Ideas

Against the evidence

Published 18 September 2008

Richard Wilson on the crucial difference between doubt and dogmatism

Throughout the 1960s, the tobacco industry famously spent millions promoting a small group of vociferous "sceptics" who, in the face of overwhelming evidence, continued to deny the link between smoking and cancer. The strategy paid off. Long after a clear scientific consensus had emerged, much of the public still believed that the case remained unproven.

In a sceptical age, even those disseminating wholly bogus ideas - from corporate pseudo-science to 9/11 conspiracy theories - will often seek to appropriate the language of rational inquiry. But there is a meaningful difference between being a "sceptic" and being in denial. The genuine sceptic forms his beliefs through a balanced evaluation of the evidence. The sceptic of the bogus variety cherry-picks evidence on the basis of a pre-existing belief, seizing on data, however tenuous, that supports his position, and yet declaring himself "sceptical" of any evidence, however compelling, that undermines it.

While it is easy to guess the motivations of an industry-funded scientist denying the dangers posed by his commercial sponsor, or a far-right historian expressing "scepticism" about the Holocaust, other cases are more puzzling. It is difficult to explain why, for example, a respected academic would dismiss the mountain of proof that HIV causes Aids. But several have, notably the Berkeley virologist Peter Duesberg.

HIV is a type of "retrovirus". Duesberg has argued for decades that retroviruses rarely, if ever, harm their hosts. Rather than modify this theory in the light of evidence that one such virus was killing millions, Duesberg in the late 1980s announced his "scepticism" about that evidence, and has stuck to his guns ever since.

Early on, these ideas found a receptive audience among HIV sufferers, desperate for an alternative prognosis. The cause was later taken up by conspiracy theorists convinced that Aids was a money-spinning fabrication of the global pharmaceutical industry.

In South Africa, at the beginning of this decade, Aids scepticism gained currency with a political class dismayed at the prices being charged for life-saving medicines. Under the influence of Duesberg and his fellow "dissidents", Thabo Mbeki's government chose to delay for several years public provision of anti-HIV drugs. The economist Nicoli Nattrass estimates that this decision - made amid one of the world's worst Aids epidemics - may already have cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

Bogus scepticism does not centre on an impartial search for the truth, but on a no-holds-barred defence of a preconceived ideological position. The bogus sceptic is thus, in reality, a disguised dogmatist, made all the more dangerous for his success in appropriating the mantle of the unbiased and open-minded inquirer.

Richard Wilson's "Don't Get Fooled Again" is out now, published by Icon Books (£12.99)

Post this article to

186 comments from readers

Michael
19 September 2008 at 06:52

Richard. Some skeptic you are! You fell for it, didn't you?! Hook line and sinker! Without the least bit of any open minded research, let alone fully investigating it for yourself, you fell for the HIV as the cause of AIDS nonsense.

Just goes to show the old adage is true, and you and your new book are the proof of it: "We teach what we most need to learn"!

Google "Gallo's Egg" to find out what a trained investigator who did their homework quickly found: HIV can NOT be the cause of AIDS, and you and your book are verified to be bogus pseudoscience.

Do yourself a favor, before you insert your foot in your mouth again. Richard, check out the blog of a professor who investigates pseudoscience, who recently FULLY researched hiv/aids and found himself fully in agreement with Dr. Duesberg, at hivskeptic.wordpress.com.

Or read Professor Duesberg's books.

You will find upon your own research that the years of high death said to be due to hiv are the EXACT YEARS of high dosage AZT.

You will find that NO test finds verified HIV.

You will find that the HIV tests are proven to often go off with 70 different PROVEN factors.

You will find that there is NO proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

You will find that the leading cause of death in HIV positives in the west, is and always has been in those who take the HIV drugs.

No fool like an old fool, Richard. Surely you are not too old to learn something new! And being an obviously closed minded dogmatist yourself, perhaps it is time to come out of your little eggshell and wake up and smell the coffee, and at least admit that you are far from being any kind of a knowledgeable purveyor of truth yourself.

MacDonald
19 September 2008 at 08:14

Michael,

I'm sure Mr. Richards has been very thorough and scientific about this. That is why he will be delighted to seize the opportunity to strip the likes of you and me of that dangerously appropriated "mantle of the open-minded inquirer" and show everybody who the real dogmatists are.

Isn't that right Mr. Richards? Aren't you chomping at the bit to show your readers how to deal with pseudoscientists such as Prof. Duesberg?

I noticed that in all your open-minded righteousness you clean forgot to come up with a single argument against Duesberg. You just called him names.

I' m sure that was just an oversight, so here's your chance:

"Retroviruses rarely if ever harm their host". Mr. Richards, on what evidence, scientific or or otherwise, do you base your extraordinary claim that "HIV" (almost) always kills its host?

David
19 September 2008 at 14:27

Well, it didn't take long for the germ-deniers to crawl out from under their stone, did it?

RichardWilson
19 September 2008 at 18:12

Thanks for those comments, guys. I don't think I claimed that HIV (almost) always kills its host. I said that the virus was killing millions. That's consistent with there being a subset of people who also have the virus but haven't (yet) been killed by it. And if that's the case then it wouldn't be the only virus that is fatal less than 100% of the time - eg. flu and hepatitis.

But I'm not actually claiming to be an HIV/AIDS expert here. I'm a writer, not a virologist. The problem I'm really looking at is how we non-experts can judge which 'experts' to trust and which to ignore, given that we can't all be experts in everything. It seems to me that this is an important question not only for HIV and AIDS, but also in many other areas.

There are 'experts' who will tell you that white asbestos poses 'no measurable risk to health', and some who will insist that passive smoking is harmless. I'm not aware of any 'expert' who still denies that smoking cigarettes directly can cause cancer, but there were more than enough of them in the 1960s. And of course nowadays there are the scientists who deny that global warming is real (or that it's man-made), and at least one historian who has denied that the holocaust really happened. And what is striking is that such people often seem to present themselves as "sceptics". Even if you disagree with me on the issue of HIV and AIDS, I hope you'd agree that some of the other sorts of people I've listed are not in fact genuine sceptics in that they are not taking an open-minded and even-handed approach to the evidence.

When I was researching this issue I looked at some of Duesberg's writings, and at what other scientists said about him and his work on HIV and AIDS, and at what others had said about the "AIDS reappraisal" movement more generally. One of the sources I looked at on the evidence linking HIV and AIDS was this one: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm

Another source on Duesberg generally was this one: http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/266-5191-1642a....

I also looked at, among other things, Duesberg's own website, and through a lot of the articles on virusmyth.com and many old editions of Continuum magazine. I came to the conclusion that the scientific consensus (and the evidence) on this issue is overwhelmingly against Duesberg. I have not seen any evidence, in any peer-reviewed journal, to support the claim that the symptoms associated with AIDS are in fact caused by drug use (or anti-retrovirals).

Now I know that it's not beyond the bounds of logical possibility that the entire global scientific community has jointly engaged in a conspiracy to silence Duesberg and his ideas, and deceive us all about AIDS etc. But without compelling evidence of such a conspiracy (leaked memos, whistleblowers etc.) it just seems more plausible to me that it's Duesberg who's got the wrong end of the stick.

Another particularly horrible aspect to this tragedy is the extent to which so many of those denying the link between HIV and AIDS, and the efficacy of antiretrovirals - eg. Jody Wells and Hugh Christie, the editors of Continuum, along with many others listed here: http://www.aidstruth.org/aids-denialists-who-have-died.php have themselves succumbed to the disease after refusing to take the drugs that could have saved their lives.

MacDonald
19 September 2008 at 21:03

Richard Wilson,

We can easily agree that many people who pride themselves on being open-minded are in fact dogmatists and/or cranks. There are plenty of those.

There is also an endless supply of "crankbusters" such as yourself, and the way they operate is easily recognizable.

For instance, you write about the difference between doubt and dogmatism, and how to distinguish between two. But since you're not an expert, your method is to look at what somebody else has said about somebody (Duesberg in this case). You consult consensus to pass judgment on the "sceptic". I'm amazed you don't see the irony.

Your first fallacy is always argument from consensus.

The next one is waffling. First uou say you're no expert. I guess that's why you couldn't answer the simple question in my previous post about the evidence that HIV kills. . . however many, you pick a number you're comfortable with. Next you'll have me believe that you're expert enough to evaluate the highly technical stuff found in peer reviewed articles on retrovirology.

I didn't ask you if you had found evidence that the "symptoms" associated with AIDS could be caused by factors other than HIV, such as drug use or malnutrition. But since you mention it, what ARE the unique symptoms associated with AIDS? Wasting? Kaposis Sarcoma? Salmonella poisoning? Cervical cancer? Persistent diarrhoea? Persistent fever, Low CD4 count, tuberculosis, lymphoma, dementia? Candidiasis?

Whart exactly ARE you talking about Mr. Wilson?

In your no doubt heroic efforts to give Duesberg the benefit of the doubt, did you study the latest papers that conclude crack cocaine is an independent predictor of AIDS and death in HIV positives? Do you know what an independent predictor is Mr. Wilson?

Did you pause to consider that the "reapprasing AIDS movement" have had far more succes with their predictions than the mainstream science community? For example that AIDS deaths would decrease once they stopped overdosing on AZT. And that AIDS would never spread significantly beyond the initial risk groups. It took consensus science almost 25 years to start admitting that.

If you want to talk science, show me the goods Mr Wilson: Predictions, in vivo biological mechanisms, reproducible experiments, virus isolation. Otherwise hold your peace.

Then you kick into gear by calling Duesberg a conspiracy theorist. Another crankbuster classic: Smear your victims by calling them conspiracy theorists - oh and don't forget to mention the Holocaust at least once. You're run-of-the-mill, Mr. Wilson. Did you check to see if Duesberg's pastor is an angry black man?

You're saying that there are two choices: either HIV causes AIDS or the whole thing is a big conspiracy.

Are you saying consensus can never be wrong. Mr. Wilson? How do you think science and knowledge progress?

If you hadn't tipped your hand already, you certainly manage to do so in your last paragraph. You have chosen to conclude your, let's be nice, "argument" by referring to the most disgusting feature on the smear site AIDStruth.org, where they celebrate the deaths of those who oppose them.

At least "reappraisers" have the basic decency not to list by name the people killed by AZT or in horrible clinical trials in the Third World. On Virusmyth, you won't find the individuals identified who have participated in the dozens of failed microbicide or vaccine programs. What does that tell you?

Are you a medical doctor, Mr Wilson? Do you have access to Hugh Christie's and others' medical records? Are you a friend of the family? Have you inherited a crystal ball from some distant aunt? If not, how do you know what these people died of, what caused it and what could have saved them?

Richard Wilson,

We can easily agree that many people who pride themselves on being open-minded are in fact dogmatists and/or cranks. There are plenty of those.

There is also an endless supply of "crankbusters" such as yourself, and the way they operate is easily recognizable.

Your first fallacy is always argument from consensus.

Whart exactly ARE you talking about Mr. Wilson?

If you want to talk science, show me the goods Mr Wilson: Predictions, in vivo biological mechanisms, reproducible experiments, virus isolation. Otherwise hold your peace.

You're saying that there are two choices: either HIV causes AIDS or the whole thing is a big conspiracy.

Are you saying consensus can never be wrong. Mr. Wilson? How do you think science and knowledge progress?

Richard Wilson,

We can easily agree that many people who pride themselves on being open-minded are in fact dogmatists and/or cranks. There are plenty of those.

There is also an endless supply of "crankbusters" such as yourself, and the way they operate is easily recognizable.

Your first fallacy is always argument from consensus.

Whart exactly ARE you talking about Mr. Wilson?

If you want to talk science, show me the goods Mr Wilson: Predictions, in vivo biological mechanisms, reproducible experiments, virus isolation. Otherwise hold your peace.

You're saying that there are two choices: either HIV causes AIDS or the whole thing is a big conspiracy.

Are you saying consensus can never be wrong. Mr. Wilson? How do you think science and knowledge progress?

billybopalou
19 September 2008 at 23:23

This controversy is new to me. I heard of Duesberg when I was a young man and thought he was nuts, more investigating has changed my mind why?

1. Chimpanzees and other animals inoculated with HIV dont die of AIDS, even after 20 years.

2. The amount of T cells infected are very low, even Gallo stated only 1 in 10,000 cells are infected.

3. Most every other viruses cause disease before antibody protection, not years later.

4. The window period for HIV was extended from a few months to now 10 years when no one got sick.

5. SIV is a misleading animal model, for it doesn't occur in the wild, and the studies are poorly designed with no controls animals etc.

This begs the question, what causes AIDS? well 90% of AIDS deaths came after the Cell killing Chemotherapy AZT was used, put any under high dose chemo the rest of your life and see what happens.

Duesberg also argues that Being so high on drugs, not sleeping or eating properly while having 20 sex partners a night can lower immunity as well, as well as inhaling nitrite poppers that are the real cause of Kaposis Sarcoma.

Many scientists have agreed with him, some have posited HIV is harmless without cofactors like mycoplasmas.

RichardWilson
20 September 2008 at 07:31

Macdonald,

You may want to correct me on this, but I’m going to assume for the moment that you aren’t an expert on virology either, that essentially we’re both lay people trying to make sense of things from the outside.

So on your question about the evidence that HIV kills, I’d just say again that I found this summary (among others) fairly comprehensive, and basically a lot more convincing than anything I’ve seen by Duesberg et al: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm

If you are not convinced by the research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals demonstrating the link between HIV and AIDS, then I’m sure that there’s no evidence I can offer you that would do the trick either.

I don’t think I called Duesberg a conspiracy theorist. But I certainly have read claims from some in the “AIDS reappraisal” movement that there has been a “conspiracy of silence” against him, and/or that AIDS is a “hoax” or a “fraud”. There’s nothing wrong, per se, in my view, with postulating conspiracies. We know that all sorts of people make nefarious plots of various kinds all the time. But if we define a conspiracy theorist as someone who postulates a conspiracy on the basis of weak or non-existent evidence, then I personally think that’s a quite reasonable term to use in this context.

I don’t think I said that were only two choices, that either HIV is the cause of AIDS or that it’s all been a big conspiracy. I’m aware that there have also been some who claim that AIDS is the product of mass hysteria or a monumental misunderstanding. But if you take this view then it seems to me that you’re choosing to believe that the overwhelming majority of AIDS experts in the world have got the wrong end of the stick in their central area of expertise, and that you know better than them.

I’m certainly not saying that the consensus view on any given scientific issue can never be wrong. What I am suggesting is that, in the absence of expert knowledge of your own, the most reasonable approach is to go with the consensus view among the acknowledged experts, unless you have compelling evidence that the experts are bogus, or that the consensus has been arrived at by unreasonable means.

I haven’t seen any evidence that the AIDStruth website celebrates the deaths of those who oppose them, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to highlight the tragic fact that significant numbers of people who have embraced AIDS denial appear to have died as a result.

Richard

MacDonald
20 September 2008 at 14:01

Richard Wilson,

Once again, it is not research to take an anonymous, frequently revised fact sheet from the NIAID PR department at face value. If you are going to tell us that Duesberg is not convincing, or even make us believe you've read the orignal texts (yes peer-reviewed), you will have to produce at least an average schoolgirl argument:

Argument A

Argument B

Discussion

Conclusion

And when you do, remember Duesberg doesn't have the privilege of having an army of well-funded researchers working for him, or being able to edit public documents with an invisible hand when he discovers something doesn't add up.

Other posters have pointed out central problem areas to you. The only way HIV scientists have been able to counter the many intrinsic contradictions is to

constantly attribute new, never before seen powers to HIV, chief among them outlandish powers of mutation while retaining biological function. Of course there is an offical answer to everything. It takes some knowledge of the history of HIV research to appreciate that it is almost all speculation and ad hoc additions to support an essentially unsupportable theory.

These are the facts after 25 years:

The microbicides don't work - they don't know why.

The vaccines don't work - they don't know why.

HIV supposedly kills , but they cannot demonstrate the mechanism. They cannot model "HIV disease" mathematically. Here's a layman's test of the validity of a scientific theory: When you cannot successfully model something, it is because the information you feed into the model is flawed.

There is no viral gold standard for the HIV tests.

None of the antiretrovirals have been properly tested against placebo.

As Billy hinted above, there is no satisfactory animal model of HIV infection or AIDS - they don't know why.

All explanations for the "HIV epidemic" being heterosexual amomg blacks/Africans and homosexual amomng whites resolve into colonial assumptions about the sexual morals of "savages".

Mr. Wilson, I can see you continue your AIDStruth talking points about conspiracies and/or prodigous stupidity of the "experts". Where great financial, political, social interests are at stake, you don't need conspiracies to explain mistakes; you need only convergence of those interests and an initial misstep. How does such a misstep come about? Well, there's a good chance if you hire a hammer to identify a problem, you will soon be told that your problem looks unmistakably like a nail. When over-funded cancer virologists look at AIDS, chances are they're going to find a retrovirus somewhere.

Retrovirology is an arcane. Theere are not that many professionalas with the wherewithal to check or question the findings of this largely biotech driven enterprise. MIllions of people in the AIDS industry the world over are relying on the scientific integrity and genius of a select few.

This is not, excuse the pun, rocket science, and you are not having this discussion with a layman when it comes to philosophy, sociology and politics of science. Am I?

Look at it this way then: The case for Iraqi WMDs also looked convincing to many people the world over. Were all Western democracies in on the conspiracy? Hardly. When something hinges on privileged, esoteric knowledge backed by vested interest, you don't need conspiracies.

MacDonald
20 September 2008 at 14:11

"retrovirology is an arcane [science]".

At least I didn't triple copy this time.

hhbauer
20 September 2008 at 15:51

Richard Wilson:

I sympathize. Writers such as yourself cannot always research in full detail a subject as vast as HIV/AIDS, especially when one side of the story has been virtually excluded from mainstream publications and media for a decade or two. However, the NIH Fact Sheet you cite is wrong in almost every particular, see http://www.healtoronto.com/nih/

I read about HIV/AIDS "rethinkers" or "dissidents" for some 10 years before I came on clear, definite proof---in the published official literature---that HIV is not infectious and doesn't cause AIDS; see The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory (McFarland 2007), http://failingsofhivaidstheory.homestead.com/. My credentials include several decades of scholarship on questions of scientific unorthodoxy, and a number of well received books on these matters, see http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/

http://www.healtoronto.com/nih/

Bradford
20 September 2008 at 20:32

HIV does cause AIDS!

The views of HIV/AIDS denialists are not only false but they are dangerous!

HIV/AIDS denialists ignore facts: AIDS Denialists take old scientific documents and cut and paste; in order to create false text which supports their views.

Peter Duesberg has been totally discredited for his views that HIV does not cause AIDS.

There is more than enough evidence to support HIV is the cause of AIDS. Science is also able to tell what strain of HIV an individual is infected with, whether HIV-1 or HIV-2.

The numbers of HIV infections worldwide are reported to be around 33 million. This number doe not represent the number of people infected with HIV who do not yet know they are infected!

Denialists try to use the HIV/AIDS drugs as the reason why people died but the truth is that the drugs have/are preventing progression to disease and saving lives. Denialists most often claim AZT responsible for the AIDS deaths. However, AZT has been and continues to be used today; with great success. We don't denounce a treatment when not everyone benefits, especially when there are enormous benefits from the treatment. This is true for all kinds of treatments available to today!

I have been living infected with HIV, since 1984. I have had 24 years of regular blood work done, which not only supports that I have indeed been infected with HIV but the blood work shows the amount of virus. To-date; the amount of virus has been eradicated from my blood to undetectable levels.with the aid of HIV/AIDS medications.

HIV has undermined my immune system ( CD4 count to as low as 40 ) and caused opportunistic infections ( example: near fatal PCP Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in 1997). My body (immune system) was not strong enough; not able to fight off the pneumonia. The only recourse, was to go on HIV/AIDS medications with hopes that reducing the amount of virus would then strengthen a weakened immune system; enabling the immune system to fight off the pneumonia. That is exactly what happened. The drugs eradicated the virus and my own immune system strengthened enough to fight off the pneumonia. Saving my life!

I have been using HIV/AIDS medication since 1997, I have a quality of life I would not otherwise have. Today, my immune system is very strong (CD4 count is 920) and viral load undetectable ( less than 40 viral particles).

Quote: “Disputing the overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS is not only unscientific, but also inexcusably derails the only known approaches that can stop the terrible pandemic of AIDS. While the best approaches to improving health in settings with limited funds and substantial epidemics can be debated, the results of the studies conducted in the last sixteen years are indisputable: HIV causes AIDS. The presence of HIV infection is the only factor that is strongly and consistently associated with the conditions that define AIDS.” The Principal Investigators of the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and the Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS)

Bradford McIntyre, HIV+ since 1984

www.PositivelyPositive.ca

Vancouver, Canada

MacDonald
20 September 2008 at 23:04

"I have been living infected with HIV, since 1984".

"have been using HIV/AIDS medication since 1997".

Your wannabe supporter has presented a challenge, Mr. Wilson. Please explain:

13 years no meds. That was 11 years ago, still alive and kicking 2008.

But waitaminit!! We all thought the serious damage from the virus, hiding in he lymph nodes, gut and every other nook and cranny was done long before the 13 years. Bradford made it without the meds for that long and is a happy chappy today. Care to explain, Mr. Wilson? Care to model the course of "HIV disease"

RichardWilson
21 September 2008 at 08:35

Macdonald and Hbauer,

You’re going to have to excuse me if I sometimes take a little while to respond, but I will do my best to keep up with you.

The NIAD summary refers to a number of peer-reviewed scientific papers. One of these is a cohort study by Schechter et al published in 1993 in the Lancet. Researchers had followed the progress of 715 gay men over a median average of 8.6 years. Of the 136 AIDS cases that developed among this group, all occurred among the 365 men who had been HIV-positive at the start of the study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8095571?dopt=Abstract)

I’ve had a look through the “Heal Toronto” response to the NIAD summary and I can’t see any mention of the Schechter study.

It’s my understanding that there are still gaps in the explanation of the precise mechanism by which HIV damages the immune system. But this is not particularly unusual in the history of medicine. During the 1950s and 1960s there were still many gaps in the scientific understanding of the mechanism by which smoking cigarettes triggered lung cancer. While a clear consensus among scientists had emerged by the mid-1950s, smoking-cancer “sceptics” argued in the media, with a great deal of success, that, because the precise mechanism had not yet been explained, the case for smoking being the cause of cancer remained “unproven”.

But there was strong epidemiological evidence linking smoking and lung cancer – based in part on cohort studies with parallels to the one I’ve described above.

One of the most prominent and vocal of the smoking-cancer ‘sceptics’ was an eminent geneticist named Clarence Cook Little. Little was committed to the view that cancer was predominantly a genetic disorder. Rather than accept that an environmental factor, such as smoking, could play a major role in triggering the disease, he declared himself ‘sceptical’ about the mountain of evidence showing a link. Even as a succession of epidemiological studies demonstrated that smokers were overwhelmingly more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, Clarence Cook Little insisted that a cause would not be proven (and by extension that no government action should be taken) until the entire process had been demonstrated under laboratory conditions – and he maintained this position until the end of his life. But given that lung cancer typically takes decades to develop, the process of explaining this mechanism was always going to be a long and drawn out process – and in the meantime people were dying in their millions.

You say that ‘All explanations for the "HIV epidemic" being heterosexual among blacks/Africans and homosexual among whites resolve into colonial assumptions about the sexual morals of "savages"’.

This sounds like a bit of a generalisation to me. High levels of HIV infection have been reported in the heterosexual populations of many African countries. Yet I know of only one African government, South Africa, which has come close to denying the link between HIV and AIDS – and even that one now seems to have changed its mind. Are you saying that the governments of (among others) Botswana, Rwanda, Burundi, DRC, Kenya, Zambia, Uganda, Mozambique and Tanzania (http://www.tanzania.go.tz/hiv_aids.html) are all guilty of embracing “colonial assumptions”?

If I’m understanding you correctly, it seems you believe that the current majority view among AIDS scientists that HIV is the cause of AIDS stems from an initial ‘mistake’, which has never been properly reviewed, and that now ‘millions of people in the AIDS industry the world over are relying on the scientific integrity and genius of a select few’. Could you name these ‘select few’? And do you think that they are continuing to tell us that HIV is the cause of AIDS because they genuinely believe that to be the case, or because, as Rasnick has claimed, they now believe otherwise but are too “embarrassed or afraid” to admit it?

Richard

David
21 September 2008 at 12:01

Richard, I wouldn't get to exercised about debating the denialists - they are experts at what they do having had years of practice trying to refute the science. They appear all over the web like a rash, posting what they claim are plausible refutations of the HIV situation and making dogmatic statements - when anyone takes the time to check the facts and sources, they find the denialists have misquoted and twisted evidence to give the appearance of supporting their view.

By the time someone calls them on their mistruths, they have moved on elsewhere, to continue the process anew. Its like playing whack a mole.

Macdonald says

"These are the facts after 25 years:

The microbicides don't work - they don't know why."

Not true - HIV meds have been shown to completely inhibit HIV replication by at least 6 different mechanisms. And they work damn well, they just cannot eradicate dormant virus.

"The vaccines don't work - they don't know why."

The vaccines don't work, but they have a good idea why not. The problem is to stimulate a persistent T cell response to a virus that itself interferes with T cells. Vaccines against a lot of other infections are not very good either (TB for example). Perhaps Macdonald will conclude TB doesn't exist next.

"HIV supposedly kills , but they cannot demonstrate the mechanism. They cannot model "HIV disease" mathematically. Here's a layman's test of the validity of a scientific theory: When you cannot successfully model something, it is because the information you feed into the model is flawed."

Not true - the mechanisms are fairly clear now, T cell destruction occurs in a number of ways, and the mathematical models for it, while not perfect, are predictive and sound.

"There is no viral gold standard for the HIV tests."

Here the denialists want to have a gold standard for HIV that if applied throughout biology would mean that "there is no gold standard for any infection" HIV tests are actually one of the most accurate and reproducible tests available.

"None of the antiretrovirals have been properly tested against placebo."

Again, a distortion of the truth. There were in fact several trials of the original agents against placebo in a variety of clinical scenarios. There have been some trials of subsequent dual and triple drug treatments drugs against both placebo and previous agents. Currently drugs are tested in medicine against whatever is the best available current treatment. For instance, if you had a new type of insulin, you would not try it out against placebo - that would be unethical and kill the diabetics getting nothing. You need to test against current used products.

"As Billy hinted above, there is no satisfactory animal model of HIV infection or AIDS - they don't know why."

Part of the clue is in the name - it is a HUMAN immunodeficiency virus. Nevertheless there are now very good models with Simian-Human immunodeficiency clones and also in transfected mouse models. Problem is, the deniualists just keep ignoring all the work done in the last 10 years. That's not how science works, by ignoring new evidence because it contradiscts your preconceptions. But that's how denialists operate.

"All explanations for the "HIV epidemic" being heterosexual amomg blacks/Africans and homosexual amomng whites resolve into colonial assumptions about the sexual morals of "savages"."

Another lie. One that might have had a glimmer of truth 20 years ago, but not since.

MacDonald
21 September 2008 at 15:08

Mr . Wilson,

Thank you for engaging in a sober manner. I apologize for my tone earlier. Nobody demands or expects rapid responses when the issue is as complex as this.

I will attempt to deal with some of your points. I hope Prof. Bauer wants to chime in again. If not, you can get

considered responses on his "hivskeptic" website.

The Schechter et al. study is not mentioned by name in the rebuttal to the NIAID fact sheet, but it receives a lengthy, detailed and at times quite technical answer under the heading. "Why does there seem to be a correlation between so-called HIV antibodies and AIDS defining illness?"

It would be pointless to clutter the pages of this forum with several pages of tech-talk, but I'll quote part of the answer to give people an idea. From "Appendix B":

"The issue we must address how on the one hand can a positive "HIV" antibody test predict the onset of certain AIDS "indicator" diseases while on the other not be proof of infection with a retrovirus? In other words, if, as the EPE (Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos) and her colleagues argue, the "HIV" proteins are cellular and not viral, but individuals develop antibodies which react with these proteins, could such a non-specific test, which has absolutely nothing to do with a retrovirus infection, behave in such a clinically useful manner? The answer is yes and in fact clinical medicine is replete with such tests. Take for example, the presence of a fever, or an alteration in a blood count. Such tests often do predict particular illnesses, or exclude others, and are also of considerable use in gauging the course of a disease or the effect of treatment, or confirming cure. No one has any difficulty with this concept but no one imagines a fever is a cause of a disease. When the doctor looks at your temperature chart every morning he can tell at a glance there is something wrong or whether or not you are on the mend. In this regard possibly the test nearest to the HIV antibody test is that which measures the rate at which a patient's red blood cells sediment down column of saline solution (the erythrocyte sedimentation rate or ESR). All this test does is measure how far down the column a drop of blood falls in one hour. Normally this is about 15 mm but in certain illnesses it can be over 100 mm per hour or higher. And a raised ESR may predate symptoms (like a positive antibody test), that is, it may occur while the patient is healthy. The ESR, first discovered in 1918 by Fahraeus while seeking an test for early pregnancy, is a common but non-specific test which, when elevated, "is a measure of the presence and intensity of morbid processes within the body". Like a positive "HIV" antibody test, an elevated ESR also has the capacity to predict "a likelihood of death within the next several years far above" a normal ESR." [End quote]

Rebutting single studies is occasionally necessary, and

rethinkers like Duesberg and the Perth Group have looked at several key studies. It is a daunting task which often requires special knowledge and special access, perhaps personal communication with not always forthcoming authors:

http://www.duesberg.com/subject/jlascher.html

There is, however, a way around this for the educated layman. One can simply look for studies which falsify the study in question, and/or show that its basic assumptions are invalid. This is proper scientific method mischaracterized as "cherry-picking" by those who want to smear.

The essence of Schecter et al. and similar studies is:

1. There are no HIV-free AIDS cases.

2. Drug use in itself has little influence on health in general (one HIV proponent concluded publicly that "heroin is a blessedly untoxic drug") and plays no role in the aetiology of AIDS.

The first is an example of circular reasoning, therefore impossible to falsify. HIV is part of the definition of "AIDS" thus:

HIV + tuberculosis = AIDS.

Tuberculosis - HIV = tuberculosis.

Persistently low CD4 cell count + HIV = AIDS.

Persistently low CD4 cell count - HIV = (for instance) idiopathic CD+ t-lymphocytopenia.

The second conclusion has turned out only to be salvagable ad hoc. An increasing number of studies do show a correlation between drug use and AIDS events and death. The study authors will typically state their confusion, then speculate that drug users do not comply well with ARV regimens. In other words, it's not the drugs taken that impact health negatively, but the drugs (supposedly) not taken. This is symptomatic of the mindset of the pharmaceutical industry.

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

It is true, as you say, that it is not always easy to show mechanism of action or aetiology in a laboratory. Nevertheless, if one claims that HIV kills cells in certain ways in vivo one needs to back up one's claim. Cell killing doesn't take years, and so is much easier to observe than the long-term effect of low-level chemical exposure . An example of claims that are being made is that HIV kills "bystander cells". That is, HIV can kill cells without having to infect them.

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

African leaders may or may not reject into the HIV/AIDS story, but they are not likely to reject the millions of dollars pouring into their countries if they accept it. The EU recently proposed to make measures against HIV/AIDS a

precondition for awarding development aid to certain African countries. Thabo Mbeki of South Africa has for years been the target of intense smear campaigns and severe international pressure.

Whether African governments embrace HIV/AIDS theory or not, it is a fact that one has to resort to less than flattering assumptions about the behaviour of people of African ancestry to explain why the rate of positive HIV tests is generally and consistently manifold higher among them than among Caucasians, Asians, American Indians etc., not only in Africa but also in the US. Among the ideas resorted to in the mainstream debate we find that African men routinely rape their wives, that Africans smear monkey blood on their genitals to arouse themselves, that Africans have a predilection for "dry sex", that a large percentage of African men is on the "down low". . . These behaviour traits apparently persist in black Americans several generations removed from the Dark Continent.

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

I can speculate on the state of mind of those in the know who advocate HIV, but it remains speculation. The select few are people such as virologist Robert Gallo, co-discoverer of "HIV" and Anthony Fauci, head of NIAID.

I think most people would prefer to believe they are good and right. Those who blow themselves up in Iraq's market places believe they are good and right and that Allah is the One. Those who carpet bombed Vietnam for 10 years believed they were good and right and that Jesus and Capitalism are two persons in the holy Trinity. Consider the consequences of having to admit that HIV/AIDS was a mistake. If those most responsible were to face their complicity, how could they go on living? Under those cicumstances denial is easy to explain. If you still think this part sounds like nutty conspiracy theory, perhaps you could take it up with the Semmelweis Society, which recently awarded Duesberg their "Clean Hands Award":

http://www.rethinkingaids.com/tabid/110/Default.aspx

Michael E.
21 September 2008 at 16:16

One needn't be a medical doctor, virologist or rocket scientist to check basic facts!

"HV/AIDS" is based on prefabricated correlations, dubious surrogate markers, sensational

estimates and, consequently, on a complete reversal of common sense.

I call your attention to the 1997 The Pulitzer Prize winning: Medicine: AIDS Fight Is Skewed By Federal Campaign Exaggerating Risks (WSJ, 5/1/96 Amanda Bennett and Anita Sharpe)

The CDC intentionally lied to you about the size and risks of AIDS - Who do you trust, Now?

Can you remember when lying to the president, congress and the public was a crime -- I think it still is!

Michael Ellner

President, HEAL-NYC

www.healaids.com

Michael E.
21 September 2008 at 16:24

One needn't be a medical doctor, virologist or rocket scientist to check basic facts!

I call your attention to the 1997 The Pulitzer Prize winning report on Medcine:

AIDS Fight Is Skewed By Federal Campaign Exaggerating Risks (WSJ, 5/1/96 Amanda Bennett and Anita Sharpe)

http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/5997

Can you remember when lying to the president, congress and the public was a crime -- I think it still is!

"HV/AIDS" is based on prefabricated correlations, dubious surrogate markers, sensational

estimates and, consequently, on a complete reversal of common sense.

It is time to demand public hearings!

Michael Ellner

President, HEAL-NYC

www.healaids.com

MacDonald
21 September 2008 at 16:45

David,

You say you wouldn't get too exercised about debating "denialists". Looking at the quality of that effort I believe you.

1. Microbicides is not an "AIDS med" supposed to target virus in the body dormant or not. Its function is prevention. They can't make it work. In a few trials microbicides have been shown to increase the risk of infection. For example:

"Two Phase III clinical trials to study cellulose sulfate's effectiveness in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV have been halted as of January 2007. One trial in HIV uninfected women being conducted in South Africa, Benin, Uganda, and India was halted because preliminary results at some trial sites indicated using the microbicide could lead to potential increased risk of HIV infection in these women. Simultaneously, a Nigerian study of cellulose sulfate was halted. Although the second study did not detect an increased risk of HIV infection associated with the microbicide, the trial was halted as a precautionary measure in light of the preliminary results from the first study.[3] At interim analysis of the first trial, 24 women using cellulose sulfate and 11 women using placebo developed HIV. Possible causes for the increased infection rate include inflammatory reactions, local immune dysfunction, or vaginal flora disruption.[4][5] After the final study visit, conducted in May 2007, analysis showed no statistically significant difference in onset of HIV infection (25 women using cellulose sulfate and 16 using placebo) and no potential to prevent HIV transmission".

If someone wonders how the most lavishly funded research machine in medical history can develop a product designed to be smeared on women's genitals(Third Worlders obviously) immediately before sex - and push it as far as phase III trials -hat can cause "inflammatory reactions, local immune dysfunction, or vaginal flora disruption", All I can say is you're not the only Alice in HIV land scratching your head.

http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/DrugsNew/DrugDetailT.aspx?int_id...

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

2. The vaccines don't work - and they don't know why. That's why Fauci, who is no softie, called a halt to human trials. Here's NIAID boss Anthony Fauci's conclusion to a discussion of the problem in "Science":

"We're swimming in the dark," Dr. Fauci said. There is not enough knowledge about such issues to proceed rationally."

"Such issues" include animal models and basic science of HIV infection.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/HIVAIDS/HIVAIDS/tb/10245

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

3. The following was not written in 1987 but in 2007:

"A longstanding theory of how HIV slowly depletes the body's capacity to fight infection is wrong, scientists say.

HIV attacks human immune cells, called T helper cells. Loss of these cells is gradual, often taking many years. It was thought infected cells produced more HIV particles and that this caused the body to activate more T cells which in turn were infected and killed. Modelling by UK and US researchers suggests that, if that was true, cells would die out in months not years."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6230580.stm

The guys at AIDStruthdotorg found this threatening enough to shift into damage control mode. You can find their rationalizations somewhere among the smear jobs.

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

4. If David says there are no viral gold standard for any test for any infectious disease, I guess we have to take his word for it and welcome him in the ranks of arch denialists.

5. None of the ARVs have been PROPERLY tested against placebo.

DavidRCrowe
22 September 2008 at 00:57

The fundamental problem is very simple. Journalists (including obviously Richard Wilson) don't want to be forced to think, they want to be able to have a way to pick experts to believe. That's why they are so haunted by such controversies. They believe there has to be a scientific way to debunk Duesberg without actually thinking his theories and challenges through. But that's obviously nonsense. The only way to deal with Duesberg's challenges is to consider them seriously. But that violates the first law of modern journalism -- those with the highest status are the most trusted. Look how well it worked with the WMDs in Iraq ... who has higher status than the President of the USA?

It would be a lot easier for journalists if they considered financial conflicts of interest. If they did this, the vast majority of pro-establishment medical experts would be disqualified from consideration, and the 'dissidents' would start to look a whole lot less isolated. They actually represent the core of knowledgeable, uncorrupted scientists. The rest are either on the take or simply following their leaders like sheep.

Christine
22 September 2008 at 05:21

One glaring problem with the HIV hypothesis that any good skeptic ought to notice is that there is no such thing as a test for HIV. None of the tests currently used to make claims about HIV infection actually look for or find the virus itself. They all rely on the detection of surrogate markers such as antibodies or bits of genetic material, and apparently none of the tests for HIV surrogates have ever been validated for their ability to diagnose actual HIV infection by the direct purification of the virus from people who test positive for the surrogates. Perhaps Mr. Wilson could take a break from the back and forth here and resolve this dilemma--it would certainly be worth his time. There's a $50,000 Fact Finder Award from Alive & Well offered in exchange for a copy of a single scientific study published in the mainstream medical literature that shows the validation of any type of test for HIV surrogates by the direct purification of HIV itself from the fresh, uncultured fluids of people who test surrogate positive. The information asked for in exchange for the $50,000 award would go a long way toward resolving the controversy surrounding HIV. How about it Mr. Wilson? Everything you need to know to collect is at http://www.aliveandwell.org

RichardWilson
22 September 2008 at 07:38

Thanks for all those additional comments - I don't mind the 'back and forth' at all but it will take me a while to respond.

David
22 September 2008 at 11:10

Richard, one thing to consider is how diverse the claims and counterclaims from HIV denialists are. Some insist there is no virus (indeed some say viruses don't exist at all), some say there is a virus but it is harmless (Duesberg et al), some argue there is no AIDS pandemic, or quibble about AIDS case definitions trying to prove cases of immunodeficiency without evidence for HIV somehow disproves that it exists, and so on. Frequently their arguments are internally inconsistent, and contradictory. At one moment someone like the Perth Group will say HIV does not exist, and there is no serological test for it, the next they will say that serological tests showing a drop in cases in say Uganda prove there is no HIV epidemic. And as always, none has a coherent alternative explanation for what has happened over the last 25 years.

Their arguments often rely on small inconsistencies in the currently known science about HIV or the immune system. A bit like pointing out that, because aeronautical engineers are unclear as to the Bernoullian mechanisms that counter drag in an inverted aerofoil, this is proof that ....... Planes cannot fly! This is why responding to what appear to be pertinent questions about details of the science behind HIV/AIDS is so difficult.

Take the example of Macdonald above - there are studies showing vaginal microbicides (which are an effective contraceptive mechanism) actually increased the transmission of HIV, and didn't diminish it as had been originally hoped. For some reason denialists use this as one example as to why HIV doesn't exist, or that AIDS doesn't exist. Bizarrely, they seem happy to rely on the accuracy of HIV tests on this occasion don't they? We now know that transmission increased because the microbicides caused local imflammation in the genital tract. This actually made passage of HIV more likely into the female, rather than less likely. So orthodox science looked at a hypothesis, did the studies, drew appropriate conclusions which were it turns out consistent with the known facts about HIV, and it now moves on to try and find more effective ways to protect women.

The idea that no-one knows how HIV causes immunodeficiency is wrong. It is indeed a complex process, and somewhat a work in progress. Did anyone say science has to have all the answers immediately available? It has taken over 20 years to unravel the idiosyncrasies of HIV, much less than it has taken for other viruses such as Hep C (still no vaccine after 30 years) or even infections like TB (no vaccine after 100 years). Macdonald quotes a paper that questions one of the current theories on the rate of T cell depletion. The paper says :

"The asymptomatic phase of HIV infection is characterised by a slow decline of peripheral blood CD4+ T cells. Why this decline is slow is not understood. One potential explanation is that the low average rate of homeostatic proliferation or immune activation dictates the pace of a “runaway” decline of memory CD4+ T cells, in which activation drives infection, higher viral loads, more recruitment of cells into an activated state, and further infection events. We explore this hypothesis using mathematical models."

Notice, they address ONE theoretical concept of ONE aspect of HIV pathogenesis. They don't conclude, as the denialists would have you think, that the evidence for HIV is junk. All they do is show that "one potential explanation" (their words) does not seem valid when they apply a particular mathematical model. Big deal. That's science in action. The strange thing is about this paper is that the "potential mechanism" the study autours disproved is not in any case a current valid hypothesis, and never has been. See here:

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=read-resp...

You'd think by the denialist response to this article that it spells the death knell for HIV science as we know it. Hardly. It in fact serves as a great example of misrepresentation by the denialists, and neatly exposes their MO.

Just a final interesting point on Duesberg. You see, he provided what conclusive proof that HIV exists, and even tried to claim the spurious and fictitious $$$ prize offered by other denialists for doing so. Of course they threw his claim out - accepting what his evidence for HIV would undercut a huge swathe of their raison d'etre. They couldn't have that. He is the denialist's hero only when it suits them, but they hush up any of his work that counters their mission.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pdreplyep.htm

Like I said, debating them is fruitless, and like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.

If you are interested in finding out more about the denialist view, see a good intro here:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pub...

This is also a good source of general information on the evidence for HIV/AIDS:

http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm

MacDonald
22 September 2008 at 15:20

I hope David will stay with us at bit longer. His debating style and arguments are excellent examples of the kind of incoherent, gossipy attacks which have been levelled against Duesberg and others, mostly by proxy.

There is of course no hush-hush of the kind David supects. Those who are the first to cry "conspiracy theory" are almost always the first to detect conspiracies. Defenders of HIV science all have this paranoid belief in an Al Qaeda like "denialist" organization or "movement".

Duesberg and the Perth Group - theperthgroup.com - were the first to openly question HIV theory. They differ on the subject of virus isolation. Duesberg accepts the validity of the new indirect virus isolation methods. The Perth Group doesn't. It is a ridiculous notion that anything needs to be hushed up. Maybe David was thinking of the policies of Centers for Disease Control?

There might be internal inconsistencies in the Perth Group's arguments; they have written a lot and hopefully their position has evolved over the past 25 years. However, the example David came up with about HIV tests in Uganda or some such place was freely invented.

My point about mathematical modelling of "HIV disease" was that they can't come up with a valid model because they don't know what to feed into the model. David thinks his argument somehow counters

that point:

"Notice, they address ONE theoretical concept of ONE aspect of HIV pathogenesis. They don't conclude, as the denialists would have you think, that the evidence for HIV is junk. All they do is show that "one potential explanation" (their words) does not seem valid when they apply a particular mathematical model. Big deal. That's science in action. The strange thing is about this paper is that the "potential mechanism" the study autours disproved is not in any case a current valid hypothesis, and never has been". [End quote]

"One theory out of many, one aspect out of many, one potential explanation out of many . . ." The fact is they don't know how "HIV disease" works - as I said.

But David has performed a valuable service. I encourage everybody to click on the link and read the Comment from Richard Jefferys. Richard Jefferys is a leading member of South Africa's Treatmant Action Campaign, a powerful pressure group which is also involved with AIDStruth.org. The Comment is part of the routine damage control operations they engage in when scientists, politicians or media don't toe the official line.

I am sure Mr. Richard Wilson is proud to top the list of that website's news items. I hope and expect he will receive help from them of a slightly higher quality than David's efforts, although those are representative. None of the AIDStruth members will join this debate openly since it is against their stated policy of silencing rethinkers rather than debating them.

Andrew Maniotis
22 September 2008 at 16:02

Dear Mr. Wilson, and "David" of the long post above,

If you really want to know the secret to "HIV/AIDS," simply look at the recent PatientsLikeMe compilation of 500 most frequently used remedies used to treat "HIV/AIDS" or the side effects of the drugs to treat "HIV/AIDS" drugs, and notice, at the top of the list, is Donald Rumsfeld's drug, Atripila as the number one best seller!. Now please ask yourself why you believe the scientific career of Donald Rumsfeld is so stellar compared to the careers of a National Academy member, and Fogarty Scholar and Best Scientist of The Year Recipient and now Semmelweis Award Recipient, Peter Duesberg, or the Nobelist, and inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis who years ago disavowed that his PCR test could detect "HIV" years before before David Ho (Man of the Year) lied and said he could use it to detect viral load and "to hit hard and to hit early" was the way to treat AIDS patients?" Is it perhaps the way Rumsfeld began his scientific training as Searle's CEO when he compelled Reagan, on his first day in office, to subvert the safety information from FDA trials regarding his company's sweetener, aspartame, the potent neurotoxic exitotoxic amino acid and others molecules like it (pilocarpine) that we used to use to cause seizures in rats? Is it not clear why "Professor Rumsfeld" put this [vile] substance into every baby food jar in America and into half the soft drinks? Once "Professor. Rumsfeld" left Giliad Biosciences as its chairman to then go help George Bush spread peace and understanding throughout the Arab world during the Bush regime, his scientific genius and prowess then led him of course to discover Tamiflu, and everybody knows how well it cures "bird flu," that nasty new PANDEMIC!!!

Atripila is no different, and in my opinion, is Rumsfeld's crowning scientific contribution (with 25 million in stocks for him alone and outselling GlaxoSmithKline and LaRoche last year with their top AIDS drugs) and topping the list of most used AIDS medications, according to "PatientsLikeMe," an organization begun at MIT to divert people to "promising pharma-shill" treatment strategies .

Before you try the remaining list of 499 other "life-saving" AIDS medicines and treatments such as prayer or viagra (see http://www.patientslikeme.com/hiv/treatments?page=1&r=top

list or vasotech or isoniazad) that treat "HIV-disease," I strongly urge you to...begin to....follow the money.

If you can't afford Atripila, study carefully the top next 499 "life-saving" treatments for you or your loved one's "HIV/AIDS" "illness" that you or they should immediately begin taking all at once just in case you or they have accidentally slept with a person of color, or shaken hands with someone who might be gay (or might have been gay before Jesse Helms, Donald Rumsfeld, or George Bush "cured" them and rendered their sexuality null for life). The list can be found at:

http://www.patientslikeme.com/hiv/treatments?page=1&r=top

Below are some "cherry picked references" I've collected during the past 24 years or so during my studies on cancer and AIDS in various labs throughout the U.S. and Europe. They may save you time.

Cheers,

Andrew Maniotis, PhD.

Email: andy.maniotis@gmail.com

1. Noireau F. HIV transmission from monkey to man. Lancet (i): 1498-1499, 1987

2. Green J., Miller D. AIDS The story of a disease, p66. Grafton Books, London 1986

3. Retroelements and the human genome: new perspectives on an old relation.

Suppl 2:14572-9. Aug 13, Epub 2004.

4. Varmus H. Reverse transcription Sci. Am. 257:48-54, 1987.

5. Strandstrom et al., Studies with canine sera that contain antibodies which recognize human immunodeficiency virus structural proteins Cancer Res 1990 Sep 1;50 17 Suppl:5628S-5630S.

6. Horwitz MS, Boyce-Jacino MT, Faras AJ. Novel human endogenous sequences related to human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Virol. Apr;66

(4):2170-9, 1992.

7. Ghori A. 1; Usselmann B. 2; Odogwu S. 1; Fraser I. 1; Morris A. 2 Colorectal Disease,, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 106-112, 2000.

8. Pachez M. No need to be phased. Shares, 28-32, 2001.

9. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou J, Page B, Causer D, Alfonso H, Mhlongo S, Miller T, Maniotis A, Fiala C. A critique of the Montagnier evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Med Hypotheses 63(4):597-601, 2004.

10. Dura WT, Wozniewicz BM. Expression of antigens homologous to human retrovirus molecules in normal and severely atrophic thymus. Thymus 22 (4):245-54, 1994.

11. Willman et al., Heterophile Antibodies to Bovine and Caprine Proteins Causing False-Positive Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 and Other. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay Results. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, p. 615-616, Vol. 6, No. 4, July 1999.

12. Simonsen L, Buffington J, Shapiro CN, et al. Multiple false reactions in viral antibody screening assays after influenza vaccination. Am J Epidemiol 141:1089-1096,1995. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/354/13/1422

13. Lee, D, Eby W, Molinaro, G.. HIV false positivity after Hepatitis B vaccination. Lancet 339: 1060, 1992.

14. Doran TI et al. False-Positive and Indeterminate Human Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women. Arch Fam Med. Sep/Oct; 9: 924-9, 2000.

15. Christine Johnson. Whose antibodies are they anyway? Factors known to cause false postive HIV test results. Continuum. Sept/Oct. 1996. http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjtestfp.htm

16. Marie Dewannieux, Francis Harper, Aurelien Richaud, Claire Letzelter, David Ribet, Gerard Pierron, and Thierry Heidmann. Identification of an infectious progenitor for the multiple-copy HERV-K human endogenous retroelements. Genome Res. Oct. 31, 2006.

Bannert N, Kurth R. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Oct 5;101.

17. McClure MA, Richardson HS, Clinton RA, Hepp CM, Crowther BA, Donaldson EF. Automated characterization of potentially active retroid agents in the human genome. Genomics. Apr;85(4):512-23, 2005.

18. Juliane Sacher, Raum and Zeit, 2006.

19. Laurent-Crawford, A. G., Krust, B., Muller, S., Rivière, Y., Rey-Cuillé, M.-A., Béhet, J.-M., Montagnier, L. & Hovanessian, A. G. The Cytopathic Effect of HIV is Associated with Apoptosis. Virol. 185:829-839,1991.

20. John S. James. AIDS TREATMENT NEWS No. 095 - January 26, 1990.

21. Barre-Sinoussi, F,m J.C. Chermann J.C., Rey F., Nugeyre MT., Chamaret, S., Gruest J., Dauguet C., Axler-Blin C., Vezinet-Brn F., Rouzioux, C., Rozenbaum R., & Montagnier L. Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Science 230: 868-871,1983

22. Harris L. Coulter. AIDS and Syphilis-The Hidden Link, by, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 1987.

23. Gluschankof P, Mondor I, Gelderblom HR, Sattentau QJ. Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations. Virology 230(1):125-33, 1997.

24. Bess JW Jr, Gorelick RJ, Bosche WJ, Henderson LE, Arthur LO. Microvesicles are a source of contaminating cellular proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations. Virology, 230(1):134-44, 1997.

25. Arthur et al. Cellular proteins bound to immunodeficiency viruses: implications for pathogenesis and vaccines." Science 258: 1935-38,1992.

26. Keith E. Garrison, R. Brad Jones, Duncan A. Meiklejohn, Naveed Anwar, Lishomwa C. Ndhjhlovu, Joan M. Chapman, Ann L. Erikson, Ashish Agrawal, Gerald Spotts, Frederick M. Hecht, Seth Rakoff-Nahoum, Jack Lenz, Mario A. Ostrowski, Douglas F. Nixon. T-Cell Responses to Human Endogenous Retroviruses in HIV-1 Infection. Plos Pathog 3(11): e165. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.0030165.

27. Research Advisory Committee (ARAC) of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Congress of the United States: Office of Technology assessment. Adverse Reactions to HIV Vaccines: Medical, Ethical, and Legal Issues. Roger C. Herdman, Director.

28. Lockman S. et al., Response to Antiretroviral Therapy after a Single, Peripartum Dose of Nevirapine. The New England Journal of Medicine 356 january 11, 2007.

29 Padian, et al. Heterosexual Transmission of HIV in Northern California: Results from a Ten-Year Study.” American Journal of Epidemiology. August, 1997.

30. Rodriquez B, Sethi AK, Cheruvu VK, et al. Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on rate of CD4 T-cell decline in untreated HIV infection. JAMA 296(12):1498-506, 2006.

31. Chirimuuta R.C., Chirimuuta R.J. AIDS, Africa and Racism. Ed. 2, Free Association Books, London, 1989 (also see: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/rcafrica.htm).

32. Maniotis A., Geshekter G. A Global strategy against AIDS demands evidence not emotions. http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/01/a_global_s...

33. Flosie Wong-Staal & Robert C. Gallo. Nature Vol 317, 3 Oct 1985.

34. Clifford, DB.,Olney, J.W.,Maniotis, A.,Collins, RC., Zorumski, CF. The functional anatomy and pathology of Lithium-Pilocarpine and high dose pilocarpine seizures. Neuroscience Vol 23 (3): pp.953-968, 1987.

David
22 September 2008 at 17:21

Hmmm....

Andrew, you say my post (798 words) was "long", only to put in a 1341-word long response of your own. I wouldn't have minded how long it was really, but it just seems as though you just want to ramble on about Rumsfeld, Bush, Reagan, Bird Flu and Viagra. (I hope Macdonald doesn't read your comment though, he's already worked up enough about "conspiracies" as it is)

I guess you did give a fleeting reference to something to do with HIV though, one of the effective new drug combinations. For your future reference, it is spelt ATRIPLA. That's with only one "i".

I must say it looks like all the gang's here now.....

esteemed "HIV rethinkers" like Michael Ellner, David Crowe, Christine (Maggiore I assume), and now Andrew Maniotis. All we need now is the Perth group and Richard can shout "Full house!"

I am sorry in a way there are not any "famous" HIV scientists here to refute all your comments - you'll just have to make do with little old me. I guess most of the medics and scientists actually have day jobs, and are too busy doing what they do best - saving lives and helping discover how to beat this virus - to come here to debate you all.

There is no attempt to "silence" the deniers, Macdonald. The scientists view is that debating them merely lends their views a modicum of false legitimacy. And it never worth the effort - As the saying goes - "Don't bother wrestling with a pig. You only get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

RichardWilson
22 September 2008 at 17:47

David,

Many thanks for your comments - and for those excellent links. I found the article at http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm particularly clear and interesting, and would recommend that others read it to get some wider context on this issue. I should say that I have also found the AIDStruth website to be a very good source of information, and haven't as yet found any evidence to back up the negative view of it that some commenters here appear to have.

Whereas Duesberg does at least have a track record of being an actual, real-life virologist, I'm struck by the extent to which commenters here have wanted to cite Papadopulos-Eleopulos as some sort of credible authority. The evidence I've seen - including a court case in Australia where she appears to have been debarred from acting as an AIDS expert on the basis of the fact that she is not, in fact, an expert - would seem to suggest otherwise. And as you rightly point out, her views appear directly to contradict Duesberg's in any case.

Christine, if you do not believe on the basis of current evidence that HIV tests are reliable, then I'm sure that there is nothing I could offer that would convince you otherwise, however high the reward.

Richard

Carter
22 September 2008 at 18:45

I have a very good book recommendation for Mr. Wilson; The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory.... http://failingsofhivaidstheory.homestead.com/

Not too many apologists such as yourself, or the multitude of mislead orthodox scientists can refute any of his work. But I doubt you have any real interest in understanding what the truth is judging from you complete mental incapacity to understand logic.

RichardWilson
22 September 2008 at 18:56

Thanks for the tip, Carter - I'll add it Henry Bauer's book to my reading list, right after I've read all about his proof of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster: http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/LochNessFacts.html

I'd warmly recommend that readers acquaint themselves with Henry Bauer's work on that too, along with this general work on 'scientific orthodoxies':

http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/Unorthodoxies.html

MacDonald
22 September 2008 at 18:57

Mr. Wilson,

If you have given up on debating the issues, I think you should say so. Spewing random AIDStruth talking points is not dignified or open-minded; it's white flag waving of the most pathetic kind.

May I remind you that you are on the record and yet again resorting to attacks on individuals while displaying a truly toe-cringing ignorance of the merits of those individuals.

You apparently found that Duesberg was too hard a target, so you shifted your uninformed, unsubstantiated ad hominems to Ms. Eleopulos-Papadopulos, who is not mentioned in your article, and who has only been mentioned in this thread because of a question you asked, and because of a lie attempted by your supporter, "David", who is now reduced to correcting typos.

Was this the answer you asked time to prepare?

Shame on you!

Mr. Wilson, you are hopelessly out of your depth. I advice you to admit it and be on your merry way. You might still sell a copy or two to people who haven't witnessed your embarrasing performance here.

RichardWilson
22 September 2008 at 19:14

Easy tiger! I'm sorry if you found my observations about Ms E-P in any way hurtful. It's just that I haven't seen any evidence that she's an expert on HIV/AIDS, whereas I have seen pretty compelling evidence of an Australian Court ruling that she is not a real expert, so I'm simply questioning the citing of her work as some sort of authoritative scientific source. I'll also repeat at this point that I'm not an authoritative scientific source either. Is that an ad hominem attack on myself?

As for Mr. Bauer, I just also think that it's important that if people are being advised to read his work denying the link between HIV and AIDS, they are also aware of his work affirming the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. I'm sorry but I don't think that's unreasonable.

RichardWilson
22 September 2008 at 19:25

PS - for references to some authoritative scientific sources on the evidence that HIV causes AIDS, I would recommend that people look at these websites: http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm

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

http://www.aidstruth.org/new/denialism/myths

BSE303
22 September 2008 at 20:13

Richard,

Great article!

In the week that Rath withdraws his prosecution against The Guardian, and Mbeki resigns it seems perfectly timed.

I had a friend who once subscribed to the Duesberg camp of denialism. It went on for a number of years and he stopped being a denialist in the last few days of his life.

He realised that HIV does indeed cause Aids when left untreated; it’s just a shame that he changed his mind when it was too late. His denialism killed him.

For his friends and his family there is a resounding feeling that one gets when dealing with a suicide, that of “Could we have done more?” A feeling that, six years on, is as strong now as it was then.

The very human cost of this form of denial is swept under the carpet by the “career” denialists. No amount of copy and pasting, misappropriation of research or cherry picking will change the simple fact that HIV denialism kills those who are HIV positive, and choose not to access treatments.

MacDonald
22 September 2008 at 20:14

Mr. Wilson,

You obviously think you are on a winner here repeatedly declaring your ignorance, repeatedly stating you're not an authority on anything, repeatedly attempting to divert the discussion. Very well, your funeral.

Let's talk little bit about you, then. Tell me if you're so ignorant that it's unfair to argue the issues with you, why are you writing books and articles about them?

This was your punchline I believe, and it IS starting to look more and more as an ad hominem against yourself I have t admit:

"Bogus scepticism does not centre on an impartial search for the truth, but on a no-holds-barred defence of a preconceived ideological position. The bogus sceptic is thus, in reality, a disguised dogmatist, made all the more dangerous for his success in appropriating the mantle of the unbiased and open-minded inquirer." [End quote]

Now you, the champion of open-minded inquiry, cite a court ruling(!) that somebody unrelated to Duesberg is not an "expert" as a reason to dismiss Duesberg without reading or understanding anything he has written.

Mr. Wilson, David Crowe had you nailed in one sentence:

"The fundamental problem is very simple. Journalists (including obviously Richard Wilson) don't want to be forced to think, they want to be able to have a way to pick experts to believe. That's why they are so haunted by such controversies. They believe there has to be a scientific way to debunk Duesberg without actually thinking his theories and challenges through".

Mr. Wilson, you are obviously content to have a kangaroo court pick your experts for you - and so pleased with yourself that you had to repeat it in two consecutive posts. Don't you think it's time to grow up?

The judge in the Australian case you mention was almost as scientifically ignorant as you, and he operated on the exact same principles: He decided to dismiss Ms. Eleopulos-Papadopulos' testimony on a technicality, so he didn't have to consider the merit of it.

Mr. Wilson, if you really want to know why some people consider Ms. Eleopulos-Papadopulos an authority, for heaven's sake take all your vaunted open-mindedness go to theperthgroup.com and read some of her papers (yes several published in peer-reviewed journals, since that means so much to you). Not that it would make any difference, since, by your own admission, you are not equipped to understand technical literature, so we're rather stuck, aren't we?

Well, how about staying on topic for now? The topic was, as far as I remember, Duesberg's "dogmatism" - not yours.

Any thoughts, any thoughts at all?

RichardWilson
22 September 2008 at 23:21

BSE303,

I'm really sorry to hear about your friend. Sadly I read about quite a few such cases while I was researching DGFA - looking through some of the old editions of Continuum magazine can be quite a harrowing experience when you realise that so many of the contributors are now no longer with us - that they were so sold on this ideology that they were persuaded not to take drugs that could have saved their lives.

Macarthur,

I don't think I said that the court ruling against Ms PE was in any way a dismissal of Duesberg - I just thought it was an interesting fact to throw into the mix.

You say so many interesting things that it's sometimes hard to decide which bits to focus on and which to leave for later. You're absolutely right that the Perth gang are a bit of a side issue to this particular discussion, but seeing as they came up I thought I'd just say a little bit about them.

What was interesting about the court ruling was that Ms P-E's qualifications and work were examined in fine detail, but in terms that a lay person could engage with - actually it reminded me a little of the David Irving libel trial. The transcript makes quite interesting reading - here's the link in case you haven't seen it before: http://www.aidstruth.org/Supreme-Court-of-South-Australia.pd...

So anyhow, back to Duesberg. In my view, a sceptic is someone who forms their beliefs on the basis of a reasoned evaluation of the empirical evidence - which might, in this context, include: randomised and controlled clinical trials, epidemiological studies, animal tests etc. Where the empirical evidence calls into question their favoured theory - eg. in this case, the theory that retroviruses are harmless (or mostly harmless), they will be prepared to adjust that theory accordingly - eg. revisit the claim that retroviruses must be harmless. Someone who, in the face of strong empirical evidence (like the Schechter study I mentioned earlier), refuses to adapt their theory, is, in my view, not a sceptic but a dogmatist. And a dogmatist who seeks to advance their arguments by adopting the language of scepticism is a bogus sceptic, in my view.

I'd be interested if you could show me any significant empirical research (eg. randomised controlled trials, animal experiments) on HIV and AIDS that Duesberg has done because I've had trouble finding any. Rather it seems that his objections are based on theoretical objections rather than on evidence - and a scientist who puts theory first and evidence second is a dogmatist in my view (or possibly a philosopher).

Duesberg has been compared by some of his followers to Galileo, but there's an interesting difference in my view. Galileo actually carried out empirical research - eg. astronomical observations through a telescope. On the basis of those observations he concluded that the earth revolved around the sun, a view which apparently made quite him unpopular with the Catholic Church. He was told that his empirical observations must be wrong (there is a story about their being dismissed as illusions created by demons) because they conflicted with the theory that the earth was the centre of the universe. Rather than adapt that theory in the face of Galileo's empirical evidence, the earth-being-the-centre-of-the-universe people chose to dismiss the evidence. They put the theory before the empirical evidence, which in my view, is the tell-tale sign of dogmatism.

RichardWilson
22 September 2008 at 23:25

...and I guess it should go without saying that when I talk about 'empirical evidence' in the context of HIV/AIDS I'm referring to empirical evidence published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. We can have a whole separate discussion about the value of peer review if you like, but I take it that's not the central issue in this particular discussion.

MacDonald
23 September 2008 at 01:13

Mr. Wilson,

They teach you quickly over on AIDStruth. You've not only got all the talking points, you've also got all the links to stuff you haven't read and/or which you say you're not equipped to understand. If you want to talk about the Australian trial, I suggest you read all the court transcripts, not only the crumbs thrown you at AIDStruth.

I agree that we need empirical evidence. Empirical evidence proving that HIV causes AIDS is what we're all asking after. You have declared umpteen times now that you're not capable of assessing or explaining technical literature, so why are you asking for more? You're not anti-theory are you? Are you a theory denialist? Here's some Science 101 for you: What do you think makes a scientific paper something more than a collection of random observations? How do you think scientific predictions are made?

Despite repeated requests, the only points you have been able to come up with to back your claim that Duesberg is a "dogmatist" are your total ignorance of science in general and of Duesberg's writings in particular, coupled with a gossip story about Duesberg not wanting to abandon his belief that retroviruses are always harmless. That doesn't give us much to work with, Mr. Wilson. Do I really need to read a whole book of yours to appreciate those points? Before I decide, perhaps you would care to reveal your sources for those stories about Duesberg's irrational belief in the harmlessness of retroviruses in the face of all evidence, so we can examine your claim in more detail?

Photonaut
23 September 2008 at 01:55

Methinks the end is nigh... Master Wilson is not far from throwing his arms up in feigned exasperation, & dismissing all the "dogmatists" as so many dogs barking at the sound of other dogs. But his retreat would be that of a coward... forever will his intellectual humiliation stand inscribed in cyberspace.... & for the rest of his long, intellectually hypocritical career, he will have learnt the lesson: never engage a dissident in public debate! Keep it safe, stay cozy among members of the orthodoxy... Deride, slander, misrepresent, & fawn to the priests of science; but never expose your naked intellect like you have here today, in a forum where it just can't measure up, boy!

Mr Wilson, you have shown yourself guilty of the most absolutely unscientific offence: of absolute deferral to established authority. And so, in this forum (which many will read, as time goes on) you have exposed yourself - with all due respect - as a fool. Please do not accuse me of inappropriateness: if I am wrong, prove me wrong; but if the shoe fits... wear it.

Gilly
23 September 2008 at 05:05

Seems that the population self-identified as, lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) becomes more and more. According to my experience on the site *BisexualMingle dotcom* (a site for LGBT coming out, explore sexuality, etc.), there are about 150 members per day and they are very active. You can imagine.

Andrew Maniotis
23 September 2008 at 05:56

SUPERNATURAL ACTIVITIES AND SUPERNATURAL BEINGS.

CANCER IN THE FLESH

Much of what has transpired during the AIDS era, the hepatitis B and C eras that preceded it, and the current HPV era, has been borrowed from or modified from cancer biology and cancer immunology. It also could be argued that the prion or slow virus hypothesis influenced the oncogene era in so far as contributing to the belief that "slow pathogens" such as "oncogenes" might exist, in the same way prions are thought to exist.

Empirical approaches to cancer treatment historically were not practiced based on data derived from controlled clinical trails, and therefore, empirical results of these approaches must be considered as collections of anecdotal reports. Perhaps the best compilation of one empiricist approach that attempted to implement a new treatment that resulted in the rejection of cancer as a result of infection, is the case of Coley's toxins, which started the field of cancer immunotherapy during the last century. The records of William Coley’s successes and failures using toxins (which aren’t the same as vaccines) are kept at Sloan-Kettering by his daughter, Helen Coley Nauts, and are available for analysis (Ralph Moss, Cancer and Microbes; The Treatment of Cancer with Coley's Toxins.The Cancer Chronicals Volume 7,Number 3-4 (# 33-#34, September, 1996.).

"In 1866, a celebrated German surgeon, Wilhelm Busch of Bonn, reported on the spontaneous cure of cancer after an attack of erysipelas (Berlin klin Wchnschr 1886; 23: 245). This is a serious skin disease we now think to be caused by the microbe called Streptococcus pyogenes. Busch was well respected and word of his observation spread rapidly. After that, many attempts were made to artificially stimulate either erysipelas or high fevers in cancer patients."

"By the end of the nineteenth century, a worldwide search was on for a serum "of such range of dosage, without bad side effects, which could put the patient without fail and in a state of fever."

"Determined to find out why orthodox methods of {cancer} surgery failed, Dr. William Coley examined the records of 100 sarcoma patients who had been treated at New York Hospital. All advanced cases died. Eventually, however, he found the case of a very poor German immigrant living in an east side slum in lower Manhattan named Stein. He had round cell sarcoma on the neck and a huge malignant ulcer on his neck. He had been listed as an utterly hopeless patient. He had been operated on three times with no success, but the forth incomplete removal of his tumor in 1884 resulted in a raging case of erysipelas, with its angry-red inflammation of the skin. Hospital records simply said that all traces of the tumor had disappeared following infection. Coley hunted the man down and found him in perfect health 6 years later."

Fascinated by the vistas that this "experiment of nature" opened up, {and which Coley had stumbled upon independently of the Germans}, Coley reviewed the evidence for erysipelas healing in the prestigious Annals of Surgery (1891; 14: 199-200)."

"In October 1891, Coley took the fateful step of deliberately infecting a patent who had an inoperable cancer of the tonsils and neck with Streptococcus pyogenes, the organism that had only recently been shown to cause erysipelas. Much to everyone's astonishment, after severe and fever and chills, the patient experienced a complete and prolonged remission of his cancer."

As usually happens with new cancer treatments, after the initial first success there followed a string of treatment failures. Coley's procedure was to put patients in so-called "erysipelas beds," which had recently been vacated by patients who had just died of the disease. But because live strep infections were potentially dangerous to both patients and health care workers, in 1893 Dr. Coley switched to injections not of live germs but of the non-infectious byproducts (so-called "toxins'') of Streptococcus pyogenes. At about the same time, a French scientist named G.H. Roger showed that if strep is grown together with a second microbe, now called Serratia marcescans, the virulence of the strep is greatly increased."

"The first patient to receive these toxins had an extensive and inoperable sarcoma of the abdominal wall and the pelvis, already involving the bladder. Coley injected his toxins for four months into and around the tumors. Even without using live bacteria, he was able to cause a complete remission of the "incurable" cancer. The patient remained alive and well for 26 years, when he finally succumbed to a heart attack."

"Around 1915, Coley became chief of the Bone Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital, the world's largest private cancer center, where he remained until his death in 1936. He was highly respected and honored, and over 400 scientific papers were written about his toxins."

"In the records kept at his library at Sloan-Kettering by his daughter, there are records of 896 microscopically-confirmed {cancer} cases. Of these 428 cases (roughly half) were found to be well from 5-92 years after treatment. The overall 5-year survival rate was 51 percent in operable cases and 46 percent in inoperable ones."

"In December 15, 1894 there was an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association saying that Coley's Toxins was useless in the treatment of cancer."

"However other doctors were beginning to use Coley's Toxins in treating cancer. In Dec 1895, Dr. M. Storrs of the Hartford, Connecticut, Hospital had a patient with breast cancer. She was losing strength and weight. Her tumor was the size of an orange. Coley's Toxins were injected into her tumor. Thirty-nine injections were given between mid December 1895 and mid March 1896. By then there was no sign of a tumor. The patient had regained the 25 pounds of loss weight. She died in 1943 at aged 80 of a cause other than cancer."

"What was unusual about this case was that there was a discharge of necrotic tissue that had to be removed by drains. In most cases of the treatment of cancer with Coley's Toxins, the tumor will decrease in size without the formation of necrotic tissue. When it happens, drains must be established."

"The Mayo Brothers advised all cancer patients who had surgery for cancer at their hospital to return home and find a doctor who would treat the patient with Coley's Toxins for at least two months."

"In the spring of 1896 Coley had said that so far he had treated 190 patients with far advanced sarcoma with Coley's Toxins and with over half of them they had shown tumor reduction and a marked improvement in well being and good health."

"Read any medical dictionary and one will find Ewing's sarcoma. Dr James Ewing joined Memorial Hospital as pathologist at about the same time that Coley did. In 1896, the X ray machine came on the scene and two years later radium was discovered. Ewing became an ardent believer in X ray and radium as being the Utopian cures for cancer and at the same time he developed a vehement hatred for Coley's Toxins."

"Ewing developed a friendship with James Douglas who was CEO of the Phelps Dodge Corp, which firm was big in copper mining. Ewing interested him in radium both in the mining of it and in using it to treat cancer. Douglas had a daughter with breast cancer. Ewing came on strong for radium as a treatment for breast cancer so Douglas, his daughter and Ewing went to England where his daughter was one of the first cancer patients to be treated with radium. The treatment failed and Douglas' daughter died of breast cancer. This came at a time after the success in treating breast cancer with Coley's Toxins in 1896 told about above."

"In time Phelps Dodge became a major producer of radium. Douglas made a gift to the Memorial Hospital of nearly half the radium in the world. Douglas demanded a quid pro quo. For the gift, Ewing was to be made head of cancer treatment at Memorial Hospital. By 1913 when Ewing became Medical Director at Memorial Hospital, Coley had treated several hundred patients with sarcoma, mostly of the bone with Coley's Toxins. With over a third of them there had been complete regressions of cancer."

"When Ewing became Medical Director at Memorial, Coley was refused permission to treat any more patients with bone sarcoma with Coley's Toxins. They all had to be treated with radium. Over a seven-year period, there was not one patient treated with radium to show any kind of a remission. They all died of progressing cancer. In 1923, Coley nearly died of a bleeding stomach ulcer that was brought on, he thought, by the distress caused by Ewing's repression of Coley's Toxins and from seeing his patients with bone sarcoma die on treatment with radium."

"The American Cancer Society was formed in 1913 and at once it sided with Ewing in saying that Coley's Toxins was useless in treating cancer. By 1961, the attack of the American Cancer Society on Coley's Toxins had reached its maximum in vehemence. It was listed among the American Cancer Society's list of unproven remedies."

"The American Cancer Society had pushed hard for the passage of the Kefauver-Harris Amendment of the Pure Food and Drug Act. It became the law in June of 1962. It had in it a grandfather clause under which any drug or vaccine, that had been used with success before 1962, would be legal for use under the new law. Aspirin was at once made legal but the American Cancer Society held that there was absolutely no record of Coley's Toxins having any benefit in treating cancer prior to 1962."

But there is money to be made, and Coley may enjoy a revival in the near future:

Article from the NY Times, October 5, 2005 A Revival for Immunity, By Andrew Pollack:

"In the late 1800's a New York surgeon named William B. Coley noticed that when one of his cancer patients developed a severe bacterial infection, the cancer disappeared. Over the following decades, Dr. Coley began injecting tumors with bacteria, with some success. But the results were inconsistent, and critics derided the work as quackery. "Coley's toxins," as they were called, faded into disuse with the advent of radiation treatments and chemotherapy."

"Now, though, recent discoveries about the immune system have spurred interest in modern descendants of Coley's toxins. Big drug makers are putting money into the effort, including Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis, which have both placed bets on a biotechnology upstart named in honor of the surgeon, the Coley Pharmaceutical Group."

"In August investors snapped up six million shares of Coley Pharmaceutical at $16 each in an initial public offering. The shares sold at the high end of the expected price range, a rarity lately for a biotechnology company. Coley closed at $18.52 a share yesterday, up 15.8 percent since the offering. The excitement centers on a class of human proteins called toll-like receptors, whose existence and crucial role in the immune system were discovered only in the last several years. The proteins act as molecular sentinels, recognizing the presence of bacteria or viruses

and rousing the rest of the immune system to respond."

"Coley Pharmaceutical and many other companies are now creating drugs meant to activate those sentinels, essentially fooling the body into thinking it has been infected without exposing it to real pathogens. The aim is to stimulate the immune system to fight cancer, hepatitis and other diseases. Almost every big drug maker "is now very seriously thinking about acquiring or initiating internally a toll-like receptor effort," said Kleanthis Xanthopoulos, the chief executive of Anadys Pharmaceuticals, a publicly traded San Diego biotechnology company that develops drugs that act on the receptors."

Anadys signed a deal in June with the big pharmaceutical company Novartis to develop drugs aimed at hepatitis B and C. Anadys was to receive a $20 million upfront payment and later payments that could reach as high as $550 million if the drug comes to market and achieves certain sales goals. Only a day earlier Novartis agreed to pay Hybridon, now called Idera Pharmaceuticals, up to $136 million to collaborate in developing drugs for allergy and asthma."

"And in March Pfizer agreed to pay Coley $50 million at the outset and up to $455 million later for the rights to a drug that showed some striking results in treating lung cancer and is now about to enter the final phase of clinical trials. One drug that works through a toll-like receptor is already on the market, although it was developed before scientists recognized the role the receptor actually played. That drug, Aldara, by 3M, is used as a treatment for genital herpes, as well as for a form of skin cancer and another precancerous condition. Sales in this country last year were $211 million, according to IMS Health, a drug data and consulting firm."

"In some cases drug makers, rather than activating the toll-like receptors, hope to block the receptors as a way of damping the immune system. Eisai, a Japanese company, recently reported results from a clinical trial in which a receptor blocker had modestly reduced the death rate from sepsis, an often fatal overreaction of the immune system."

CANCER UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

Drawings from 100 years ago of Galeoti's, Hertwig's, and Hanseman's comparisons of cancer cell and normal cell chromosomes illustrated gross differences in chromatin structure and chromosome numbers in human tissue harboring a tumor (Wilson EB. The Cell in Development and Inheritance. Pathological mitosis in cancer cells, pps. 68,69. Reprinted from the New York Edition of 1896. The sources of Science # 30, Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York and London, 1966).

On the one hand, the nucleus a is a "seed" or "kernel" of heredity as Schleiden and Schwann and others of the 19th Century viewed it. According to this view, the nucleus is an automaton that rigidly stores a non-changing information set slowing gained through eons of generations.

On the other hand, as Theodor Heinrich Boveri viewed the nucleus and genes during Ascarid (worm) diminution (kicking out of chromosomes in the line of cells that makes the worm's body), or as Barbara McClintock described it as "jumping chromosomes" being responsible for normal leaf development and variegation in corn plants, and as others drew pictures of aneuploidy in cancer cells, the cell nucleus has been documented to have countless manifestations during the cell cycle, during differentiation, during stress, and during disease.

Yet because of the plasticity and adaptability of the genome, it has been increasingly evident in recent decades that the dynamics and inherent redundancy of the genome defies our simple logic or models, or our attempts to harness it in a straightforward manner, either in medicine or in agriculture. How is the incredulous fidelity of inheritance evident in some cells and organisms over geological time periods possible? In a complex eukaryotic cell, how is a single gene activated in a background of 3 billion nucleotides a yard long contained in a 6-20 micron sphere (that's 20/1000sands of a millimeter)? Why don’t gene knockouts produce an expected phenotype? How does the genome adjust its gene expression or adapt it to different cell shapes or stimuli induced by different microenvironments?

The picture we have from the living cell suggests that external signals from outside the cell somehow can differentially interact with the invariant information and plastic behaviors of the “living” nucleus. In addition, during evolution and development, a host of changes in genomic organization have been revealed as polyteny, polypoidy, haploidy, linear and lateral redundancy, lyonization, transdetermination, transdifferentiation, reverse transformation in cancer, and asynchronously replicating heterochromatin, to mention a few variants have been identified.

Therefore, although it is known that the same signals are processed differently depending on the extracellular context of the cell, somehow different outputs are consistently generated-a neuron or a melanocyte here, a fruiting body or hyphae there, or perhaps a capillary endothelial cell, or a cardiac, skeletal, or smooth muscle myocyte there. Therefore, a new view of the nucleus is needed, so that our sequence database of the genome may be more accurate and in order to place the sequence information in physiological context. The nucleus is no longer tenable as the 19th century view of it as merely a kernel or “nut”, and its plasticity under different physical or chemical environments is too protean to be consistent with a view of it as an invariant linear tickertape. Although the bacterial operon model of Jacob, Monod, and Lwoff has driven much of molecular biology and our limited understanding of the eukaryotic nucleus through the postulation of mechanisms as diverse as repressors, activators, transcription factors, a nuclear matrix, spicing factories, and the like, these reductionist mechanisms have not yet supplied a predictive understanding of the complex and compartmentalized eukaryotic nucleus and cell.

CANCER PUT INTO THE ANIMALS

Also, for more than a century before the AIDS era, hypotheses and experiments had been developed in cancer research that explained, predicted, and in some cases, could arrest cancer progression. During this period, cancer cell metabolism was thought to be at the basis of cell deregulation in cancer, as Otto Warberg hypothesized (Warberg was a two time Nobel Prize Winning biochemist who stated that "a cancer is caused by the lack of oxygen and the fermentation of sugars." He repeatedly demonstrated that by depriving tissues of oxygen (35% less than normal), he could induce cancer in tissues almost at will. Warberg won a second Nobel prize for his work with measuring electrical potential across the cell membrane. Warberg showed that cancer cells had a cell membrane potential between 15 and 30 microvolts while healthy cells have a membrane potential of around 70 microvolts). Albert Szent-Györgyi was another Nobelist credited with detecting vitamin C.

Although it was possible that communicable agents experimentally inoculated in animals were at least hypothetically able to induce cancers in susceptible animal hosts under special conditions as shown by Payton Rous (Rous sarcoma extracts), Richard E. Shope (Shope papilloma virus extracts), Bernice Eddy (Simian vacuolating agent or SV-40), these were viewed as exceptions.

In the 1930's, a development-centric view of cancer was advanced, where cancer was seen as a "disorganization" at every level-from the tissue, to its molecules. Imaginary "fields" called individuation fields were thought to act as breaks that controlled both normal development, and their breakdown was thought to allow the escape of cells from the normal constraints these fields exerted when cancer developed (Waddington, Needham).

This "developmental cancer hypothesis" viewed cancer growth primarily as syndrome that depended upon the constraints of the tissue micro-environment or genetic background of the organism harboring the tumor, regardless of what genes in the tumor cells were active or inactive. This was thought to be true for all cancers, including all cancers associated with so-called oncogenic (cancer causing) tumor extracts that were later thought to contain tumor viruses. For example, Filtered Rous saroma tumor extracts, containing retroviral gag, pol, and env genes that supposedly have some gene sequence resemblances to those same genes in "HIV," could be shown to induce tumors when injected into farm chickens but not mammals, Shope’s papilloma virus could be shown to induce tumors in domestic rabbits, and which, it is said, has some gene sequence resemblances to the DNA sequences of human papilloma viruses (16 and 18 particularly of the known 100 or more) now said to cause 70% of cervical cancers in humans. Polyoma viruses such as simian vacuolating virus, or SV-40, replicates in monkey kidney cells without causing cancer, but induces cancer when placed into foreign contexts such as in inbred hamsters, and other susceptible animals, and which was administered by accident to millions of humans during the polio era.

Furthermore, tumor cell transplantation experiments (placing cancer cells into a host recipient) in living animals and embryos showed that, despite what initiated a cancer and regardless of the cancer type, the placement of malignant cells (or cancer inducers) specifically into biological contexts that are actively developing would reverse tumor cell properties, or change them into normal cells or tissues, regardless of the genetic anomalies carried by the transplanted tumor cells.

Even organisms that do not have vital centralized organs such as tobacco plants, but which develop cancers, show that the malignant properties of Crown Gall tumor cells can be reversed through serial transplantation to cut and growing stems as shown by the transplantation experiments of Braun (1947).

Malignant adenocarcinoma cells that quickly will kill adult frogs can be shown to generate normal muscle, bone, and connective tissue when placed in the regenerating limb stumps of axolotls as shown by the classic experiments of Pierce (1960).

Teratocarcinoma tumor cells that kill adult mice, when placed into developing mouse embryos, do not induce cancer, or even if some of the cells become incorporated into the developing germ line lineage, the offspring remain cancer-free [1].

Highly invasive and metastatic melanoma cells derived from a human melanoma will form normal dorsal root ganglia when placed in the developing neural crest of the bird embryo [2]. Similarly, although no cells are implanted, it has been shown that potent tumor inducers capable of rapidly killing adult chickens, such as Rous's sarcoma-inducing extracts, will not cause tumors when injected into embryos, as shown by Bissell et al., (1982).

Away from the organism, a wealth of In Vitro data have demonstrated that it is the type of extracellular environment (outside the cells), and not the genes, that control cancer [3-11].

The extracellular matrix (EC) is like the glue on the outside of cells that cement them together. This matrix determines how normal cells (4), cancer (9, 10,11), or a virus [12] behaves. Only one type of matrix molecule, moreover, is needed each and every time to completely and consistently change the organization and expression of genes.

Cancer cells are not radiologically denser than normal cells, yet tumors can be seen in X-rays because of conc