Another anti-science court case finished

| 169 Comments

I don’t typically cross-post many of my infectious disease topics over here unless they have a clear evolution slant, but I thought I’d let readers know about a recent case in Australia, where a HIV+ man was convicted of endangering the lives of three women by exposing them to the virus via unprotected sex. He appealed, and the basis of his appeal was the assertion that HIV doesn’t exist, a claim backed by some so-called “HIV dissidents” who use tactics very similar to creationists: quote-mining, misrepresentation off the literature, etc. The judge came back with his decision on the whole circus today, and I discuss the results at Aetiology.

169 Comments

A deadly form of denial to be sure. I wonder since this guy doesn’t believe in HIV/AIDS whether he bothers(ed) to take antivirals. The 29 or so anti-HIV drugs can keep a patient alive for 2 decades at least. To be consistent in his delusions he would have to forgo antiviral therapy and die years sooner. There is a Darwin award in here somewhere.

HIV is a good example of how evolutionary thought has influenced medicine.

1. HAART, triple cocktail, is formulated to keep virus levels very low. Less virus, less chance of mutating to resistance. Resistance due to retrovirus’s high mutation rate is therapy limiting.

2. There are 29 AIDS drugs with more on the drawing boards. This is because when resistance does arise due to natural selection, one can switch drugs and keep switching. When the patient is out of options,…not good.

3. HIV is a emerging virus, one new to the human population. Not the only one and not the last one. Natural selection predicts that there will be an endless parade of these for various reasons. Not the least because with 6.4 billion large mammals on the planet, we provide a gigantic ecological niche for ambitious pathogens.

4. We now know where HIV came from by tracing the homology using common descent principles. The main one is from chimps, another from monkeys. The lessons here are several but one is that you shouldn’t eat your close relatives such as chimps.

Egnor is just plain wrong when he says evolution has nothing to offer medicine. The reality is that evolutionary concepts are more and more making their way into medicine and medical research because they are useful. If he isn’t brain dead, he probably knows this and it is probably ticking him off. Still waiting for him to explain how knowing dinosaurs roamed the middle east 5,000 years ago and got on a Big Boat to avoid a Flood contributes to medicine.

The stakes are high here. Forty million people are infected with HIV worldwide, 3 million die every year. That is why Duesburg and Egnor and the other deniers are so pernicious. While they are exercising their right to be blind, taking them seriously can and is dangerous.

And once again a judge does a good job of adjudicating a complex scientific issue, even in the presence of intentional obfuscation. Judges may not have a background in science, but they have training in logic and experience in interpreting the testimony of expert witnesses.

Re “experience in interpreting the testimony of expert witnesses.”

Not to mention detecting the presence of unexpert witnesses.

Henry

with 6.4 billion large mammals on the planet, we provide a gigantic ecological niche for ambitious pathogens

That penultimate word involves teleology where none is necessary (or factual).

http://www.smart-publications.com/a[…]duesberg.php

Sure, AIDS researchers want to believe AIDS is caused by HIV. But Peter Duesberg is obviously not an idiot; he just doesn’t agree with the logic behind the HIV hypothesis.

Why are there so many people with HIV who never get AIDS? And so many people with AIDS-like diseases with no HIV infection?

Duesberg has many reasonable objections, but scientists won’t listen, just because he does not go along with the crowd. Even though he is a leading cancer researcher.

It resembles the ID debate in some ways. Most scientists are afraid to stray from the herd, however illogical the herd may be.

It resembles the ID debate in some ways.

That’s for sure.

realPC, this is not a game. This is not some high school debate about “free speech.” This is reality.

It is reprehensible at best - reprehensible - to deny the overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Don’t give us your rinky-dink “evidence.” These are people’s lives you are talking about. The illogical one here is you.

Because of the African intelligent design arguments against ARV treatments in South Africa, thousands of people who would otherwise be living and controlling their AIDS are dead and their children, who could have been protected from AIDS, are infected. This is a fact. It is happening. It disgusts me that people so cavalierly allow their so-called “maverick independence” and irrational war with reality result in such horrendous consequences for others far away from their self-righteous, anti-science posturing. It utterly revolts me.

RealPC writes…

Most scientists are afraid to stray from the herd, however illogical the herd may be.

Bull pookey!

The surest path to fame and fortune in science is to prove the status quo is wrong.

They might even put your name on it.

Newtonian physics.

Einstien’s relativity.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal.

Darwinian evolution!

Scientists have egos too (I’ve seen Newton’s self-designed tomb. Google a picture. It’s not exactly understated, in keeping with his grandiose view on the importance of his own work.)

If there was some factoid to prove creationism once and for all, the guy who publicized it would be a guaranteed guest head on Fox News for a month (They have as point of fact, already featured “experts” on HIV denial).

Screw professional ostracism! In the world of 2007 he’d make enough on the talk show circuit that he could just buy new colleagues.

But still, nobody ever seems to find that little piece of evidence, now do they? I wonder why that is?

Most scientists are afraid to stray from the herd, however illogical the herd may be.

Considering that papers are often rejected because they are not novel the exact opposite is true.

Every scientist dreams of being a Galileo. Most have the honesty to admit they are not. A small fraction delude themselves that they are Galileos

Realpc is a HIV denier. Why am I not surprised?

But Peter Duesberg is obviously not an idiot

Ah, but the vast majority of scientists, who disagree with him, are, right? The fact is that you obviously are an idiot.

Duesberg has many reasonable objections, but scientists won’t listen

You’re a despicable liar. All of Duesberg’s “objections” have been refuted, years ago, and he hasn’t produced anything novel since then, just retreading the same old errors.

Ok, explain why it’s a “fact” that AIDS is caused by HIV. Duesberg thinks HIV may go along with AIDS, but he says it cannot be the cause. The evidence, as he explains it, shows that other factors cause AIDS. I don’t know if his suggestions – drug use, malnutrition, the AIDS medication itself, etc. – are correct. However, I don’t think you can find much wrong with his logic when he shows how HIV cannot possibly be the cause.

He also explains how AIDS researchers, desperately wanting to be on the right track, distort reality. For example, AIDS is defined as one of the typical AIDS diseases (tuberculosis, etc.) in the presence of HIV infection.

Well how can you be wrong, then? They are using their own hypothesis to define the syndrome. When tuberculosis, etc., occur without HIV infection is not defined as AIDS. So their statistics show that HIV is ALWAYS present in AIDS cases!

Duesberg has proven himself with his cancer research. He is not an idiot, moron, whatever other Panda’s Thumb labels you would like to apply.

If Duesberg is correct, the AIDS drugs are not only a tremendous waste of time and money, they are harmful and can actually cause the syndrome. So of course AIDS researchers fight like mad to prevent the public from believing him. They sincerely WANT to believe their own theory. And they don’t mind getting the funding either. Duesberg cannot get funding to do his own AIDS research, since he parted from the herd.

Where is the evidence that proves AIDS is caused by HIV? “All AIDS researchers agree” is NOT evidence.

Oh and your idea that science celebrates dissenters is very questionable. Science has become an entrenched establishment, and money and power are at stake. Scientists are not gods. They may try to be fair and open-minded, but they are just as vulnerable to bias and self-deception as anyone.

“Peter Duesberg is obviously not an idiot”

“Ah, but the vast majority of scientists, who disagree with him, are, right?”

I don’t think Duesberg is an infallible god, and the scientists who disagree with him are not infallible either.

I am not calling people on either side idiots. I don’t think simply calling someone you disagree with an idiot helps to shed light on a problem.

Instead, why not consider the logic and evidence? Why not think carefully about Duesberg’s objections, before dismissing him as an idiot. If he turns out to be partially correct, that does not mean all the mainstream AIDS researchers are idiots. It just means their reasoning was partly incorrect. That’s how it goes in science, and in life in general. We seldom have perfect information, and we seldom reason perfectly.

I see realpc (or should we call him Phil?) has tried to derail yet another thread. For those of you who are not familiar with his brand of argument, he uses the MSU method (making stuff up). Here is a list of some of the claims he has made on various threads. Of course he has presented absolutely no evidence for any of these claims and he has repeatedly failed to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary. Feel free to add to the list if I have missed anything.

(1) The “Law of Complexity” states that some things complexify themselves at some times by some unknown mechanism for some unknown reason.

(2) The “Theory of Creative Evolution” states that some things get better and better for some reason, or something like that.

(3) The “intelligence” of your body means that you can somehow create beneficial mutations whenever you need them and that this process is entirely “natural” even though there is no known mechanism by which it could occur.

(4) DNA does not “know” enough to “orchestrate” the process of development (and so apparently we don’t have any idea how it could possibly work).

(5) Development violates the laws of physics (not the known laws of physics just the unknown ones).

(6) “Natural” means understood by science (presumably anything not yet understood is not natural). I know, this directly contradicts number three, but I’m not the one making this stuff up.

(7) “Complexity” cannot be determined unless we know the purpose and function of something (apparently the complexity changes if the perceived purpose changes).

(8) We all exist in a shared virtual reality and the real reality is outside the matrix. (Wait I saw that movie, he might be right about this one. Anyway, I guess no one can prove him wrong).

(9) Humans are “newer” than dogs. (Even though Canis familiaris arose in Asia about 15,000 years ago). See Science 298:1610-1613 (2002) for example.

(10) AIDS is not caused by HIV.

With respect to number nine, realpc later claimed that he was talking about the ancestors of domesticated dogs, some kind of “dog-like” species. Well it turns out there really are some “dogs” that were never domesticated. They are not in the Genus Canis and they are not ancestral to modern dogs of the species Canis familiaris, but some do have the term “dog” in their common names, so I guess they could count. (By the way, I still don’t think prairie dogs or dogfish should count). Some species of wild dogs might even be older than the human lineage. So now realpc, you have the perfect opportunity to test your “theory”. You have a definition of complexity (that includes purpose and function) and you have three species of varying ages. All you have to do now is determine the complexity of each species and show that the “newer” species are more complex. I don’t know about the wild dogs and humans, (you’ll have to ask a philosopher about that), but I do have some ideas about the purpose and function of domesticated dogs. Here are some possibilities: human companionship, helping humans with hunting, protection of humans, source of fertilizer for lawns, essential component of dog shows, etc.

With respect to number ten, the defense was based on the premise that HIV does not exist, not that it does not cause AIDS. I guess even realpc admits that HIV exists. Since Duesberg admits that “HIV may go along with AIDS”, then unprotected sex with an infected person would at least represent reckless endangerment.

BTW, retardpc, you should be interested in this lovely bit from Wikipedia:

Duesberg’s book Inventing the AIDS Virus was initially co-written with Bryan Ellison, one of his graduate students at the University of California, Berkeley. However, following a 1994 dispute over manuscript changes, Ellison published the manuscript himself, under the title Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS, listing himself as the lead author. A dispute between Duesberg and Ellison resulted, with Ellison charging that Duesberg was “doing favors on behalf of several people in the government” who wished to suppress the book.

Hey, maybe Duesberg’s not a hero of free inquiry after all.

Ellison also charged Duesberg with “cooperat[ing] with some of the very hostile factors to have me thrown out of school right before I could submit my thesis and get my Ph.D.” For his part, Duesberg stated, regarding Ellison, that “…since he didn’t talk to me anymore and didn’t show up at the lab, I couldn’t pay him anymore.”[27] Ultimately, Duesberg and Regnery Publishing sued Ellison, winning a “six-figure verdict” and an injunction against Ellison’s manuscript.[28] Duesberg’s version of the manuscript was published by Regnery under the title Inventing the AIDS Virus.

Ah, Regnery, publisher of every piece of right wing dreck imaginable, from the Swift Boater’s “Unfit to Command” to the abominable fact-challenged “The Politically Incorrect Guide to” series, including of course Johanthan Wells’ “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”.

Ok, explain why it’s a “fact” that AIDS is caused by HIV.

No, you stupid fucking git, I will not waste my time or the space here presenting the reams upon reams of scientific evidence for that fact. If you really want to know – which you don’t – you can go look into it yourself.

wow i never knew there was such a large number of people who believe AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus. they have only been researching this for the last 40 years or so. sure this might have been a valid argument in the 70’s and early 80’s, but by then they knew HIV caused it. trust me it would be a wet dream to discover another cause.

even if HIV wasn’t the cause it is still something you would not pass along. people who do this kind of stuff should be executed. this is common with things like TB too. that is a special kind of sick right there folks. to have a deadly virus and know it and spread it. only you don’t admit it for some delusional reason.

i guess it goes along with the rest of the anti-science movement. I know people who think cloned meat is somehow going to be bad for them. they also say the same for clone vegetables.… i know real intelligence.

Instead, why not consider the logic and evidence?

As I said, you stupid fucking git, it has been considered and refuted. When I say that, and then you come back with the same retarded line, it just proves that you are a bastard and an asshole and a troll.

Why not think carefully about Duesberg’s objections, before dismissing him as an idiot.

No one has dismissed him as an idiot; you’re the idiot. Duesberg is simply incorrect, as well as immensely arrogant and intellectually dishonest.

If he turns out to be partially correct, that does not mean all the mainstream AIDS researchers are idiots. It just means their reasoning was partly incorrect.

It TURNS OUT that he is incorrect, fuckhead,

That’s how it goes in science, and in life in general.

Yes, that’s how it goes, sometimes people with contrary theories are WRONG, no matter how much stupid fucking idiots like you would like them to be correct.

We seldom have perfect information, and we seldom reason perfectly.

Certainly you seldom reason perfectly, or even half-assed accurately, moron.

With respect to number ten, the defense was based on the premise that HIV does not exist, not that it does not cause AIDS. I guess even realpc admits that HIV exists. Since Duesberg admits that “HIV may go along with AIDS”, then unprotected sex with an infected person would at least represent reckless endangerment.

retardedpc doesn’t care that he isn’t even addressing the subject of the thread, because he’s a morally bankrupt troll.

I don’t think you can find much wrong with his logic when he shows how HIV cannot possibly be the cause.

That’s because you are INCREDIBLY STUPID. His “logic” is obviously wrong because HIV does, in fact, cause AIDS.

(I don’t see how filthy language strengthens an argument.)

If AIDS is defined as certain diseases in addition to evidence of the presence of HIV (and that evidence is questionable, by the way), then you cannot fail to find HIV in every AIDS patient!

How many people are HIV positive but never take AIDS medication and never get AIDS? Duesberg claims that this is very common. How many people have diseases normally caused by AIDS, but no sign of HIV? Again, Duesberg says this is common. Do you have evidence that his claims are wrong?

He said: “The HIV-AIDS hypothesis has recycled the same unproductive ideas and arguments for invisible or undetectable HIV, for toxic anti-HIV drugs, and excuses for failing vaccines in various formulations, for twenty-one years.”

The only arguments for the HIV hypothesis that I have heard are that every AIDS patient shows signs of having been infected by HIV (true by definition!), or that many HIV-positive patients fend off AIDS by taking AIDS medication. But since HIV does not necessarily lead to AIDS, how can you know it was the AIDS drugs that prevented it? They might never have developed AIDS!

And about dogs, by the way, sometimes the word “dog” refers to the dog family, which includes the ancestors of domestic dogs. That is, obviously, what I meant.

“All dogs – wild and domestic, extinct and living – belong to the canid family (family Canidæ). Canids have been around a long time and are the earliest known carnivores (order Carnivora.) In fact, dogs first appeared in the fossil record about 40 million years ago”

http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs[…]olution.html

realpc,

As I stated, whether or not HIV causes AIDS is not the point here. I assume you agree that HIV exists?

I also stipulated that “wild dogs” existed and could be used to test your “theory”. I anxiously await your complexity calculations. Perhaps the “Issac Newton of information theory” could help you out. By the way, some test usually precedes use of the term “theory”.

“(I don’t see how filthy language strengthens an argument.)”

At last we agree on something. I did not use such language. Sorry about those who did.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 18, column 774, byte 3455 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

David Stanton,

I assume that HIV exists and that an infected person should be prevented from infecting others. No one can state with certainty that HIV never causes AIDS. Maybe it does sometimes, maybe something else in the blood of AIDS patients can be transmitted and can spread the disease.

So it would be irresponsible to allow HIV to spread, just in case it is the cause. But we do not have any reasons for being certain that HIV causes AIDS.

I don’t have an opinion on Duesberg’s theories about what might cause AIDS – drug use, malnutrition, etc. That may be true some of the time, or maybe not. It doesn’t explain the transmission of AIDS to hemophiliacs, which I thought had been established (has it??)

If hemophiliacs have contracted AIDS from HIV-infected blood, that would weaken Duesberg’s theories. But maybe both the HIV theory AND Duesberg’s theory are wrong. Maybe no one knows! HIV could be something that tends to occur in the blood of AIDS patients, without being the cause. The cause may be something as yet undiscovered.

Duesberg – who has extensive experience in this area – says that AIDS does not appear to be caused by a virus. If it were, for one thing, people who are sick with AIDS would have HIV in their system, but they do not. In addition, if AIDS were caused by HIV we might have expected a vaccine by now. But there is no AIDS vaccine in sight, as far as I know.

So there are real reasons to wonder about the HIV hypothesis. Yet it is accepted as a proven fact.

So this does resemble the ID debate. In both cases, we have a theory that the scientific establishment claims as a proven fact. And in both, the accepted theory has some obvious weaknesses. In both, there are small numbers of scientists who dissent from the accepted theory because they find it unconvincing. And in both, the dissenters are simply called idiots and their logic and evidence is ignored. No real communication takes place as insultls are hurled back and forth.

A dispute between Duesberg and Ellison resulted, with Ellison charging that Duesberg was “doing favors on behalf of several people in the government” who wished to suppress the book.

According to Duesberg Ellison has gone on to join some wierd religious sect. Ellison seems to be a certified nutcase.

My question is: why does Duesberg surround himself with complete loonies and creationists like Phillip Johnson?

realpc,

Thanks for clarifying your position. If you choose not to respond to those who use abusive language, that is your perogative. However, you might still want to respond to their arguments and the evidence they present.

I think we can all agree that there are many commonalities between the debates regarding evolution, AIDS and HIV and global warming. This is exactly why science depends on evidence. This is why all ideas should be judged based on evidence. This is after all why evolution became almost universally accepted by the scientific community.

Speaking of which, I am still waiting for your calculations that prove that domesticated dogs, which are after all “newer” than humans, are more complex than wild dogs or humans.

Sure, AIDS researchers want to believe AIDS is caused by HIV. But Peter Duesberg is obviously not an idiot; he just doesn’t agree with the logic behind the HIV hypothesis.

And the thousands of scientists who disagree with Duesberg aren’t idiots either. They just find Duesberg’s arguments unconvincing in the face of a huge mass of evidence that goes against Duesberg’s claims.

Why are there so many people with HIV who never get AIDS?

There aren’t. And prior to the advent of anti-HIV drugs, they were very rare indeed. There probably are a few people who are genetically resistant to developing AIDS as a result of HIV infection. The human population is genetically diverse, and resistant subpopulations have been observed with other diseases.

And so many people with AIDS-like diseases with no HIV infection?

There aren’t. There are certainly other ways to damage the immune system, as well as genetic immune deficiencies, but they weren’t common before HIV, just as immune deficiency without HIV is not common now.

Duesberg has many reasonable objections, but scientists won’t listen, just because he does not go along with the crowd. Even though he is a leading cancer researcher.

One of the hallmarks of the true denialist is the rewriting of history. They don’t want you to know that the hypothesis favored by Duesberg was actually quite popular in the early days of the AIDS. They’d like you to believe that Duesberg is a maverick, “rethinking” the accepted dogma (comparisons to Galileo abound in denialist rhetoric). The reality is that Duesberg’s hypothesis was once considered quite reasonable by many scientists, but they have abandoned it, one by one, as the evidence has mounted against it, leaving Duesberg as a lonely holdout, still doggedly hanging onto his pet theory, and trying ever more desperately to explain away the evidence against it.

It resembles the ID debate in some ways. Most scientists are afraid to stray from the herd, however illogical the herd may be.

Yes, like AIDS denialists, evolution denialists try to represent themselves as mavericks with the courage to stray from the herd and consider new ideas when the reality is that they are still hanging onto obsolete ideas and arguments that were once considered reasonable, but were abandoned long ago in the face of overwhelming evidence.

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/[…]y_I_Quit_HIV

“the leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the last few years has been liver failure, not an AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors, which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years.”

Rebecca Culshaw, former HIV researcher

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/[…]y_I_Quit_HIV

“the leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the last few years has been liver failure, not an AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors, which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years.”

Rebecca Culshaw, former HIV researcher

realpc Wrote:

Oh yes, you know the long-term effects of AZT, but compared to what? You don’t know how an HIV patient would have done without AZT (or newer drugs). You assume that all or most HIV patients will develop AIDS, so you give them AZT. Symptoms that could possibly result from AZT are blamed on AIDS. We don’t really know what happens to untreated HIV patients. And we don’t really know the difference between treated and untreated AIDS patients.

translation: stop science and start praying

I never took drugs. I am not whoever it is you accuse me of being. There is more than one HIV skeptic in the world. I resent being called a Holocaust denier since I’m Jewish.

Instead of analyzing the logic of my arguments, you try to discredit me as a loony. That’s what you do with everyone who does not join you in worshipping the medical industry and the scientific establishment.

My faith is in logic and the scientific method. No, I am not perfectly logical, no one is. And no I don’t know every little detail about every single subject, no one does. But I know I’m fairly good at reasoning. I also have the advantage of being a skeptical non-conformist. That’s what we’re supposed to love about America – the freedom to think for ourselves.

So you don’t discourage me one bit. I am inspired to continue confronting your narrow-minded conformity. Logic and evidence always win in the long run.

realpc Wrote:

I never took drugs

translation: morphine,heroine,cocaine,… are not drugs.they don’t cause halucinations,etc. this is again just a false “truth” enforced to the general public by the global conpiracy of materialists,of the scientific and social establishment. in fact many free-thinking scientists have proven that the so called drugs -which I (realpc) constanly use- are the only real medicine fighting back against the brain damage,reality reshaping symptoms of chlorium in tap water which has been again put there to control the masses. by of course the global materialist conspirators.

oh yes,I forgot to mention that I (realpc) am about to start a nuclear war again the communists. because there are everywhere around us despite the great lie of the so called collapse of the USSR.

oops :again against the communists

“Instead of analyzing the logic of my arguments” Troll

The thing about not banning someone like this is that if you just ignore their silly comments someone might come along and think you can’t answer them. The problem with berating them is then you get quoted on some website somewhere as an “arrogant evilutionist” posterchild.

ankh_f_n_khonsu Wrote:

I never took drugs. I am not whoever it is you accuse me of being. There is more than one HIV skeptic in the world. I resent being called a Holocaust denier since I’m Jewish.

Instead of analyzing the logic of my arguments, you try to discredit me as a loony. That’s what you do with everyone who does not join you in worshipping the medical industry and the scientific establishment.

My faith is in logic and the scientific method. No, I am not perfectly logical, no one is. And no I don’t know every little detail about every single subject, no one does. But I know I’m fairly good at reasoning. I also have the advantage of being a skeptical non-conformist. That’s what we’re supposed to love about America — the freedom to think for ourselves.

So you don’t discourage me one bit. I am inspired to continue confronting your narrow-minded conformity. Logic and evidence always win in the long run.

Now that I called your bluff on your “no comment” earlier when I outed you, you’re going to deny your identity?

I know there’s more than one HIV denier in the world. However, that you are still using the same exact arguments after two years, and even misspelling the same words (I went and looked up our previous “discussion”), is a dead giveaway. So give up the pretense.

Having an open mind doesn’t mean that we have to have our brains falling out, which apparently your drug-use (and that’s a funny thing, you’re saying that you “never took drugs”, because you’ve denied that what you take is drugs; you prefer to call them something else and get all mystical about them; not the first time I’ve heard this from you) has induced.

You haven’t applied the scientific method once. Ever. Not two years ago, and not here. Your “skeptical nonconformity” has led you into a bunch of cultish bullshit and the use of semantics. No, of course you’re not a Holocaust denier; you’ve told me that before, too. What you are is a Holocaust “revisionist.” You don’t deny that the Holocaust happened, only that reports of how many people were killed have been exaggerated… apparently it makes a difference to you whether it was two million or six million.

Even here, you’re using exactly the same arguments, the same words, everything. You might as well come clean about who you are — an occultist wizard who believes in crystal balls and hidden numerical codes in old Hebrew texts, a follower of Aleister Crowley and the like, and that is what you consider “logical.”

Give it up. You tried not commenting when I twice said very directly who you were, responding to my refutations of your points and ignoring the rest. Now you’re going to pretend? Very logical. Good choice.

Ok, I found some AZT data for you, from the NIH, 1995:

BW 002. Led to FDA approval. Improved survival and health in AIDS patients at up to 21 months. 57.6 percent survival in treatment group at 21 months, vs. only 51.5 percent in placebo group at 9 months. ACTG 016. AZT group experienced less disease progression than placebo group at 11 months. A VA study. Immediate AZT treatment delayed disease progression more than deferred treatment, but survival was the same in both groups after 2 years. “Among asymptomatic HIV-infected individuals, several placebo-controlled clinical trials suggest that AZT can delay disease progression for 12 to 24 months but ultimately does not increase survival.” ACTG 019. “no differences were seen in overall survival between AZT and placebo groups” “The Concorde study in Europe … no statistically significant differences in progression to advanced disease were observed after three years between individuals taking AZT immediately and those who deferred AZT therapy or did not take the drug” EACG 020. “showed no differences between AZT and placebo arms of the trial during a median study period of 94 weeks, although AZT did delay progression to certain clinical and immunological endpoints for up to three years “

So we have to admit that AZT research in the early 1990s was far from conclusive. Yet, according to someone here at PT, current drugs are often compared against AZT rather than placebo, since AZT was proven effective.

Well, according to this NIH report at least, AZT was never proven effective. Some studies suggested possible temporary benefits.

http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~a[…]ogy.html#azt

Sorry, forgot the link. Don’t want you to think I made all that up.

I owned two Dodge minivans in succession (yeah, I know, I’m a glutton for punishment–but they worked well for as long as they worked well!).

Each was a red-purple-brown in color.

This color was commonly described as “maroon.”

That description also applies remarkably well to realpc.

Confess, realpc: you’re actually a 1984 Dodge minivan.

Certainly the brain to body-weight ratio is comparable. And my 1984 Dodge never took drugs either (unless sniffing petrol fumes counts…).

Ankh_f_n_khonsu lies and cherry-picks some more.

The very study he quotes his “NIH 1995” data from REPEATEDLY touts the benefits of AZT therapy as well as directly refuting Duesberg’s “no HIV” hypothesis. To quote:

It has been argued that HIV cannot cause AIDS because the body develops HIV-specific antibodies following primary infection (Duesberg, 1992). This reasoning ignores numerous examples of viruses other than HIV that can be pathogenic after evidence of immunity appears (Oldstone, 1989).

Moreover, the same website mentions:

Skeptics of the role of HIV in AIDS have espoused a “risk-AIDS” or a “drug-AIDS” hypothesis (Duesberg, 1987-1994), asserting at different times that factors such as promiscuous homosexual activity; repeated venereal infections and antibiotic treatments; the use of recreational drugs such as nitrite inhalants, cocaine and heroin; immunosuppressive medical procedures; and treatment with the drug AZT are responsible for the epidemic of AIDS.

Such arguments have been repeatedly contradicted. Compelling evidence against the risk-AIDS hypothesis has come from cohort studies of high-risk groups in which all individuals with AIDS-related conditions are HIV-antibody positive, while matched, HIV-antibody negative controls do not develop AIDS or immunosuppression, despite engaging in high-risk behaviors.

And again:

Although some individuals maintain that treatment with zidovudine (AZT) has compounded the AIDS epidemic (Duesberg, 1992), published reports of both placebo-controlled clinical trials and observational studies provide data to the contrary.

In patients with symptomatic HIV disease, for whom a beneficial effect is measured in months, AZT appears to slow disease progression and prolong life, according to double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies (reviewed in Sande et al., 1993; McLeod and Hammer, 1992; Volberding and Graham, 1994). A clinical trial known as BW 002 compared AZT with placebo in 282 patients with AIDS or advanced signs or symptoms of HIV disease. In this study, which led to the approval of AZT by the FDA, only one of 145 patients treated with AZT died compared with 19 of 137 placebo recipients in a six month period. Opportunistic infections occurred in 24 AZT recipients and 45 placebo recipients. In addition to reducing mortality, AZT was shown to have reduced the frequency and severity of AIDS-associated opportunistic infections, improved body weight, prevented deterioration in Karnofsky performance score, and increased counts of CD4+ T lymphocytes in the peripheral blood (Fischl et al., 1987; Richman et al., 1987). Continued follow-up in 229 of these patients showed that the survival benefit of AZT extended to at least 21 months after the initiation of therapy; survival in the original treatment group was 57.6 percent at that time, whereas survival among members of the original placebo group was 51.5 percent at nine months (Richman and Andrews, 1988; Fischl et al., 1989).

That’s all from the same page this “non-conformist skeptic” links to as proof he’s “found” (and found only AFTER staking a position).

You really are still an idiot.

Vyoma,

I never claimed that one side is 100% right and the other 100% wrong. I don’t think that way. I don’t believe people are either know-nothing idiots or enlightened know-it-alls. Most are somewhere in between.

I think people on all sides of every important debate have something to contribute. If one side were obviously superior, there would be no debate.

I selected all the AZT studies that were summarized on that web page. I did not select the ones I liked and ignore the ones I disagreed with. I reported ALL of them.

Yes there were many pro-HIV hypothesis statements on that page. That only reinforces my point – even a source that strongly supports the HIV hypothesis can only present weak data in support of AZT effectiveness.

fnxtr Wrote:

Just ignore it. A little self control in not feeding the troll and it will starve.

GvlGeologist Wrote:

to continue my thoughts.…

Usually, I at least enjoy the takedowns of the creationists, etc. here. Now he bores me. It’s like talking to a wall.

being in agreement with the quoted above,I ask you: guys please stop demolishing realpc’s “argumentation”! it has become very boring… I’ve being trying for so many posts to get him to express himself freely on other “issues”,subjects, (o Carol,Carol (Clouser) where art thou? I miss you so much) but you just keep feeding him. please get him bring forth something else.help!

realpc ,what’s your view-oppinion on -let’s say- ITER? should mankind get in the quest of creating a mini-sun? or is it impossible since a Sun is a huge IC,out of the range of us mortals? or is the leadership of EU in the ITER program another proof of US’s succumbing to the materialists atheists europeans?

A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing…

A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing…

that’s the spirit,get him to express himself on Shakespear. :-) realpc ,what’s your view on Shakespear’s antisemitism or bisexuality? is he a basis on which darwin’s materialism was founded?

sorry shakespeare

If one side were obviously superior, there would be no debate.

oh, but you’re sooo close.

red hot, man.

Ban it. The ignore-it-and-it-will-go-away strategy isn’t effective in open forums. It only takes one new poster who didn’t get the memo to respond and we get another destroyed thread with 150 posts that go nowhere. Its rantings also might be mistaken for something worthwhile by a less than careful reader. Why give it a forum?

I assume someone who posted nothing but obscenities would be banned immediately, but I’d rather read them than someone who only pretends to be interesteed in rational discourse. At least the obscenities would be amusing in a base sort of way sometimes, and no one would mistake it for an attempt at serious discussion.

agree 100%

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Tara Smith published on April 27, 2007 12:30 PM.

Cornelius Hunter/Burt Humburg Debate was the previous entry in this blog.

Dandelions, acquired characteristics, and creationism is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter