Replies

Well Sir you are consistant with your point of view. No it is not spam. A few days after you joined FR you began to dissent to HIV=AIDS (on one of my posts) and you continue to this day.

Other than "We hold our different opinions", as I stated before - I never know what to say to those who hold this idea.

My life is a life of science and peer review - I know not what compass you employ to ensure that your views are accurate.

Hypotheses may be disproved by the right data with relative ease, and cases of HIV-free AIDS would disprove the idea that HIV causes AIDS, in proportion to how often these are found (i.e., if 10% of AIDS cases were HIV-free, this would prove that HIV is not the cause of at least 10% of AIDS). Thus, Duesberg and Root-Bernstein are not the only ones who have been looking for HIV-free people who are badly CD4+ lymphocyte immunosuppressed without reason (i.e., good candidates for HIV-free AIDS). Very recently the C.D.C. reported that after a massive search it had only been able to find less than 100 people without HIV infection across the country whose CD4+ counts were at one time less than 300 (not quite in the AIDS-class immunosuppression range of 200, but drawing close). This syndrome was named "ICL" (idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia), meaning "people with low CD4+ lymphocyte counts without a medically-defined disease."

At least one study (M.S.Ascher, Nature, 1993; 362:103) has been designed in response to his assertions that drug use was a major cause of AIDS associated immune suppression. In that study, cohorts of homosexual and heterosexual men were compared, matched for use of marijuana, cocaine or amphetamines. There was no association between the development of AIDS and use of these drugs. The homosexual cohort used more nitrites than did the heterosexual one, but development of AIDS was related to the presence of HIV infection and not to use of drugs (M.S. Ascher, Lancet, 1993; 341:1223).

Those who believe that HIV causes AIDS look to the cases associated with transfusion, congenital infection, or sexual transmission as coming as close to Koch's postulates as is likely to be possible in humans.

coming as close to Koch's postulates as is likely to be possible in humans.

Well you seem very well versed in this stuff. That is good. Maybe you can teach me a few things.

Relative to Koch's postulates, I thought that they represented a universal test to define a viral infection. Is that not true? Are there any other known examples other than HIV where they are only approximately satisfied? You are a scientist. I am a scientist. We have been taught that experiments must be repeatable and that postulates to be accepted must be true every single time or they must be replaced with better models of how things work. Koch's postulates have a pretty good record. They are a good model of how things work.

Relative to HIV free AIDS cases, I believe this is relatively common but hard to find if you define AIDS as being HIV positive. But even if this is not the case, correlation does not equal causation. You have to prove causation by a more direct means than simply saying that 95% of the AIDS victims test HIV positive. Would you drive a car that stopped 95% of time or that turned left correctly 95% of time. I don't think so. But you accept as a cause something that is only found 95% of the time. I don't.

Re: Nature article. Is it available on the net? I would be glad to read it and give you my opinion. I would be looking for holes, of course, but if they're not there they won't be found.

At any rate, no hard feelings. I feel strongly about what I believe and I assume you do also. If you are a typical Freeper, then we are probably in pretty good agreement politically. But in this matter, only one us can be right.