctober 21, 2009 at 5:30 AM

    (Note to possible spectators. Whenever an HIV enthusiast feels he is being backed into a corner, he will develop acute Attention and Intelligence Deficit Syndrome (AIDS) and charge his interlocutor with being unintelligible accordingly. You can think of it as an antibody test: The quantity, intensity and absurdity of the unintelligibility charges are in direct proportion to his sense of insecurity.

    Unfortunately this also means a lot of repetitions, retesting if you will,
    to get the subject back on point. Sorry about that)


    Chris,

    Seeing that once again you have confused yourself and don't understand anything, I'll be happy to repeat.

    My issue was how the HIV antibody became the gold standard test of current HIV infection. Not nutrition, existence of HIV or anything else. Ok?

    The implication, which strangely keeps eluding you, is that it inevitably biases all subsequent research if the effort from the beginning goes into making the other marker tests correlate with the antibody marker test - instead of that which they are supposedly markers of, the virus.

    Which brings us back to the gold standard. Here the audience can enjoy the attention and intelligence deficit spectacle in its full glory that I spoke about in my introductory note to this Comment.

    Never e-v-e-r has anybody explained to poor, confused Snout what they mean by gold standard. It's something denialists dreamed up, and the concept mutates almost as rapidly as HIV when you try to pin it down.

    Even when Snout is presented with references to Owens et al and others, it's something denialists made up. Impossible to comment on.

    When given a choice of picking his own goal post, his own definition of gold standard, Snout is still incapable, because it's all something denialists made up out of whole unintelligibility cloth.

    In short, on the gold standard issue, Snout is heavily reactive on all bands in the HIV Promoter Miserability test.

    Snout, as Bill and Owen et al have tried to explain to you, a proper gold standard is a test that has and can at any time can be verified against the virus itself - not molecular markers, not small stretches of nucleic acid, not antibodies. The virus.

    Difficult concept huh, this virus thing. An unrealistic requirement, total nonsense, right?

    Well, Snout, it's you lucky day, because the beauty of it is that we don't have to discuss the virus or its purification and isolation. You can simply take the word of Owens et al and others that regardless of whether HIV has been isolated or not, no test has or can be verified against it. No gold standard.

    Now go back to Jackson et al, and their titillating title "Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 detected in all seropositive symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals":

    In addition, HIV-1 PCR and HIV-1 culture were compared in testing the PBMC of 59 HIV-1 antibody-positive and 20 HIV-1 antibody-negative hemophiliacs. Both methods were found to have sensitivities and specificities of at least 97 and 100%, respectively. In contrast, the sensitivities of serum HIV-1 antigen testing in AIDS patients and asymptomatic seropositive patients were 42 and 17%, respectively. Our ability to directly demonstrate HIV-1 infection in all HIV-1 antibody-positive individuals provides definitive support that HIV-1 antibody positivity is associated with present HIV-1 infection.

    It's very simple, honestly. Just tell me how the sensitivity and specificity of the cited tests were determined? You do agree that you need some kind of reference to determine the sensitivity and specificity of something, right? Or is that also unintelligible to you?

    So Snout, enlighten us, how were the numbers 97% and 100% confirmed?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Montagnier's GhostOctober 21, 2009 at 5:49 AM

    "Seroreversions are common. Between 10 and 20 percent of HIV-seronegative people in high risk groups have T-cell immunity to HIV, and may have had one or more verified positive HIV antibody tests in the past.

    The evidence does not support Root-Bernstein's assertions."

    Chris,

    Do you remember what a great point you imagined to have scored when you discovered that a "modified" or "improved" PCR could pick up proviral DNA where seemingly there was none?

    Would you like to extent the same criteria to Root-Bernstein instead of accusing him of ignorance? Here for instance:

    "Evidence of HIV exposure and transient seroreactivity in archived HIV-negative severe hemophiliac sera"

    In this study we retrospectively identified transient anti-HIV-1 antibody reactivity in archived plasma sets from currently HIV seronegative hemophiliacs who had a high probability of intravenous exposure to HIV contaminated CFCs. To accomplish this we used diagnostic methods for the detection of HIV reactive antibodies that are substantially more sensitive than earlier versions that were first introduction (sic) in the mid-80s when many of our plasma samples were originally tested and found to be negative.

    ReplyDelete
  117. My issue was how the HIV antibody became the gold standard test of current HIV infection.

    Who ever said it was the gold standard? Who ever said that a gold standard is the test that is most commonly used for diagnosis? It often isn't. You keep on posing loaded questions.

    The reality is that all accept a small minority of people who meet the diagnostic criteria for HIV infection show signs of active HIV infection. The small percentage of elite controllers who have undetectable viral loads still have detectable HIV DNA in their PBMCs.

    The same is true for other viruses such as EBV. If you are seropositive for EBV then you have also have detectable EBV in your peripheral blood. Antibody tests are used for diagnosis of EBV infection. There is nothing at all unusual about this. Why you think HIV is an exception is a mystery.

    I also note that you continue to evade the question of whether you accept that HIV exists.

    At least Bill denied that he denied the existence of HIV although it sill leaves his actual standpoint a mystery.

    ReplyDelete
  118. "Evidence of HIV exposure and transient seroreactivity in archived HIV-negative severe hemophiliac sera"

    The paper concludes Our data suggest that some severe hemophiliacs with heavy exposure to infectious HIV contaminated CFC had only transient low-level humoral immune responses reactive with HIV antigens yet remained HIV-negative and apparently uninfected. Our data supports the possibility of HIV exposure without sustained infection and the existence of HIV-natural resistance in some individuals.

    and finds

    All currently seronegative patients were found to be negative for HIV-1 proviral DNA by PCR analysis (data not shown).

    Again this is a case of exposure to HIV without infection. This is not evidence that HIV can be cleared once a persistent infection is established.

    If you really want to win a point then I will grant you that transient low levels of HIV antibodies can be detected in people who are exposed to HIV but remain uninfected.

    It is worth noting, however, that none of the plasma samples showed a WB that met the diagnostic criteria fro confirmation of HIV infection.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Do you remember what a great point you imagined to have scored when you discovered that a "modified" or "improved" PCR could pick up proviral DNA where seemingly there was none?

    You are being deliberately obtuse. The cases that you are talking about had clinical symptoms of acute HIV infection, extremely high viral loads and reacted positively on HIV antigen tests. There is no reasonable doubt that they were infected with HIV.

    ReplyDelete
  120. I also note that you continue to evade the question of whether you accept that HIV exists.

    I note that you once again avoided the question of which test you consider the gold standard test.

    If you really want to win a point then I will grant you that transient low levels of HIV antibodies can be detected in people who are exposed to HIV but remain uninfected.

    Thank you. Now why did the criteria for immunity in the African study exclude this possibility? Why did they exclude a priori the possibility of antibody levels that would have scored on one of the many possible WBs?

    Considering that there 87% of the samples in the hemophiliac study were found to be "reactive", are you going to "modify" your statement that "The evidence does not support Root-Bernstein's assertions."

    "Seroreversions are common. Between 10 and 20 percent of HIV-seronegative people in high risk groups have T-cell immunity to HIV, and may have had one or more verified positive HIV antibody tests in the past."

    ReplyDelete
  121. Ghostie, you and Bill are running around in circles.

    Bill came up with the youtube video of Montagnier that he seems to believe is a death blow to the "orthodoxy".

    I replied that it is well known that exposure to HIV does not always lead to chronic infection and gave the example of the Nairobi prostitutes.

    You then made a number of incomprehensible comments/questions/whatever.

    Bill then changed from the question of whether HIV can be cleared after persistent infection has been established to seroreversion.

    You then cunningly cite the paper above which just like the papers on the Nairobi prostitutes shows that people can be exposed to HIV without becoming chronically infected.

    What point are you and Bill trying to make?

    Neither of you want to commit to arguing that HIV can be cleared after persistent infection is established.

    Neither of you want to commit to arguing that HIV doesn't exist.

    I don't think that either of you actually now what you are trying to argue.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Montagnier's GhostOctober 21, 2009 at 5:55 PM

    Ohoh, our friend, Chris Noble, is repeatedly lighting up brightly on all 10 bands of the shill misery test; obviously this is a persistent case of Attention and Intelligence Deficit Syndrome.

    Neither of you want to commit to arguing that HIV can be cleared after persistent infection is established.

    Danger: Bug Hunt trap detected. Never mind, we go in fearlessly. Errmm wasn't "persistent infection" defined by detectable levels of antibodies? Did Bill's Root-Bernstein reference and my hemophiliac study reference not cast a shade of doubt on that? Oh I forgot, you defined persistent infection as the ability to detect "HIV DNA" as long as you use enough and ever more sensitive primers. Well that does seem to lead us to:

    Neither of you want to commit to arguing that HIV doesn't exist..

    If that would make it easier for you, but I thought you've decided you don't want to argue that point. You want us to accept without question that "HIV DNA" is part of a unique, exogenous retroviral particle with unheard of mutagenic and pathogenic properties in all its incarnations.

    As you so cogently explained, even the most conserved parts of the HIV genome mutates, which is why we need a whole bunch of them there primers to be sure we can pick up its ever diversifying but always deadly strains and clades and subtypes and distant HIV-2 uncles and cousins.

    Why, it would be madness not to swallow that one raw. What ARE the Perthies thinking??!!

    ReplyDelete
  123. Errmm wasn't "persistent infection" defined by detectable levels of antibodies?

    No. You are just going round and round in circles making strawman arguments and asking loaded questions.

    The evidence for persistent infection is the continued presence of HIV RNA, DNA and antigens. It just so happens, as with EBV, that somewhere close to 100% of people who meet the standard criteria for seropositivity show persistent infection.

    What is it that you don't understand?

    You appear to be doing your best to remain as ignorant as possible.

    I also take it from your non-answer that you do not accept the evidence that HIV exists. In which case the initial point raised by Bill about whether HIV can be cleared after chronic infection is meaningless and you are just wasting everybody's time. Wasting time appears to be your only goal.

    ReplyDelete
  124. If that would make it easier for you, but I thought you've decided you don't want to argue that point.

    Again you completely miss my point. Deliberately?

    There is no point arguing about whether HIV can be cleared after chronic infection if you don't accept that HIV exists in the first place.

    Just like there is no point arguing about whether HIV fulfils Koch's Postulates with many of the HIV Denialists who do not accept the "Germ Theory of Disease".

    You are doing a good job of demonstrating how to be a Denialist. a) Never assume a fixed standpoint b) Ask rhetorical questions with answers you are not actually interested in c) make as few testable claims as possible d) shift the burden of proof to everybody apart from yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  125. ”Just tell me how the sensitivity and specificity of the cited tests were determined? You do agree that you need some kind of reference to determine the sensitivity and specificity of something, right?”

    Wrong.

    Obviously wrong, if you think about it. Because ultimately, you would need to determine the sensitivity and specificity of your reference, or your reference’s reference, or your reference’s reference’s reference. This is why many religions have Holy Books which are assumed by believers to contain ultimate and unassailable Truth. Science doesn’t. Science establishes “truth” provisionally, and through a process of synthesis of multiple lines of (and I realise this is a foreign concept to denialists) concordant evidence. The more lines of concordant evidence the better, and the less provisional the “truth”. But there are no true “gold standards” in science of the kind that exist in fundamentalist religion, and perhaps in mathematics. A “gold standard” in science is the best practicable approximation to that theoretical ideal. Denialist rhetoric plays on that ambiguity, and presents the absence of the equivalent of God's Words as some kind of problem.

    The Gold Standard Thingy Gambit is a boondoggle because it is an attempt to set up a series of infinite regress, and offering as the only possible terminator a demonstration of the virus by a methodology approved according to the personal and eccentric whims of a certain Mrs Eleopulos-Papadopulos of Perth, Western Australia (this is where the argument shifts into the HIV Has Never Been Isolated Gambit). Of course we all know by now that no such practicable method can or will ever be approved by Mrs E-P because... well, because she doesn’t want to, and that’s that.

    In other words, according to the Perth Group, they and they alone are the Ultimate Reference as to the existence of viruses, despite having no formal qualifications or laboratory or clinical experience in the field. They are the ultimate arbiters because they say so. This is delusional grandiosity of a clinical severity.

    So – moving to the real world now - how do you calculate sensitivity and specificity if you don’t a have an agreed reference standard to measure your test against? Answer: Easy. You measure sensitivity by testing it against a group you assume to have whatever it is you are testing for. You measure specificity by testing a group you assume not to have what you are testing for. The larger and more diverse the groups the better.

    “Ahah!” say the denialists. “Your sensitivity and specificity estimates are based on *shock horror* assumptions?”

    Indeed they are, and in reality they are only as accurate as those respective assumptions. This is not news to the researchers who make those assumptions and test them as hypotheses. However, to the extent that assumptions may be wrong your sensitivity and specificity figures will underestimate the true sensitivity and specificity of the test. In other words, estimating sensitivity and specificity in this way gives you a minimum value for each of these parameters.

    Of course, the more accurate you can make your assumptions, the closer this minimum estimate will approach to the true figure. That’s where evidence comes in: the more multiple lines of concordant evidence, the more accurate your assumptions can be.

    Neat, huh? And the best bit is that you obviate the need to depend on the personal whims of a delusionally grandiose autodidact from Perth to solve an otherwise interminable problem of infinite regress.

    Which will be a relief to us all.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Montagnier's Ghost,

    You deserve a medal for dealing with these illiterate morons. The thing I have learned is that they are not scientists, but idealogues. They view everything thru the prism of Virus-bad, Medicine-good!

    I gave them a specific citation to the literature about the lack of "gold standard' from Owens, and they start foaming at the mouth and crying like little girls.

    To our pal, Snot, the simple question is, How can anyone tell that a patient is, in fact, not in theory, infected with HIV?

    Lacking a "gold standard," YOU CAN'T!

    Antibodies are not viruses

    P24 is not a virus

    DNA or RNA fragments are not viruses.

    The central problem for these AIDS morons, is that they have falsely charged numerous people of being infected with a virus, based on scant, ever-shifting evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  127. You deserve a medal for dealing with these illiterate morons. The thing I have learned is that they are not scientists, but idealogues.

    Yes, thank goodness Bill is here with his lack of understanding of immunology and his pre-GED to set us all straight. Sorry Bill, just because you are incapable of understanding the evidence does not make it invalid. It simply means it is beyond your feeble intellect (sic).

    I gave them a specific citation to the literature about the lack of "gold standard' from Owens, and they start foaming at the mouth and crying like little girls.

    Bill I don't honestly think you have READ a single of your citations. Please do explain your latest
    Roederer quote. Seeing as Roederer was saying the exact opposite of what you and RA seem to think he was is there any reason we should believe any of your citations are even relevant? Please do explain.

    Lacking a "gold standard," YOU CAN'T!

    Would you like to take bets on how many diagnostic tests lack gold standards? I think you will be surprised.

    The central problem for these AIDS morons, is that they have falsely charged numerous people of being infected with a virus, based on scant, ever-shifting evidence.

    Thousands of papers are scant? How much actual evidence do you have for your laughable and long ago disproven drugs/drugs+malnutrition causes AIDS? You must have millions of peer-reviewed studies then, right? How about you show us some credible ones.

    ReplyDelete
  128. "I gave them a specific citation to the literature about the lack of "gold standard' from Owens, and they start foaming at the mouth and crying like little girls."

    Billy, the quote mine from Owens that you copy pasted from Rethinking AIDS was a reply to my specific request for you to define precisely what you mean by “gold standard”. Like every other denialist before you, you avoid the question and reply with a non-sequitur.

    We all know what Owens et al meant by “gold standard test” (note the third word) in the context of their paper, which is about the difficulties in diagnosing HIV in neonates. They are referring to an already existing testing algorithm which is generally agreed to be the most accurate in determining HIV status in a particular clinical situation. This is what “gold standard test” means in clinical practice. In adults this includes - and may, depending on circumstances, entirely consist of - a particular sequence of EIA and Western Blot tests. However, these key tests are not reliable in determining whether an infant is infected, because of the confounding presence of maternal IgG in the infant’s blood. That is what Owens et al mean by a lack of a “gold standard test” against which the sensitivity and specificity of PCR can be measured in infants. Capisce?

    However, this does not appear to correspond with what you mean by “gold standard”. Which is why I asked what you mean by the term, not what Owens et al meant by it in the specific context they used it. We already know that.

    From your comments all I can gather is that for you “gold standard” has something to do with a particular method of virus isolation or identification that is notable for not existing. By contrast, all the existing direct and indirect methods that virologists use for isolating and identifying viruses – testing for and sequencing viral proteins and nucleic acids, electron microscopy, production of infectious molecular clones (what Duesberg calls the most rigorous method of retroviral isolation known to science), various methodologies for simultaneous identification of up to ten antibodies specific for particular viral proteins and glycoproteins, etc, etc – none of these either singly or in combination can ever amount to a “gold standard” test for any virus in your estimation.

    So I ask again: precisely what do you mean by “gold standard”? Because I am increasingly getting the impression that you have not the faintest fricking idea what you mean by the term.

    Are you just using it because you heard it somewhere, think it sounds good, and impresses the scientific illiterates among your intended audience?

    ReplyDelete
  129. Montagnier's GhostOctober 22, 2009 at 1:30 AM

    Hmmm, I think Dr. Noble has tilted for good.

    He persists in making me responsible for what he believes Bill has argued. Those who don't agree with you, Dr. Noble, are not all identical copies or one large amorphous mass. You know, it's like not all Germans being anti-semites just because Hitler was Austrian; a concept the blog owner is also struggling to wrap his head around. Try to keep things apart, then you will become not only a better debater, but also a more agreeable person and less prone to lapse into various isms.

    Bill, I believe Snout, although he is indeed foaming at the mouth, just admitted that there is no virus; I guess that was what all the nonsense about infinite regress was about.

    As the Pert Group has told him and others like him on many occasions, there is no infinite regress for a pregnancy test. It stops right there with the baby.

    But the lack of a virus as reference or gold standard of course has nothing to do with the Pert Group, unless Mr. Snout wants to claim that Owens et al are Perth worshippers.

    In the end, I think we got our gold standard; it was the AIDS patient, right?

    Wrong I am afraid. In the Jackson et al study, out of 401 subjects, 265 were asymptomatic. It was the antibody test and not clinical status that decided who was destined to get dispatched to the Land beyond the Sea by a new, unique retrovirus.

    Thus, the gold standard or "reference" here was not the patient, but the test. Jackson et al merely demonstrated correlation between tests by showing that they could get at least one of the other marker tests to light up in antibody positive people.

    Jackson et al used neither the virus nor the patient as "reference". They used the tests to confirm each other. What the shills don't tell you is that the too-good-to-be-true Jackson et al results were pretty unique. There have been lots of similar experiments both before and after with much less success.

    What are we to make of those? Dr. Noble has kindly informed us: We keep modifying the tests and/or the algorithms until we arrive at a respectable degree of correlation.

    We also keep redefining our "reference", the AIDS patient. We add diseases, we add a Cd-4 count criteria. We then couple the diseases and criteria with the tests: Our "reference" the clinically ill AIDS patient is only an AIDS patient if he tests positive on a HIV test, and our < 200 CD4 cells criteria is only AIDS if the patient tests positive and happens to live in the US.

    We also redefine the "latency period", create new categories like "elite controllers", Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia, discover genetic mutations that confer resistance of all sorts, both among the human population and the viral population that are resistant, add the incalculable effects of constantly "modified" wonder drugs and treatment criteria, and in the end it is all such a mess that the original hypothesis has become impossible to falsify.

    In last crowning move, you then accuse of being stuck in the past those who cut through this ever thickening web of ad hockery by going right back to the beginning; the original AIDS patients, the original virus isolation experiments.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Ghost, it seems despite all your incoherent waffle above, you too are unable to answer a simple question: what, precisely, do you understand by the term “gold standard test” that you keep throwing around?

    You don’t have a clue either, do you?

    You're simply hoping that if you blather on long enough, no one will notice.

    ReplyDelete
  131. He persists in making me responsible for what he believes Bill has argued. Those who don't agree with you, Dr. Noble, are not all identical copies or one large amorphous mass.

    That's one of the reasons why debating Denialists is futile. The only thing they agree on is that the 'orthodoxy' are wrong. You can't even state consistently what your own position is.

    I cite a study showing that Nairobi prostitutes exposed to HIV do not always become persistently infected.

    You make some obscure criticisms of the study.

    Then after changing tack several times you cite a study showing that people with haemophilia who were exposed to HIV do not always become persistently infected.

    What exactly are you trying to argue.

    I certainly can't work it out.

    Why don't you and Bill go off somewhere quiet and try to work out what you are trying to say apart from everybody else is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  132. "As the Pert Group has told him and others like him on many occasions, there is no infinite regress for a pregnancy test. It stops right there with the baby."

    Well, as a committed Stork Theorist I find your assertion highly presumptuous. Since when has pregnancy ever been scientifically proven to result in babies?

    SHOW ME THE ONE STUDY THAT PROVES THAT PREGNANCY=BABIES. I personally have met many babies, and NONE of them were pregnant. I've also met many pregnant women, and while some of them also have babies a lot of them don't. They're just fat, with not a pram in sight.

    And no, I'm not interested in any of your so-called studies that already presuppose the PREGNANCY=BABIES myth. I WANT THE ONE STUDY AND I WANT IT NOW!!11!!

    Also, there is nothing "pert" about Val and Mrs E-P. Even their arguments are tired and saggy.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Montagnier's GhostOctober 22, 2009 at 9:13 AM

    Earth to Snout:

    Did you see me agreeing with this?

    an already existing testing algorithm which is generally agreed to be the most accurate in determining HIV status in a particular clinical situation. This is what “gold standard test” means in clinical practice

    So why do you keep foaming on about it?

    You've already told me what the gold standard is, namely AIDS patients. You have also defined what a gold standard test is, well done.

    Now all you have to do is tell me what the gold standard test was in the Jackson et al paper, and what constituted "isolation".

    Since it is not exactly first time you, Chris, AIDtruth and other hacks have trotted out Jackson et al as the answer to all your wet dreams, you WILL forgive me for asking a few basic questions.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Ghostie,
    I really have no idea what your objections to the Jackson paper are other than that you don't like the results.
    The paper is very clear.

    ReplyDelete
  135. There's some illuminating new stuff here:
    http://www.tig.org.za/RA.htm

    Check out Claus Jensen deconstructing Duesberg:
    http://www.tig.org.za/Deconstructing_Duesberg.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  136. Hey Monty's Ghost,

    You have raised a provocative issue about the lack of an HIV "gold standard." It has caused me to think harder about it. I thank you for that.

    To determine whether woman is pregnant, the ultimate 'gold standard' is the birth of a baby.

    A generally acceptable 'gold standard' is a nice sonogram, showing the fetus.

    A lesser 'gold standard' (silver standard?) is a home pregnancy test.

    An even lesser 'gold standard' (copper standard?) is a bulging tummy.

    To determine whether a patient has or has not cancer, the ultimate 'gold standard' is a biopsy of the tissue, and a pathology examination with an electron microscope.

    A lesser 'gold standard' (silver standard) might by an analysis through immunohistochemical staining.

    An even lesser 'gold standard' (coper standard) might be an X-ray showing an odd mass in the lung

    An even lesser 'gold standard' might be detecting a lump or pimple on your body.

    It would be criminal for an oncologist to diagnose a patient with cancer, without using a diagnostic 'gold standard.' Differentiating betwen benign growths and malignant growths is a standard practice.

    Simple logic: If X, then B.

    If X, then pregnancy.
    If X, then cancer.

    So, what is X? Answer: Positive sonograms and biopsies. Both of which give us a great deal of reliability


    So, now, let's compare this to HIV.

    If X, then HIV infection. So, what is X?

    Owens and a few others in the literature admit there is no virologic 'gold standard'. In sum, there is no X. There's a lot of indirect, scattershot mush. So, what are the implications of this indirect mush?

    In practice, the extremely weak standard of antibodies are used as a de facto 'gold standard.'

    But, antibodies are not viruses, nor are they a gold standard for detecting the presence or absence of viruses. You cannot say: If antibodies, then HIV.

    Then they use Quantitative PCR measurements.

    But, DNA or RNA fragments are not viruses, nor are they a gold standard for detecting the presence or absence of HIV. See Owens et al. You cannot say: if "viral load," then HIV.

    Due to these sloppy, standardless practices, many innocent people get dragged into the hideous net of AIDS science. This probably explains the "Long -Term Non Progressors" or "Elite Controllers." This probably explains the ridiculously long 10-year latency period between "infection" and symptoms.

    How convenient that these standardless practices expand and increases the scope of this lucrative epidemic, too.

    I don't want to hear from any of you numbnuts (Seth, Snot, Keno Kid), just Monty's Ghost. What do you think? Am I on the right track?

    ReplyDelete
  137. Reality to Spirit World:

    The Gold Standard Thingy Gambit fails as a logical argument because it employs a slippage in categories, which you have continued to try to play throughout this discussion, despite my efforts to point out the fallacy.

    "You've already told me what the gold standard is, namely AIDS patients."

    *face/palm*

    A "gold standard" or "gold standard test" (more properly described as a reference standard or criterion standard) is a diagnostic process. More accurately, it is the particular diagnostic process that is generally agreed to be the most accurate in sensitivity and specificity for a particular purpose, and it achieves that golden status by the consensus of experts considering the available evidence about different diagnostic methodologies. A gold standard may consist of a single test, or a particular combination of tests and/or other clinical activities.

    A gold standard test is a benchmark diagnostic process against which both the sensistivity and specificity of other diagnostic methodologies can be measured. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Your fallacy is to confuse a test for something with that something which is being tested for. This is the basic category error. A gold standard test for AIDS is not a person with AIDS, or even the disease AIDS itself. It can only exist in the category of diagnostic processes, not in the categories of illnesses or persons.

    Likewise, a gold standard test for HIV antibodies can only be a type of test, not a type of protein which might be identified by that test. A gold standard test for a virus is not the virus itself, but a methodology for identifying that virus. The problem with the Pert Group in their elaboration of HHN-BIG is they refuse to accept the validity of any methodology for identifying viruses in existence, and equate that refusal with (at least in the eyes of their followers) with the non-existence of viruses. It is a waste of time trying to reason with such stubborn contrarianism.

    The status of "gold standard" applied to a test or treatment or whatever is rarely permanently fixed in medical practice, because advances in diagnostics and therapeutics occur regularly, and newer and better benchmarks can often be achieved by taking advantage of such developments. In some cases there is no current consenesus as to the benchmark for a particular test, in which case sensitivity and specificity are measured in other ways.

    Category errors such as confusing tests for that being tested for are common fallacies in denialist argumentoids and canards. Another common one is claiming that AIDS is not a single disease but a collection of diseases such as PCP, KS, etc. In the latter case the error is confusing a signified (the single immune system disease AIDS) with its signifiers (AIDS-defining or AIDS-indicator diseases).

    Thus endeth the sematics lesson.

    ReplyDelete
  138. As for your question about Jackson:

    Firstly, estimating the sensitivity and specificity of each of the three virus detection techniques was not the primary purpose of the study. The primary purpose was to answer the question: "Can HIV be detected in all samples seropositive for HIV antibody, whether from symptomatic or asymptomatic individuals?"

    The answer was "Yes".

    The sensitivities and specificities were not calculated against a "gold standard" (see above)

    Sensitivity of each of the three tests (culture, PCR and p24 Ag) was estimated by testing the performance of each of the three against 409 samples, each of which was assumed to have HIV in it. The basis of that assumption was that HIV had been detected by at least one of the methods used. Of course it is possible in theory at least that there may have been samples that didn't actually contain HIV among the 409. In which case the sensitivity estimates of 97% for each of culture and PCR and either 17% or 42% (depending on symptoms for p24 Ag would have been underestimates of the true sensitivity of each of these tests.

    The specificities of culture and PCR were estimated by testing their performance against 131 and 43 samples respectively that were assumed not to contain HIV, on the basis that they were seronegative for HIV antibody. Of course this assumption could be wrong in theory - the sensitivity of the antibody testing used to select the seronegative samples might have been inadequate, and you can be truly seronegative for HIV antibody during the early stages of infection with the virus. If this were the case, then the true specificty of the culture and PCR tests could actually be higher than the estimate provided by the experiment.

    However, the question is moot, since the estimated specificity for both tests was 100%.

    ReplyDelete
  139. "Bill" wrote: "many innocent people"

    careful Demian, your Federalist Society roots are showing.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Bill, you have truly proven you do not know science. However, I will give you an E for Effort in that you are "trying"(?) for some logic with your attempts at comparing "gold standards" although it is these "attempts" which prove you do not know science nor diagnostic tests.

    First, your "silver standard" for preg:
    "A lesser 'gold standard' (silver standard?) is a home pregnancy test."
    This test utilizes the same method as an OraQuick HIV test! It is a capture type test. So if you think that can be a silver standard, then the more sensitive and accurate ELISA (also a capture test in that it is a sandwich assay) is a "gold standard" in HIV testing and the even more accurate and specific Western Blot would be the PLATINUM Standard!

    Also, as further proof that your science and diagnostic understanding is lacking is your comment about Cancer Ultimate "gold standard" of biopsy plus EM! Um, go a step lower (on your scale) and you will find how cancer is actually diagnosed. It is immunohist. staining and peripheral blood smear! A pathologist does not need to use an EM to diagnose cancer! Even I, as a Med Tech, can identify the type of blast cells present in peripheral blood/bone marrow, along with other morphological characteristics and narrow down the possibilities.

    Come on Bill, if you want to understand this stuff, then listen to Snout. He is spot on.
    However, I doubt you really want to understand. IF you did, you would stop making broad, general assumptions and LISTEN. Stop running off at the mouth and LISTEN!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  141. If you have been reading thread, you may be asking “why has Seth allowed this Bill & Ghost of Montagnier v.s. Snout, Poodlestomper, JTD, Chris Nobel thing to go on for so long??

    There are three reasons.

    One. This thread illustrates the most basic tactics used by AIDS Deniers to protect their bubble of denial. Read the above comments and you will see nearly every trick in the denialist book – cherry picking research results, distracting from questions they ask that are answered, moving goal posts, etc. It would go on forever if I allowed it.

    Two. The discussion provides an excellent example of the Pure Virus Myth. If you are not familiar with The Pure Virus Myth you have not read my book Denying AIDS. The ‘Gold Standard’ that AIDS Deniers demand in order to ‘prove’ an HIV test is valid is a favorite game. Here we see an inability to grasp even the simplest explanations for testing and diagnostics, including test sensitivity and specificity. Ultimately AIDS Deniers argue until their opponents are exhausted from tedium. However, they never calculated engaging Snout, Poddlestomper, Chris Nobel and JTD. These guys seem to have boots up to their hips as they wade through the cesspool crapped out by Bill and Ghosty.

    Three. Chris, Snout, Poodlestomper and JTD seem to have been enjoying bring out the dumb in denialists. So why not?

    This Blog is about AIDS Denialism. I appreciate the case examples our AIDS Denialist friends provide. But ultimately, enough is enough. So this thread is officially dead. You can just say the stress of monotonous pseudo-debate killed it.

    If you have a comment specifically on the Peter Duesberg Newsweek story I will post it.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Aids disidents are idots, proof on hivchat.org!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You truth denialists are all the same, closed minded. You people are so stupid that I shouldn’t waste my time trying save any of you. Robert Gallo is a proven liar and a scumbag and yet you will take his word over Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis. They had everything to lose and nothing to gain by telling the truth. When the top retrovirus expert and a Nobel Prize winner tell you that HIV does not cause AIDS and you still believe in the scumbag then you’re stupid and there is no cure for that. So go ahead take your AZT cocktail I hear it’s good for your liver.

      Delete
  143. I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

    Lucy

    http://maternitymotherhood.net

    ReplyDelete
  144. Thanks Mabel
    It is nice to know you are visiting my blog. I appreciate your commenting and hope you continue to find new posts of interest.
    My best regards!!
    Seth

    ReplyDelete