Questions for Duesberg
mcoo...@my-deja.com
with Peter Duesberg, the Berkeley retrovirologist who claims that HIV
does not cause AIDS. SBRES also claims that he will submit any question
I (we) wish to pose to Dr. Duseberg through him. Sparky then says that
he will relay Dr. Duesberg's response. I do not for a minute believe
that SBRES can do what he says. He has demonstrated his utter lack of
honesty all over Usenet far too often. So here I call him on it.
Before we begin, some ground rules;
First, it is necessary that we hear directly from Dr. Duesberg. Sparky
has a VERY poor reputation for civility and honor here on MHA, so I
WILL NOT take his word for it that responses are in fact coming from
Duesberg. Duesberg may, if he wishes, email me directly so that I can
assertain if Sparky is, in fact, speaking for him. Or he can post it
himself. Either way, this is the only way to start Sparky's little
game. If no such letter arrives, then this game is over and we will
deal with Sparky as usual.
Furthermore, Dr. Duesberg must, in his relayed-reply, include the
entirety of the question posed to him.
Finally, Dr. Duesberg must agree to at least one rebuttal from anyone
whose questions he answers. He may entertain as many rebuttals as he
wishes, but a minimum of one is necessary.
OK Sparky, what's it gonna be?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
eglanders
<mcoo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:942n2a$l1t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Spartacus/Bard/Rickland/Eglanders/Sparky has claimed that he converses
> with Peter Duesberg, the Berkeley retrovirologist who claims that HIV
> does not cause AIDS. SBRES also claims that he will submit any question
> I (we) wish to pose to Dr. Duseberg through him. Sparky then says that
> he will relay Dr. Duesberg's response. I do not for a minute believe
> that SBRES can do what he says. He has demonstrated his utter lack of
> honesty all over Usenet far too often. So here I call him on it.
>
> Before we begin, some ground rules;
>
> First, it is necessary that we hear directly from Dr. Duesberg. Sparky
> has a VERY poor reputation for civility and honor here on MHA, so I
> WILL NOT take his word for it that responses are in fact coming from
> Duesberg. Duesberg may, if he wishes, email me directly so that I can
> assertain if Sparky is, in fact, speaking for him. Or he can post it
> himself. Either way, this is the only way to start Sparky's little
> game. If no such letter arrives, then this game is over and we will
> deal with Sparky as usual.
Denied-- with cause. And not just your juvenile whining above, but your
history of cyber-sabotage, defamation of character, and general rascality.
Your recent unprovoked attack on Bob Lee is typical. As far as I'm aware,
Bob Lee never did anything to you but voice his opinion that AIDS was caused
by little green men outer space (or something to that affect). For this you
declared all out war on him, his family, and career, culminating in your
spectacularly successful derailing of his rising book sales on Amazon.com .
I had personally watched how his book was getting generally favorable
reviews and generating across the board interest until you jobbed him.
Granted, it was a masterstroke of black bag work on your part but once you
had totally ruined his reputation and sent his book sales plummeting the
gentlemanly thing to have done was to back off and allow the man to salvage
what he could from the ruins. But you didn't do this, as I say. You're not a
gentlemen or a man of grace -- in fact, you're not even a man. So, you can
rest assured I will do everything in my power to stymie all and any contact
between you and my friend Pete Duesberg.
Your first request is denied.
>
> Furthermore, Dr. Duesberg must, in his relayed-reply, include the
> entirety of the question posed to him.
>
Done
(Providing he so sees fit)
> Finally, Dr. Duesberg must agree to at least one rebuttal from anyone
> whose questions he answers. He may entertain as many rebuttals as he
> wishes, but a minimum of one is necessary.
>
Done
(providing he so sees fit)
> OK Sparky, what's it gonna be?
Two out of three ain't bad. Now how about those questions.
Sparky
Gary Stein
send copies of the thread to Professor Duesburg and his Department Chair at
Berkeley so why fight it you clown. Those addresses are in the public domain
or at least were last time I checked.
--
Gary Stein
ges...@starpower.net
http://www.mischealthaids.org
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
(Gene Spafford)
"eglanders" <pwh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FT896.4625$KE.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Nick Bennett
To start the ball rolling, I think I'll repost my "Big Post" article from
some time back, taken from the Re-Appraising AIDS mailing list and
addressing the specific criticisms Duesberg has regarding the
pathogenicity of HIV.
It also means that it'll re-appear in the Deja search engine: the article
exists but cannot be accessed via Deja search at the moment.
Cheers
Bennett
******************
Pharmac. & Ther. Vol. 55: 201-277, 1992
AIDS ACQUIRED BY DRUG CONSUMPTION AND OTHER NONCONTAGIOUS RISK FACTORS
PETER H. DUESBERG
3. Discrepancies Between AIDS and Infectious Disease
3.1.Criteria of Infectious and Noninfectious Disease
Based on common characteristics of all orthodox infectious diseases,
infectious AIDS would be predicted to:
(1) Spread randomly between the sexes. This is just as true for venereal
as for other infectious diseases (Judson et al., 1980; Haverkos, 1990).
******
Except a new infectious agent that spread into the Western world (which,
lets face it, is all Duesberg is talking about) through the homosexual
population. Spread to women and heterosexual men would be expected (and
was observed) to be slow and incomplete.
******
(2) Cause primary disease within weeks or months after infection, because
infectious agents multiply exponentially in susceptible hosts until
stopped by immunity. They are self-replicating, and thus fast acting
toxins. (Although "slow" viruses are thought to be pathogenic long after
neutralization by antiviral immunity (Evans, 1989c), slow pathogenicity by
a neutralized virus has never been experimentally proven (Section 6.1).)
******
HIV causes an acute seroconversion illness in about 50% of those it
infects. This is like most other viral illnesses, since the symptoms are
not caused by the virus but instead by the release of cytokines such as
IL-2 and the Interferons, which produce constitutional unwellness.
Also he is assuming that the presence of antibodies to HIV means that they
are _neutralising_ antibodies, and yet he makes no effort to prove
this. The fact that HIV can be detected even after an antibody response
might argue against this, but doesn't take into account direct
cell-to-cell spread. Many viruses persist despite antibody recognition,
and antibodies do not have to be neutralising, some are in fact
pathogenic. (Mitler and Hoffmann: Science 1989) Examples are HSV, EBV,
VZV, Hep B. The herpes family integrate into the genome of host cells,
and their latency is less well understood than that of HIV. At least we
know that T cell activation results in HIV expression (the same
transcription factors, such as NF Kappa B are used) while for the herpes
viruses we don't even have that handle. Hep B is a reversivirus, related
to the retroviruses by its use of reverse transcriptase. It doesn't
integate into the genome. However, it's persistance is also a mystery -
there is a vigourous immune response, which results in the liver
destruction which gives this virus its name (the virus is not in fact
cytotoxic to liver cells). It also produces massive quantities of
non-infectious particles, so much so that the viral particles have a
special name (Dane particles) to distinguish them from the rest of the
junk found in the serum. These may act as decoys for the virus against
the immune response (ref for most of the above: Fields Virology, or any
other virology textbook - Duesberg should have known all this).
Also, it is known that CD4 counts plummet during this acute stage, from
~1000 to ~500 (the lower end of normal) before picking up again as
HIV-specifc immunity appears (Pantaleo et al: NEJM 1993 review). While
these levels are not going to result in opportunistic infections
appearing, they are a definite sign of things to come.
*******
(3) Coincide with a common, active and abundant microbe in all cases of
the same disease. (Inactive microbes or microbes at low concentrations are
harmless passengers, e.g. lysogenic bacteriophages, endogenous and latent
retroviruses (Weiss et al., 1985), latent herpes virus or latent
ubiquitous Pneumocystis and Candida infections (Freeman, 1979; Pifer,
1984; Williford Pifer et al., 1988). Hibernation is a proven microbial
strategy of survival, which allows indefinite coexistence with the host
without pathogenicity.)
********
Papers I posted up recently show evidence of HIV virus particles in 100%
of AIDS cases and over 99% of those with anti-HIV antibodies (Jackson et
al: J Clinical Molecular Biology 1988 and 1990). The low level of HIV in
the plasma of infected people (often to uncultureable, though not
undetectable levels) after the first week/fortnight (Piatak: Science 1993,
Pantaleo et al: NEJM 1993 review) suggests that the immune system is
actively hindering HIV replication, especially since antibody titres to
HIV go up reciprocally. As for abundant microbe -
tetanus toxin from clostridium tetani bacteria can and does kill in
quantities too low to mount an immune response to. This also feeds into
the following claim...
*******
(4) Coincides with a microbe that lyses or renders nonfunctional more
cells than the host can spare or regenerate.
*******
And/Or hinders the regeneration of those cells. HIV reduces the CD4 cell
survival time and hinders replacement from the thymus. The effect of HIV
is reversed by antiviral therapies. (Duoek el al: Nature 1998,
Hellerstein et al Nature 1999) HIV is cytotoxic (Yelle et al: Archives of
Virology 1994, Rasheed et al: Virology 1996, ), and may be
immunosuppressive even in the absence of active infection (Diamond et
al: J immunology 1988, Weinhold et a l: J immunology 1989, Daniel et
al: Clinical Experimental Immunology 1993, Liegler and Stites: J AIDS
1994, Theodore et al: J AIDS 1994, Schols and De Clercq: J Virol 1996, etc
- I haven't even started on the accessory proteins of HIV). The immune
response to the virus will, of course, attack the immune system
itself. As such the number of cells the virus actually kills by infection
need not be the limit of the immune dysregulation. Direct in vivo
evidence of this lack of correlation between cytotoxicity and immune
suppression exists in chimps (Wantanabe et al: J Virology 1991). ******
(5) Generate a predictable pattern of symptoms.
*******
Longitudinal studies shown that after ~15 years 90% of those with HIV
infection with progress to a stage of gradual immune decline, with
increased risk of opportunistic infections, a specific supression of
cytotoxic immune responses with (usually) a simutaneous rise in
antibodies.
********
Duesberg also moans that HIV cannot possibly be neurotoxic and a cause of
AIDS dementia, since the retroviruses he worked on didn't infect
non-dividing cells. He seems to ignore the fact that HIV does infect the
non-dividing T cells, an ability later ascribed to the vpr protein found
in
HIV, but not in the simple defective retroviruses he worked on. He also
doesn't know that HIV's neurotoxicity is due to infection of the CD4+
astrocytes in the brain, and subsequent loss of neuronal support leading
to cell death. Again - a non-direct method of disease.
As such the argument that HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS seems untenable
to me, although I have not of course touched on the argument that drug use
_can_ cause AIDS. Based on all I have presented so far, since drug use
was so widespread among AIDS cases, the two arguments are NOT mutually
exclusive.
>
>Stop making statements you don't support. I also find it very very
>irritating when you continually say you are going to present your
arguments
>later, but never seem to get around to it.
>
I'm finding it irritating as well. I seem to find myself replying to odd
questions left, right and centre. I have also had little time to
seriously read the new literature I've been referred to.
However, yesterday I managed to get hold of one of the papers Jason cited
(Piatak, Science 259, 1993) which he claims is evidence against the HIV
hypothesis. I don't know if he has actually read the paper, but in it
they find HIV in ALL (100%) of the HIV+ patients studied, from acute
seroconversion to AIDS. Longitudinal studies of those in their cohort
showed high viral loads before seroconversion, long latent periods with
little viraemia, and later rises in viral load coinciding with lowering
CD4 counts. Those who started AZT treatment during their time in the
study had viral load drops, which rose rapidly when therapy was
stopped. They also suggested that higher viral loads led to faster
progression to AIDS, a correlation observed in the MACS as well, and a
correlation between a particularly virulent strain of HIV (as judged by in
vivo pathogenicity) and early progression in a patient with only moderate
viral load.
Jason - I'm sorry, but to tout this paper as evidence that HIV is not
found in the majority of AIDS patients does you a disservice. I would
like you to explain why I should ignore the PCR detection of HIV RNA in
this paper. There are NO sequences in the human genome related to the
section of HIV that they amplified up, and they included a control to
remove the possibility of DNA contamination anyway. You accuse me of not
being open-minded, and yet ignored my refs to Jackson's group - "bias
cohorts are not real convincing to me". The only possible bias is that
their control group was seronegative blood donors, and that issue is
resolved in Ho et al: NEJM 1989 where they got identical results (ie 100%
detection in AIDS and 0% in seronegatives) using homosexuals as
controls. Face it - HIV is detectable in all AIDS cases -
you must at least accept that. They also showed that HIV infection went
through three definite stages (see also
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/all.htm figure 4). In
summary with the evidence above about mechanisms for CD4 cell killing,
dysfunction, and dysregulation why should I change my stance on AIDS?
eglanders
your fellow Gestapo guard dog Gary Stein. Now he's threatening to send
copies of the thread to Pete Duesberg's "department chair."
Don't ask me why he finds this kind of harassment necessary. And don't
expect Duesberg to respond to anything from this group when threatened with
retaliatory tactics like this.
Sparky
"Gary Stein" <ges...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:943bt2$cq8$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
eglanders
Hold everything. I was serious when I said all bets are off. You may
understand the logic of Gary Stein threatening to contact Peter Duesberg's
"department chair" I don't, and won't be a party to such an action in any
way, size, shape or form. This threat not only defies any rational
explanation it sets a tone on these proceedings that is wholly against the
notion of free speech within the open forum. What kind of tricky did he
think Duesberg and I were up to? Perhaps he thought Duesberg was going to
pretend he was I and I he? Whatever Gary was thinking it totally destroyed
the good that could have come out of this discussion. It' also explains why
no other reputable dissident will have anything to do with this newsgroup.
Sparky
"Nick Bennett" <nj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.21.01011...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk...
mcoo...@my-deja.com
How tedious and commonplace you are, Sparky. Of course we all knew you
were lying, and it is sporting of you in being so accomodating in
making that fact abundantly clear, but even for you this is bad. I was
hoping to have some fun with your forged Duesberg replies.
We all know how that would go, don't we Sparky? You don't stand a
chance against me with either science or rhetoric. I would spend a few
days kicking your fat ass and you'd run away and start harassing
someone else. It is your mode d'emploi Sparky. That is what is so
BORING about you. You have no imagination. Same old garbage over and
over. And so you hide your inadequacies behind bluster. Typical.
Tedious.
>
> >
> > Furthermore, Dr. Duesberg must, in his relayed-reply, include the
> > entirety of the question posed to him.
> >
>
> Done
> (Providing he so sees fit)
>
> > Finally, Dr. Duesberg must agree to at least one rebuttal from
anyone
> > whose questions he answers. He may entertain as many rebuttals as he
> > wishes, but a minimum of one is necessary.
> >
>
> Done
> (providing he so sees fit)
>
> > OK Sparky, what's it gonna be?
>
> Two out of three ain't bad. Now how about those questions.
Nope. I'm through with you, now run along little man.
eglanders
Gary Stein
> Well, that kills it, folks, I'm pulling out -- but don't blame me, blame
> your fellow Gestapo guard dog Gary Stein. Now he's threatening to send
> copies of the thread to Pete Duesberg's "department chair."
>
> Don't ask me why he finds this kind of harassment necessary. And don't
> expect Duesberg to respond to anything from this group when threatened
with
> retaliatory tactics like this.
>
Poor Sparky caught in another lie runs away yapping with his tail between
his leg crying "those big meanies just aren't fair, they want me to prove
what I say, can you believe the gall of some people they want evidence from
a self admitted liar that he is this time telling the truth"
> Sparky
eglanders
"Gary Stein" <ges...@starpower.net> wrote in message
Even if done your way you will still be shown to be a liar Sparky when I
send copies of the thread to Professor Duesburg and his Department Chair at
Berkeley so why fight it you clown. Those addresses are in the public domain
or at least were last time I checked.
--
Gary Stein
> Poor Sparky caught in another lie runs away yapping with his tail between
> his leg crying "those big meanies just aren't fair, they want me to prove
> what I say, can you believe the gall of some people they want evidence
from
> a self admitted liar that he is this time telling the truth"
Gary Stein
> >
Friend Gary, directly above you accuse me of lying. Presumably, this refers
to my offer to pass on questions from this group to Duesberg. You've not yet
explained why you think I'm lying when I say I'll do this. Indeed, in your
threat you point out that Duesberg's address is in the public domain; that
is, readily available to anyone. Therefore, exactly what is the lie you're
accusing me off? But more troubling than your confused reasoning on the
point is your threat to contact Duesberg's "Department Chair at Berkeley."
Presumably, you see this as yet another straight-line method of establishing
the veracity of my offer. Finally, you gloat above that you have sent me
away "yapping with his(my) tail between his leg crying those big meanies
just aren't fair."
Honestly, Gary, I admit I'm stumped. But I tell you what, let's have
Holzman, mcoon, or Bennett explain the internal logic of what you're doing.
As I say, to me it seems you're acting irrationally, like a person unable to
separate his emotions from clear thinking, the kind of person who looks at
an ink-blot of, say, a butterfly and tells the examiner it's an image of
Satan; that is, a square peg, a mentally challenged person, a person whose
associations fall completely off the chart.
Even if I was lying there is no connection between that lie and Dueberg's
Department Chair yet you publicly announce it's your intent to expose me as
a liar by contacting him. Butterfly equals Satan. Square peg into round
hole. Watch your step as you board the nice yellow bus, JoJo. And more,
knowingly or unknowingly, with malicious intent or not, what you've done is
taken the entire discussion out of the realm of free and open discourse and
turned it into an employee misconduct issue -- and not an act of employee
misconduct on my part which would be outrageous enough, but one of Peter
Duesberg's who as of yet has no knowledge or participation in any of this at
all.
Of course, you are blissfully unemployed so such a threat means nothing to
you. But consider for a moment how Robert Holzman, mcoon, or Bennett would
respond to a similar threat to contact their boss or department head? This
contact information is readily available too. Suppose I reached out to
mcoon's boss and gave him chapter and verse about the black bag job mcoon
pulled on Bob Lee? Suppose I contacted Holzman's boss and forwarded to him
every post of Holzman's I felt wasn't scrupulously honest? And what about
Bennett? He's made comments about Duesberg that were outright scatological.
Do I have your permission to forward these posts to his department chair at
Cambridge? Please let me know, I don't want to apply your tactics
inappropriately.
The point is, Gary, there are limits, a line we simply shouldn't cross
here -- ever. We win discussions by debate, the strength of our arguments,
intelligence, logic, sound associations, not fascist threats. Yours was the
tactic of a thug, a brown-shirter, a person too stupid and dysfunctional to
comprehend the rules and how to play by them. My refusal to deal with you on
that level was not running away with my tail between my legs as you say
above, but the only response a person of integrity and intelligence would
have. Yes, I withdrew my offer and will have nothing to do with such
tactics. If this is running away with my tail between my legs than the only
thing I can say to you is "Bow-Wow!"
Sparky
westy
wrote:
And further, you would have to ask yourself why any individual who
comes to MHA would have such energy to discredit another. I'm sure I
know because......
Gary Stein
Sparky your memory is failing you, the last time you made the same offer to
contact Duesburg, I made the same statements as I have this time, you made
the same threats you made above and no one coming whining back like you have
screaming your threats frightened them in any way shape or form. Department
Chairs of University Science departments get requests for verification,
maddog hate mail directed at there staff frequently from nuts such as your
self and know how to deal with them in appropriate and responsible manners.
Get a grip on reality Clownboy.
Brendan Lloyd
> You [Nick] may understand the logic of Gary Stein threatening to contact
> Peter Duesberg's "department chair" [but] I don't, and won't be a party
> to such an action in any way, size, shape or form. This threat [...]
> defies any rational explanation [...]
No it doesn't. The so-called "threat" has an explanation which is entirely
rational.
No-one in their right mind would trust anything you, Sparky, post (let
alone responses allegedly authored by a controversial third party). It
makes perfect sense to return these responses to the alleged source with a
view to receiving simple verification of their authenticity.
What part of this simple process does your small mind not comprehend?
> It' also explains why no other reputable dissident will have anything to
> do with this newsgroup.
Hehehe! "Reputable dissident" -- another great oxymoron to add to the list.
Brendan