Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 04:30:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Phil Kerpen <pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list CX-L <cx-l@debate.net>
Subject: Re: Colin Kahl's official response to Matt Schiros:
WHY THIS IS BEST SETTLED BY DEBATE, THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS WORKS,
AND CENSORSHIP IS IDIOTIC
By Philip G Kerpen
A response to:
> WHY COLIN IS RIGHT, DUESBERG IS EVIL,
> AND MATT SCHIROS IS AN IDIOT
>
>
> Recently, I have been criticized and personally attacked by Matt Schiros
> for not turning out his blocks on "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" (an argument
> put forth by an author named Peter Duesberg). I was willing to let this
> remain a private matter, but since Matt has chosen to drag my name, and
> the Institute's reputation, through the mud in a public forum (i.e., the
> CXL), I feel that I need to respond.
>
> Before I justify my decision on substantive grounds, however, I wanted
> to make one thing perfectly clear: the decision not to turn out those
> blocks for the entire Hall/Kahl/Krakowski lab does not represent
> censorship. I didn't tear up the blocks, nor did I forbid Schiros from
> keeping those blocks for his personal use. Thus, there was no
> censorship. I did refuse to copy off the blocks for general lab
> consumption, but that is perfectly within my rights as a lab leader.
In conjunction with the institute policy or forbidding the use of evidence
not lab-sanctioned in debates, this is censorship. And even if it is not,
it has exactly the same effect: it limits ideas out of the public
discourse, preventing students from being fully prepared for the season by
their institute experience. The claim is *not* legal; it is pedagogical.
> After all, it is the job of any responsible lab leader to make sure that
> the blocks produced by the lab are of high quality and make good
> arguments. Consequently, decisions are constantly made about what to
> copy for the lab and what not to copy. (For example, no self-respecting
> lab leader would knowingly copy front-line answers to a disad that
> included a double turn because this is a bad argument.)
Numerous debates have been won on AIDS sceptics' arguments in the past,
which provides a powerful empirical suggestion that the arguments are not
of a low-quality. Of course, it is entirely possible that Gyros' blox
were crappy, but I don't think that is your claim.
> With that out of the way, I can go into some depth about the specific
> reasons I decided not to turn out the Duesberg argument that HIV doesn't
> cause AIDS.
>
> First, the argument stinks. Duesberg's basic claims are as follows: HIV
> doesn't cause AIDS;
He says this.
> AIDS is not a single disease but rather many
> separate diseases experienced by homosexuals, IV drug users, etc.;
He says this, and it is also consistent with CDC orthodoxy. That's why
there is a list of 29 OIs in addition to the CD4 definition.
> AIDS and HIV are not infectious;
Half right. Sceptics claim that HIV *is* infectious, but that it is not
pathogenic. This is what explains the correlation: since HIV infects
primarily those who have compromised immunity, there is a high correlation
between HIV and AIDS, which is not infectious. In other words, people who
have compromised immunity get infected by HIV, but HIV is harmless to
healthy people. Viral loads prove this, John Lauritsen, award winning
queer journalist referring to a presentation by Dr. Harvey Bialy, Research
Editor of BioTechnology, July 14, 94:
<If HIV were the cause of AIDS, then a high viral load ought to
coincide with illness. Bialy showed a slide, which he had labeled: "WE
WISH IT WERE SO VIRUS LOAD DISEASE PROPORTIONALITY SLIDE." This slide
consists of a "y" axis, an "x" axis, and three lines which represent
levels of antibodies, virus, and CD4 cells. As the virus goes up and
the antibodies go down, the CD4 cells go down. This slide, frequently
employed by advocates of the HIVAIDS hypothesis, shows things as they
ought to be, if HIV were the cause of AIDS. Bialy stated that it is a
fantasy graph, backed up by no evidence of any kind.
In fact, experimental research found just the opposite: that at all
stages of AIDS, and at all levels of CD4 counts, the HIV viral load
ranged from the minuscule to the non-existent. "In other words, HIV
behaves like a typical opportunistic infective agent, not like a
pathogen." [Piatik et al. Science 259:1749-53 (1993)]>
> AIDS is a fabricated epidemic without scientific proof; and AIDS (at
> least in its Western form) is a result of individual behavior
> (homosexual sex, IV drug use) and drugs, such as AZT, used to counter
> the "virus."
Almost right, except for the homosexual sex part. That has *nothing* to
do with what Duesberg claims. He claims that it is *all* about drugs,
from an interview with Gary Null,
(http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/aids/null2.html), in 95, Duesberg said:
"[Drug use] explains why it's in the 22-
to 45-year-olds and not in the kids or the old people. This
explains why it's mostly in males, because ... males consume 80
percent of the hard psychoactive drugs. And this explains why the
infants of 70 percent of junkie mothers have AIDS. This explains
why homosexuals who inhale poppers to facilitate anal intercourse
get Kaposi's sarcoma. This explains absolutely everything about
AIDS."
Note that Duesberg's claim is that toxic drugs, specifically isobutyl and
amyl nitrites used exclusively by homosexuals, are the cause of KS. This
is very different from claiming that the disease is a result of being gay,
which is the strawfigure you are trying to stick on him.
> All of these claims run counter to the vast majority of studies and
> scholarly opinion on the subject.
This is not correct. There is a manufactured consensus. Approximately
1000 scientists have joined The Group for the Scientific Re-appraisal of
AIDS, and you can see a partial list of the early members at
(http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/group.htm).
Also, the consensus came to be only because it was what major players
wanted, not because it is true, Johnson 94:
<The HIV theory was immediately triumphant because it was the kind
of solution to the AIDS mystery that all the major players wanted
to see. Virologists like Dr. Gallo, who had been unsuccessful in
the search for cancer-causing viruses, had found years of
guaranteed funding for their very expensive laboratories.
Epidemiologists at the Centers for Disease Control gained new
importance and prestige. Political officials in the Reagan
administration, pummelled for their alleged inaction in the face of
the "pandemic," could point to a smashing success and predict
speedy development of a vaccine. Organizations of AIDS patients had
cause to hope for a cure, and they were assured also that, since
"everyone is at risk" for what would eventually be called "HIV
disease," an unpredictable new virus and not their own conduct was
to blame for their condition. Drug companies -- especially the
influential Burroughs Wellcome, manufacturer of AZT -- stood to
make a fortune. No one had a motive to doubt, and so no one
doubted.>
Also, consensus proves nothing. The entire medical community has been
wrong before, Ofstedahl, 10-17-9, Echo Magazine:
<* What if for all these years the search for the definitive answer
to the one of the worst afflictions to hit mankind in recent
record has followed the wrong path?
* What if everyone is wrong?
Impossible you ask? Not really. It has happened before. In the
American 1930s, a devastating disease began to grip the
poverty-stricken areas of the country. They called it PELLAGRA. The
condition was marked with skin lesions, gastrointestinal
disturbances and nervous disorders.
Because of its "outbreak" appearance, scientists were quick to
label the calamity as viral or bacterial in nature. As such,
doctors were instructed how to treat their patients. Thousands died
before the falsehood was discovered. It turned out, the disease was
caused by simple malnutrition due to a B vitamin (nicotinic acid)
deficiency.
By the time the truth was discovered, scientists had come up with
an elaborate life cycle for this new virus, which they said came
from corn mold, involved farm animals, crows, and eventually ended
up in people, who then died. In fact, the malady stemmed from an
over-dependence on corn in the diet (which has little nutritional
value), and the new process of bleaching flour for white bread, a
process which introduced toxic cysteine hydrochlorides into the
body.
An even greater example of the medical industry's mishandling of a
disease occurred in Japan. It came after an observed outbreak of
alleged immune suppression lasting from 1955 to 1978.
In this case, subacute-myelo-optico-neuropathy (SMON) also was
thought to be caused by a virus. After 20 years and countless
deaths, researchers discovered the true cause of SMON: the chemical
clioquinol, which was sold in Japan to treat upset stomachs. When
ingested, it actually induced the same upset stomach. Thus, more
was prescribed and ingested, perpetuating the vicious cycle.
Current day AIDS dissidents believe the SMON model (the treatment
causing the very disease it was supposed to fight) parallels what
they call the AZT (zidovudine, known generically as Retrovir) cycle
precipitating AIDS.>
After more than a decade of debate and
> in-depth study, a nearly unanimous consensus of biomedical scientists,
> physicians, public health and health care professionals have concluded
> that HIV eventually causes inexorable depletion of immunologically
> important cells in almost all the people it infects, thus leading to
> AIDS.
This is blatantly incorrect. In fact, the CDC no longer even makes this
claim. You are simply asserting this. Duesberg, July 14, 94, in the New
York Native:
<Lowenstein talked about Gallo and Montagnier, without a hint of the
strife between them, and after several very forgettable minutes,
made the following statement, which I wish to examine:
At the present time it appears that all AIDS patients throughout
the world are infected with HIV, and nearly all HIV-positive
individuals will eventually get AIDS -- although there does seem to
be a small subset who escape that fate. [verbatim]
Yes, that, word for word, is exactly what he said. The statement is
outstandingly untrue, and it is difficult to believe that
Lowenstein didn't know better. (For thorough refutations see the
_Bio-Technology_ articles of Eleopulos [1993] and Duesberg [1993]
in the Reading List following this article.) Even Gallo and
Montagnier, who are each committed to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis to
the tune of $100,000 per year, now admit that most HIV antibody
-positive individuals will not get sick.>
Also, presumptive diagnosis skews correlation data. Doctors very
frequently presume that AIDS patients have HIV without ever running a
blood test. Charles Thomas, Reason, 94:
<There are probably thousands of cases of AIDS without HIV in the
United States alone. Peter Duesberg found 4,621 cases recorded in
the literature, 1,691 of them in this country. (Such cases tend to
disappear from the official statistics because, once it's clear
that HIV is absent, the CDC no longer counts them as AIDS.) In a
1993 article published in Bio/Technology, Duesberg documented the
consistent failure of the CDC to report on the true incidence of
positive HIV tests in AIDS cases. The CDC concedes that at least
40,000 "AIDS cases" were diagnosed on the basis of presumptive
criteria-that is, without antibody testing, on the basis of
diseases such as Kaposi's sarcoma. Yet these diseases can occur
without HIV or immune deficiency. Perhaps some of the patients
diagnosed as having AIDS would have tested negative, or actually
did test negative, for HIV. Physicians and health departments have
an incentive to diagnose patients with AIDS symptoms as AIDS cases
whenever they can, because the federal government pays the medical
expenses of AIDS patients under the Ryan White Act but not of
persons equally sick with the same diseases who test negative for
HIV antibodies.>
> Moreover, while the consensus of experts believes that certain high-risk
> behavior (like anal sex and IV drug use) facilitates the transmission of
> the disease, this behavior is not the cause of AIDS.
This is perverse reasoning. The idea that the drugs are ok but the
needles are bad illustrates the perversity of HIV/AIDS reasoning.
Lauritsen, Talk to the International AIDS Symposiom, Buenos Aires, 4-8-95:
<Intravenous drug users (IVDUs) are the second largest risk group
for "AIDS" in the U.S., and their illnesses are the easiest to
explain. They have acquired AIDS-illnesses as a toxicological
consequence of the heroin, cocaine, and other drugs that they have
put into their bodies. According to the prevailing AIDS paradigm,
they got sick because they shared needles, thereby acquiring HIV
infection, which caused their illnesses. There are three problems
with this hypothesis: 1) No study has ever been done to determine
if all, or even most, IVDUs with "AIDS" diagnoses ever did share
needles (most IVDUs, in fact, do not share needles), 2) the
hypothesis ignores the harmful consequences of putting chemicals
into the body, and 3) HIV is not pathogenic.
The clinical profile of an IVDU with "AIDS" is emaciation (wasting)
and one or more lung diseases. And yet, for a hundred years, the
classic profile of a chronic heroin user has been emaciation and
lung disease. Heroin is bad for the health and bad for the immune
system; on top of that, it suppresses the respiratory system. The
consequences are tuberculosis or one or another form of pneumonia:
emaciation and lung disease.>
> The specific substantive objections to Duesberg's argument are too many
> and too complicated to go into here. (To be honest, neither Schiros nor
> I are qualified to competently adjudicate a scientific dispute - the
> best we can do is go along with the bulk of qualified scientific
> opinion). Nevertheless, a few critiques of Duesberg are easy to grasp.
>
> One fundamental problem with Duesberg's claim is that the methodology
> used to substantiate it is fatally flawed. Duesberg uses an incredibly
> broad definition of AIDS fashionable in the early 1980's when the
> disease was first discovered (i.e., before we knew very much). This
> definition equates AIDS with a set of specific opportunistic infections,
> all of which existed in one form or another prior to the discovery of
> AIDS. Since mid-1985, this definition has been debunked in favor of a
> more scientifically rigorous and narrowly tailored one. By relying on
> the old broad definition, Duesberg rigs his test. It should be no
> surprise that Duesberg fails to find a perfect correlation between HIV
> and AIDS if he defines AIDS in such a broad way as to capture
> immunological problems that have nothing the do with HIV. In so doing,
> Duesberg ignores the fact that immune suppression caused by HIV takes a
> distinctive form. He also fails to acknowledge the existence of enormous
> bodies of evidence based on epidemiological or clinical science that
> firmly implicate HIV in AIDS. Instead, he embraces a methodology that is
> not only controversial and rejected by the vast majority of experts, but
> also guarantees the result Duesberg was looking for. The fact that
> Duesberg rejects the more scientific definition suggests that he is less
> interested in clinical accuracy than in manufacturing support for his
> theory.
This argument is correct, but is being applied to the wrong side. The CDC
redefined AIDS in 1992 to *require* HIV infection; they did it because
without definitional cheating, they could not prove a correlation.
Obviously, a definition which *requires* HIV infection only begs the
question. Charles Thomas, President of the Helicon Foundation noted in
Reason, June 94:
<The seemingly close correlation between AIDS and HIV is largely an
artifact of the misleading definition of AIDS used by the U.S.
government' s Centers for Disease Control. AIDS is a syndrome
defined by the presence of one or more of 30 independent
diseases-when accompanied by a positive result on a test that
detects antibodies to HIV. The same disease conditions are not
defined as AIDS when the antibody test is negative. Tuberculosis
with a positive antibody test is AIDS; tuberculosis with a negative
test is just TB.
The skewed definition of AIDS makes a close correlation with HIV
inevitable, regardless of the facts. This situation was briefly
exposed at the International AIDS Conference in Amsterdam in 1992,
when the existence of dozens of suppressed "AIDS without HIV" cases
first became publicly known. Instead of considering the obvious
implications of these cases for the HIV theory, the authorities at
the CDC, who had known about some of the cases for years but had
kept the subject under wraps, quickly buried the anomaly by
inventing a new disease called ICL (Idiopathic
CD4+Lympho-cytopenia)--a conveniently forgettable name that means
"AIDS without HIV.">
Sceptics use the clinical definition, not the new, rigged CDC definition.
Wen the CDC added cervical cancer to the list of OIs, for the sole purpose
of being able to claim more women had AIDS, that was a fine example.
> Duesberg's argument that behavior is the cause of AIDS, not HIV, is also
> ridiculous. If homosexual behavior and IV drug use in-and-of-themselves
> were the causes of AIDS, it is impossible to explain
This is above, but again, it's *all* about drugs.
> (a) why hemophiliacs, who get AIDS from blood tainted with HIV not from
> risky behavior, become sick;
They don't get any sicker than they already are (hemophilia is quite a
serious condition) unless they are poisoned by nucleoside analogs or
similar drugs.
In fact, the so-called ``tainted'' transfusions have lengthened
hempophiliacs lives. Duesberg, interview in SPIN magazine, September, 93:
<HIV didn't hurt them?
No. In fact, it disproved the virus hypothesis in the largest human
experiment ever done. 15,000 people infected with HIV. And now they
live twice as long as hemophiliacs ever lived before in history.
Better, longer.
It's really an overwhelming point. It's not a minor experiment. We
have a huge population: 15,000 people with HIV. Sure, it's true,
some of them get what they call AIDS now. But they get less of it
than they did before, and they get it because of transfusions.
Because even now, they constantly get these transfusions. They need
Factor VIII. It's not chemically clean, and that is
immunosuppressive.>
Also, hemophiliacs get false positives on HIV test for many reasons,
Papadopolous-Eleopolos et al, Royal Perth Hospital, _Factor VIII, HIV, and
AIDS in Haemophiliacs_, 95:
One cannot simultaneously use the presence of AIDS as proof of HIV
infection, and conversely, the presence of a positive HIV test as
proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS, as presently is the case. The
specificity of an antibody test requires the use of a gold
standard. A gold standard in an alternative, independent method of
proving the presence or absence of the condition for which the test
in to be employed and in the case of the HIV antibody tests the
only admissible gold standard is HIV itself. However, the use of
such a gold standard has never been reported and may not even be
possible (Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1993a). This is a view
shared by William Blattner: "One difficulty in assessing the
specificity and sensitivity of retrovirus assays is the absence of
a final 'gold standard'. In the absence of gold standards for both
HTLV-I and HIV-1, the true sensitivity and specificity for the
detection of viral antibodies remain imprecise" (Blattner, 1989).
In fact, at present, there is ample evidence which suggests that
the HIV antibody tests even in the high AIDS risk groups (gay men,
IV drug users, blacks and haemophiliacs), may not be specific
(Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1993a). Some additional data related
to haemophilia are: (a) haemophilia patients have
hypergammaglobulinaemia and hypergammaglobulinaemia correlates with
HIV seropositivity (Brenner et al., 1991); (b) haemophilia patients
have anti-lymphocyte antibodies (Daniel et al., 1989); (c) in one
study, 12% of haemophiliacs were found to have HTLV-I antibody,
(the molecular weights of HTLV-I and HIV-1 proteins are the same),
74% anti-cardiolipin antibodies, 28% anti-nuclear antibodies and
85% immune complexes (Matsuda et al., 1993); (d) HIV researchers
accept that "antilymphocyte, antinuclear and other autoantibodies"
give rise to false positive HIV antibody tests (Biggar, 1986); (e)
in haemophiliacs, hepatitis B virus seropositivity is a predictor
for HIV seropositivity (Brenner et al., 1991); (f) at least one
other group with chronic liver disease, alcoholics, are known to
have both false positive antibody tests and immune deficiency
(Mendenhall et al., 1986).
Also, this only demonstrates a correlation, not causality. There are many
reasons hemophiliacs would have compromised immunity. If Duesberg is
right, then they have HIV infections because of the compromised immunity,
not the other way around; correlation does not prove causation: if you see
flies in the garbage, that doesn't mean the flies caused the garbage.
> (b) why HIV-negative people who engage in risky sexual practices with
> other HIV-negative people don't get AIDS;
HIV negative people get AIDS, unless you use the question-begging CDC
definition which requires HIV for AIDS. This is explained above on the
definitions argument.
> (c) why AIDS is so prevalent in Africa, where it is predominantly a
> heterosexual disease; and
AIDS in Africa is a lie. There is no AIDS in Africa according to the
doctors that are actually there. Thomas, Reason, June 94:
In October 1993, the Sunday Times of London reported on interviews
with Philippe and Evelyne Krynen, heads of a 230-employee medical
relief organization in the Kagera province of Tanzania. The Krynens
had first reported on African AIDS in 1989 and at that time were
convinced that Kagera in particular was in the grip of a vast
epidemic. Subsequent years of medical work in Kagera have changed
their minds. They have learned that what they had thought were
"AIDS orphans" were merely children left with relatives by parents
who had moved away and that HIV-positive and HIV-negative villagers
suffer from the same diseases and respond equally well to
treatment. Philippe Krynen's verdict: "There is no AIDS. It is
something that has been invented. There are no epidemiological
grounds for it; it doesn't exist for us."
Also, if people are dying of AIDS in Africa, then where are the graves?
It's really the same diseases as ever.
Papadopolos-Eleopulos, _AIDS in Africa_, 95:
The only other alternative to this ludicrous scenario is to agree
with African physicians that positive HIV antibody tests in Africa
do NOT mean infection with HIV and that immunosuppression and
certain symptoms and diseases which constitute African AIDS have
existed in Africa since time immemorial. According to Professor
P.A.K. Addy, Head of Clinical Microbiology at the University of
Science and Technology in Kumasi, Ghana:
"Europeans and Americans came to Africa with prejudiced minds, so
they are seeing what they wanted to see...I've known for a long
time that AIDS is not a crisis in Africa as the world is being made
to understand. But in Africa it is very difficult to stick your
neck out and say certain things. The West came out with those
frightening statistics on AIDS in Africa because it was unaware of
certain social and clinical conditions. In most of Africa,
infectious diseases, particularly parasitic infections, are common.
And there are other conditions that can easily compromise or affect
one's immune system."
Dr. Konotey-Ahulu from the Cromwell Hospital in London expresses a
similar view: "Today, because of AIDS, it seems that Africans are
not allowed to die from these conditions [from which they used to
die before the AIDS era] any longer. If tens of thousands are dying
from AIDS (and Africans do not cremate their dead) where are the
graves?" According to him, the uppermost question in the minds of
intelligent Africans and Europeans in that continent is: "Why do
the world's media appear to have conspired with some scientists to
become so gratuitously extravagant with the untruth?" *
Also, the African definition of AIDS is expansive, including a cough and
fever, and since they don't do any blood testing, there is no way to know
whether African ``AIDS'' patients have HIV. Papadop-Eleop again, 95:
Unlike the West, AIDS in Africa is diagnosed without any laboratory
tests. Patients are classified as AIDS cases without laboratory
proof that they have either immunodeficiency or HIV infection. All
that is required is to have various clinical conditions. But the
conditions accepted as forming the "S"(syndrome) of "AIDS" in
Africa bear no relationship to AIDS in the West. In the West, AIDS
is diagnosed if a person has one or more of approximately 27
relatively rare diseases.
However in Africa, AIDS is diagnosed according to the World Health
Organization's 1986/87 Bangui" definitions that can best be
described as a collage of common non-specific symptoms, such as
cough, fever, diarrhea, tuberculosis (TB) and a cancer called
Kaposi's sarcoma. Every one of these diseases have been endemic in
Africa for generations.
> (d) why AIDS is increasing among heterosexual men and women
> in the US who do not use drugs,
AIDS is not increasing in the US, it's falling, in all groups-- check your
CDC data again. The percentage is increasing, but that's only because the
decrease has been even larger in high risk groups.
The person you refer to does not exist. Duesberg, SPIN, September 93:
Well, see, that is what I am looking for. That is my battle with
John Maddox [editor of "Nature"] and with people who are actually
fabricating data [Ascher, et al., in Nature, March 11, 1993]. They
claim to have such a group that had not used any drugs. When I
analyzed the data, it turned out that there was not a single person
in their paper that was drug-free. I submitted that critique to
Maddox, but his response was I could no longer respond. I was
censored.
John Maddox wrote an editorial in the May 13 issue, saying that
your questions are "unanswerable rhetorical questions" and "the
stock-in-trade of undergraduate debating societies." What do you
feel about that?
Maybe they are unanswerable to John Maddox. He's not the only
reader of his journal. There should be many scientists, maybe they
could answer them. The only way to find out is by presenting these
questions which he has refused for three or four years now. I have
been negotiating with him, as he acknowledges in his article, to
present these questions in his journal, and he never accepted that
proposal.
Also, people may contract HIV while perfectly healthy, and then get AIDS
iatrogenically through nucleoside analogs. This can't establish
causality; flies and garbage.
Also, there's the normal incidence of the indicator diseases in these
groups, which is quite low, but accounts for the numbers easily.
> as well as among the children of HIV-positive women.
Easiest cases of all to explain. They are also known as crack-babies and
heroine-babies. This is in the first Null card above.
Also, perinatal transmission of HIV proves that it is harmless. Duesberg,
_The Role of Drugs in the Orgin of AIDS_, 92:
2) HIV is naturally transmitted from mother to child at an
efficiency of about 50% [33]. The real efficiency may be higher
than serological tests indicate because some latent proviruses only
become activated with advanced age [33, 95]. By contrast, sexual
transmission of HIV is highly inefficient, depending on an average
of about 1,000 sexual contacts [33, 71] because there is no HIV in
semen from 1 out 25 anti-body-positive men [121]. It follows that
HIV depends on perinatal transmission for its survival [33]. Since
retroviruses [37] and other viruses [42, 80] that survive from
perinatal transmission cannot be fatally pathogenic, HIV is
probably harmless.
> Oh, and one more thing, if Duesberg is right that AIDS is so rampant in
> the gay community because of their widespread use of illegal drugs,
> which weaken the immune system, then he must also believe that those
> monkeys and cats that die of immune suppression when infected with a
> viral relative of the human-infecting HIV virus must also have led
> dissolute lives of drug-induced stupor.
The relative thing I suppose means you are talking about SIV. HIV has
*never* had any harmful effect on animals, although they get infected and
develop immunity.
SIV is a totally different virus, and what happened to the monkeys wasn't
AIDS. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate, _Inventing the AIDS Virus_, 97:
Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV
and AIDS research, Dr Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when
he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be
able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured
Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him.
With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why
don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control? "
I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not
HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"
"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He
looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but
they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.
"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency
Virus]?" the good doctor offered.
"I read that too, Dr Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to
those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was
just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the
original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS.
> Finally, while Schiros might think that we should listen to Duesberg
> because he is qualified (he is a Prof. of molecular and cell biology at
> UC Berkeley), qualified authors are capable of making terrible
> arguments. After all, the "scientists" who do the "studies" suggesting
> that smoking doesn't cause cancer are also qualified. In short, it is
> possible to be qualified and promote bad arguments.
Grant. This take out your argument from authority on consensus above.
> Second, I rejected the Duesberg blocks because they're immoral. If the
> only problems with "the HIV doesn't cause AIDS" argument were
> substantive, I probably would have copied the blocks. For example, the
> claim that "Global Warming is a hoax" is a weak argument because the
> consensus concludes the other way, but that did not stop me from
> approving blocks on last year's topic that made this argument.
> Unfortunately, the social implications of Duesberg's claims go way
> beyond the weakness of his argument.
>
> Duesberg's argument explicitly endorses the claim that behavior alone
> causes AIDS. This argument is used by right-wing groups to justify
> discrimination against homosexuals. Duesberg's argument fuels the
> perception that AIDS is a "gay plague" that represents God's punishment
> for sin. And if homosexuals or drug users deserve AIDS, the twisted
> logic goes, society shouldn't try to stop the epidemic.
Wrong. Duesberg does not say it has anything to do with homosexuality,
except to the extent that they abuse drugs. The acute effects of drugs
are well-known; the chronic effects are not. There is nothing more
discriminatory about saying that chronic abuse of nitrite inhalants or
heroine or cocaine will kill you than saying that chronic abuse of
nicotine will kill you. But above you attack arguments that cigarettes
are not harmful, so you are equally guilty of discrimination.
Also, turn, ending the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is the only way to solve AIDS
and save lives. Harry Rubin, Prof at Cal, New York Native, July 14, 94:
The same basic process is at work in AIDS. Ten years ago there was
tremendous pressure (I don't think most people remember it) for
NIH, for epidemiologists and virologists, to come up with a cause
of AIDS that everyone would understand. It was very important that
everyone understand it. And sure enough, Robert Gallo did so. The
result was trumpeted in a big news conference put on by Margaret
Heckler, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. Here was
this vast complex of 25 diseases, and more have been added since,
and it was all due to this one retrovirus. Well, someone who has
spent every day of his adult life working in the field and at the
bench, and who's had the experience of the questionably named
Chicken Leukosis Virus, found this a little hard to swallow in its
unexpurgated form. I didn't deny that it might have some role, but
this was too simplistic. It still is too simplistic, in my
estimation. It may be part of the truth, but it's certainly not the
whole truth. At this moment it's the greatest bar we have to a
deeper understanding of a very serious problem.
> Moreover, by spreading the notion that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, Duesberg
> increases the risk that the public will be confused about mainstream
> scientific opinion on the subject, thereby undermining their support for
> AIDS research and treatment. I suspect that the vast majority of
> rational, compassionate human beings find these implications of
> Duesberg's argument morally abhorrent.
Not true. Other STDs are immunosuppressive, so the public health message
would remain unchanged. In fact, recognizing drugs-AIDS would solve toxic
lubricants, improving public health. Ofstedal, Echo, October 17, 96
It is important to note here, that Joslyn believes safe-sex is
imperative in reducing the transmission of immunosuppresive STDs.
However, Joslyn and Jeremy Selvy, director of Project AIDS
International (PAI), say the "safer-sex" message unwittingly may
have helped to make people ill by encouraging people to use
water-based lubricants which contain harmful chemicals.
Selvy asserts that AIDS is caused by a chemical toxification
consistent with other syndromes such as Toxic Oil Syndrome in
Spain, Subacute Myelo-Optico-Neuropathy (SMON) in Japan, and
others, including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
Also, the safe-sex campaign has already been a total failure. This proves
AIDS is not sexually transmitted. Duesberg, SPIN, Sept 93:
Why isn't there a heterosexual epidemic of AIDS?
Because AIDS is not an infectious disease and not sexually
transmissible. AIDS is a drug disease, so it will not distribute
according to sex, it will distribute according to exposure to
drugs. Men consume 80 percent of the hard drugs. And the soft
drugs, like the poppers, are consumed almost exclusively by male
homosexuals. So that's why it skews the epidemic very much in the
male direction.
Why did the growth of new cases of AIDS drop off after the
establishment of safe sex and the practice of condoms among
homosexuals?
It hasn't. AIDS has continued to increase despite the safe sex
campaign.
I thought it was decreasing.
The only thing that they claim is decreasing is HIV infection, but
AIDS continues to increase every year more than the previous year.
The failure of the safe-sex campaign argues against sexual
transmission of AIDS at this point. When you point this out to them
they say, oh, it would have been even more if we hadn't done that.
> Furthermore, Duesberg is no innocent bystander whose arguments have been
> hijacked by forces beyond his control. On the contrary, Duesberg
> receives money from these groups, thereby demonstrating his support,
> tacit or otherwise, for their bigotry. Duesberg's 1995 book, Inventing
> the AIDS Virus, is published by Regnery Gateway. Alfred Regnery is an
> extremely wealthy ultra-conservative Christian fundamentalist publisher
> who rejects science as an enemy of religion. Regnery not only paid
> Duesberg for his book, but also actively promotes the book to advance
> his far right agenda. Other books published by Regnery include Philip
> Johnson's Darwin on Trial, in which Johnson, a law professor, attacks
> evolutionary theory for refuting religion.
Read Johnson's book. He argues against evolution based exclusively on
scientific evidence. If there is any bigotry here, it seems to be yours
against Christians.
> This is interesting, because in the acknowledgement section of Inventing
> the AIDS Virus, Duesberg explicitly thanks Johnson, thereby
> demonstrating some level of support. Both Regnery and Johnson have
> admitted that they would like to overturn science and, here's the
> kicker, return to the theory that disease is divine retribution for sin.
I don't believe this. I think this is made up.
> The Regnery-Johnson position jibes eerily well with Duesberg's claim
> that AIDS is the deserved result of immoral voluntary behavior on the
> part of homosexuals and IV drug users (not to mention the immoral and
> bumbling doctors who irresponsibly give their patients AIDS by
> prescribing AZT).
Is your PC claim then that toxic drugs have no harmful effect on the body?
I think that the HIV=AIDS hypothesis is despicable and bigoted. A
prominent gay journalist, John Lauritsen, described the current public
health campaign as genocidal in the biblical sense. New York Native, Jan
7, 91:
This new form of genocide, directed against gay men, rests on two
pillars: Homophobia and Profit. The ancient taboo from the Holiness
Code of Leviticus, which prescribed the death penalty for males who
had sex with each other, is now being carried out, profitably, by
the pharmaceutical industry: "If a man lie with mankind as with a
woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus
20:13)
Jewish priests 2500 years ago ordained death by stoning for the
"abomination" of sex between males. Modern priests, the doctors,
prescribe AZT, and they do so with the extraordinarily hypocritical
dogma that by giving a life-terminating drug they are really
"extending life". Considering the agonizing side effects of AZT
"treatment", it might be argued that death by stoning were
preferable.
He continues to describe the current situation:
Those who have eyes to see are witnessing genocide-the genocide of
gay men. Millions of dollars are now being spent on an
international advertising campaign, "Living With HIV", in which gay
men and other members of "risk groups" are being told:
Get tested for antibodies to HIV [the alleged "AIDS virus"] -- if
you "test positive" you need "medical intervention" which could
"put time on your side". The "medical intervention" is AZT (also
known as Retrovir and zidovudine), and the campaign is paid for,
directly and indirectly, by Burroughs-Wellcome, the manufacturer of
AZT.
The campaign consists of a phoney diagnosis followed by a lethal
treatment. Already tens of thousands of objectively healthy gay men
have been scared and bullied and bamboozled into taking AZT,
allegedly in order to "slow the progression to AIDS". Optimism
regarding their prognosis would be foolish. Except for the lucky
few who stop "treatment" in time, they will die. Death is the
expected biochemical consequence of taking AZT, for the fundamental
action of the drug is to terminate DNA synthesis, the very life
process itself. As Joseph Sonnabend has stated, "AZT is
incompatible with life". Without a single benefit demonstrated by
honest and competent research, AZT can do nothing but kill.(1)
It is odd, the power of words to cloud reality or discredit a line
of reasoning. A British journalist once told me that no one would
ever believe what I wrote if I persisted in using words like
"genocide". My response is that, while I want my arguments to be
convincing, I write what I consider to be true, not necessarily
what people will find believable. Genocide has occurred at other
times and in other places, and it is happening here and now,
whether or not anyone wishes to believe it.
The gay press is clearly not controlled by biased anti-gay right-wingers.
> It could be argued that Duesberg formed his opinions long before he got
> involved with these groups. It could also be argued that he had no
> choice but to take their money because his grants from the Federal
> Government dried up. These arguments are a pathetic rationalization for
> his immorality. Even after his grants evaporated, nobody was holding a
> gun to his head forcing him to make a deal with the devil. Duesberg
> always had the moral choice not to accept money from bigoted groups if
> he rejected their ideas. Clearly, however, Duesberg has no qualms about
> taking their cash, nor does he have a problem with his publisher using
> his book for propaganda purposes.
Since Regnery is a prominent conservative, this seems to suggest that
nearly every conservative in Washington and prominent elsewhere is morally
tainted. Well, Regnery spoke at a major CATO foundation event in 94--
that means you should ban all CATO ev since it's morally tainted.
This argument that we should discard ideas summarily is *one* proponent of
them used a publisher we don't like is frightening. Why don't we just
burn all the books we don't like? The Nazis found that most efficient.
> Finally, it could be argued that Duesberg himself is a simple scientist
> with no political agenda. Once again, this is weak. Duesberg actively
> promotes his arguments through public speeches, media, and his own
> webcite. If the public becomes confused about the HIV-AIDS connection,
> comes to see AIDS as stemming purely from behavior, and cuts off support
> for AIDS research and treatment, Duesberg will share a big part of the
> blame.
Yes, he will have rightly earned the CREDIT.
> For all these reasons, I decided not to include the "HIV doesn't cause
> AIDS" blocks in the general evidence copied for the Hall/Kahl/Krakowski
> lab.
The substantive reasons, you admitted, were not why you excluded the
arguments. The *only* reason was that *one* of the authors published *one
book with a publisher that you don't like. (Your other was the accusation
about homosexuality being immune suppressive, which is not a claim
Duesberg makes.) Hardly persuasive, especially considering Schiros cut
Duesberg web stuff, as far as I know.
> For the record, the following arguments will also not be turned out
> to my entire lab if some kid cuts cards on them, even though, at some
> point in time, certain "qualified" individuals have advocated them:
>
> 1) "The Holocaust Didn't Happen - It's a Hoax Propagated by the
> Jew-Controlled Media"
> 2) "Rape is Good" because women ask for it.
> 3) "Slavery Was Good" because blacks are genetically inferior.
If these arguments are wrong, then they can surely be beaten on their
merits. As my first line responses have more than amply demonstrated,
none of your arguments against the drugs-AIDS hypothesis are even
particularly powerful, let alone unanswerable.
A legitimate concern would be that writing these positions would trade off
with more useful research time, and on those grounds it's more than
reasonable that you would prevent them from being written. You could
rightly prevent any argument on those grounds; but Gyros had already
written his blocks and planned on using them at Michigan, and you denied
that merely for an attempt to rant and rail about right-wing conspiracies.
> If you disagree with me, or would run your own lab differently, you are
> free to have that opinion and to argue with me about it. But, it will
> not change the fact that I think my decision regarding the HIV-AIDS
> block was reasonable and morally correct.
Ah, and you've never been convinced that you were wrong? That's nice.
I do not intend to offer second line extensions of the substantive
arguments about the drugs-AIDS hypothesis. My point was merely to show
that it is a deep, textured debate and that none of these arguments is
particularly devastating. Perhaps some of the answers in Colin's post are
winnable, but of course that would depend on a given round.
I will continue to discuss the matter of institute policy and excluding
politically sensitive arguments. I find the idea that any author
affiliated with a Christian should be suspect more than a little
disturbing.
--------
Philip G Kerpen -------- xem@EFNet -------- pgkerpen@AIM
http://hs.debate.net/
``I never think before posting -- it would only slow me down.''
--Michael "Bear" Bryant
============================== CX-L Mailing List =============================
To unsubscribe: send the text UNSUBSCRIBE CX-L to listproc@debate.net with
NO SUBJECT. For other help, send mail to jordyn@debate.net. Fear the Kvaal!