| | Phil Osborn implies on this thread that he believes only "crazies" question the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. But Peter Duesberg, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who identified the first cancer gene, who "was" (before publically opposing the state-science establishment) a renowned virologist who specilized in the area of retroviruses, and who was widely regarded as a wunderkind or genius by his peers, rejects the hypothesis as both unproven and riddled with contradictions. He must be the leading "Crazy", judging from the comment made by Mr. Osborn--who I am willing to bet has never read Duesberg's book (or possibly even any of his articles). Other such "Crazies", if I am interpreting Mr. Osborn's line of thought correctly, would include Kary B. Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993; and Dr. Walter Gilbert, who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1980.
Gilbert writes on the jacket of Duesberg's book cover:" (Duesberg) is absolutely correct in saying that no one has proven that AIDS is caused by the AIDS virus. And he is absolutely correct that the virus cultured in the laboratory may not be the cause of AIDS."
Mr. Mullis first became skeptical about the True Belief when he was hired to set up analytic routines for the HIV virus. He was uniquely qualified to perfiorm this work, because he had invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. While writing a report about progress and goals for the benefit of the project sponsor, the National Institute of Health, he realized he didn't know the "scientific reference" (the peer reviewed study proving HIV as causing AIDS) to support a statement he had written: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS". Noone in "the office" knew the answer that day, including the competant virologist sitting next to him who assured him such a reference was unnecessary. Mullis figured the reference had to be out there somewhere, in the vast aggregation of scientific literature on the subject, but repeated computer searches turned up nothing. Slightly astonished and perturbed, he made a habit of directing this query to anyone who gave a talk on AIDS at the numerous conferences he was attending at the time. After ten or fifteen queries over about two years, none of which produced the reference, Mullis questioned Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institue, who was in San Diego giving a talk. Montagnier, looking puzzled and condescending, responded, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control?" Mullis replied: "It really doesn't address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?" "No." Montagnier admitted. The circle of onlookers watched silently, apparently lacking the specific information with which to assist the famous Montagnier. "Why don't you quote the work on SIV (Simiam Immunodeficiency Virus)?" Dr. Montagnier offered. "I read that too", Mullis responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS." Dr. Montagnier, spying an acqaintance across the room, quickly walked away. (This paragraph is paraphrased from Mullis' introduction to Duesberg's book Inventing the AIDS Virus. Quotations are taken verbatim from the introduction.)
Mullis writes that "the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake".... Duesberg has been saying it for a long time."
Other such "Crazies", it would seem, include Richard Strohman, Professor Emeritus, Cell and Molecular Biology, USC Berkeley, and Neville Hodgkinson, former editor of the London Sunday Times. Strohman writes "Duesberg, whatever else you may think of him, is unquestionably a fierce and highly disciplined scientist of the old school. He does not accept incomplete hypotheses or "guilt by association" as normal aspects of modern virology. His one-man, ten-year crusade against sloppy science in the battle against AIDS is completely told in this highly readable book."
Mr, Osborn claims that in addition to (he thinks) AIDS, there are "plenty of diseases with long latencies, including syphilis and shingles". A latency is the time a viral invader requires to replicate exponentially, until the host gets sick. But syphilis causes a variety of symptoms in the months following infection. The belated development of "neural syphilis", in which the bacterium would supposedly invade the central nervous system of the victim years after the initial infection and disease, produced dementia and insanity. But this long period of supposed latency of the syphilis bacterium was both unproven and is discredited today. Monkeys injected with the bacterium never suffered these symptoms (just as monkeys injected with HIV do not get AIDS, claims to the contrary notwithstanding), nor were scientists able to locate the bacterium in cells of the nervous system in any significant quantity (just as significant amounts of HIV cannot be found in AIDS people). Somewhat later, when scientists switched from arsenic and mercury to penicillan for treatment, neurosyphilis died out. It became obvious that doctors had been confusing the disease symptoms induced by the medicines used to combat syphilis, with symptoms of the disease itself.
I don't want to waste more time shooting down unproven and confused assertions, such as the notion that shingles has a period of latency lasting (presumeably) years. I do know that Duesberg, in his book, describes the incubation period for HIV as 48 hours. That is proven. Claims about 20 year periods of latency, between HIV infection and the (allegedly connected) onset of AIDS, are unproven (and logically absurd).
Mr. Osborn, scribbles on his blog about what he considers to be the unfortunate influence of "crazies". And Bill Dwyer dashes off ringing moral condemnations on this thread about the thinking of a highly accomplished scientist, Peter Duesberg, who has reached conclusions that Dwyer doesn't like. But of what value are such assertions, given that neither writer understands nor (I am sure) has read Duesberg at any length?
There is much more I could write about hemophilia, and the confusion swirling around this disease and AIDS. I'll merely point out that Factor VIII, introduced in 1986, raised the life span of hemophiliacs from 11 years in 1972 to 23 years. Unfortunately, most hemophiliacs cannot afford the super-purified version of this medicine which replaces missing clotting factor in their blood. The unpurified version gradually sabetages the immune system of hemophiacs who rely on it, so that the hemophiliacs who consequently die of AIDS tend to be ten years older than their comparatives. The mortality rate among HIV positives is no higher among hemophiliacs than HIV negatives. Ryan White, the teenaged HIV positive hemophiliac who died 15 years ago, and about whom newspaper headlines blared "AIDS Victim", exhibited no AID-related diseases, according to a list of White's afflictions submitted by a representative of the Indiana Hemophilia Foundation who has first hand familiarity with his case. White died of liver deterioration, internal hemorrhaging and internal bleeding, and other systemic failures--all conditions consistent with hemophilia, although the representative did not seem to understand that. (paraphrased from Duesberg's book).
(Edited by Mark Humphrey on 4/02, 5:10pm)
(Edited by Mark Humphrey on 4/02, 5:30pm)
(Edited by Mark Humphrey on 4/02, 5:35pm)
(Edited by Mark Humphrey on 4/02, 5:43pm)
|
|
