Talking of REAL criminals
PaulKing
by John Crewdson
http://www.sciencefictions.net/
‘ The tale of Dr. Robert Gallo’s role in the discovery of the virus that
causes AIDS is one of those stories that wouldn’t be believable as
fiction...Science Fictions is bursting with allegations leveled at Dr.
Gallo, his associates, rivals and enemies, that include deception,
misconduct, incompetence, fraud, sabotage, back-stabbing, double-dealing,
overstatements, half-truths, outright lies, a clandestine affair with a
co-worker, a bribery attempt, denials, evasions, coverups and serial
rewritings of history.’
— New York Times
‘ Scrupulously researched and sweeping... Science Fictions documents
enough treachery, negligence and megalomania to make even the most
trusting of readers skeptical of the scientific establishment.’
— Washington Post
‘ A gripping work with important implications...With incredible tenacity,
Crewdson reveals a biological research scandal that was significant,
frightening and, most of all, a testament to one reporter’s quest to
separate science fact from fiction.’
— Chicago Tribune
‘ Crewdson’s work is the most powerful and revealing since James Watson’s
The Double Helix...This is an awesomely documented prosecutorial brief
that concedes no credit to its target and yields him no doubts. If the
Gallo camp has a rebuttal, let’s hear it.’
— New Scientist
‘ No one knows whether someone in Gallo’s lab stole the French virus or if
it contaminated their samples through sloppy practice, and it really
doesn’t matter… And as Crewdson shows, the biggest discoveries in Gallo’s
career — his claim to have identified the virus that causes AIDS and the
patent on the AIDS blood test — both belong to someone else.’
— Baltimore Sun
‘ Robert Gallo’s hour was not the brightest for American science. In fact,
it may be one of the darkest. The two-decade-long sequence of events
described in John Crewdson’s new book resembles more the actions of a
megalomaniac intent more on self-promotion and profit than on a way to
stop the AIDS epidemic.’
— San Diego Union-Tribune
‘ I could hardly put the book down out of a mounting realization that this
was more than a story about human vanity and political corruption. Science
Fictions is ultimately a scientific detective story, with dramatic plot
twists, inspired sleuthing, and unlikely heroes. It’s a crime with many
victims, and one that is well worth the effort to understand.’
— Washington Monthly
‘ John Crewdson, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, has written a
detailed history of the events that led scientists to the cause of AIDS -
and it makes unpleasant reading for anyone who thought science was simply
about the pursuit of truth. Instead, a picture emerges of deliberate
falsehoods, exaggerated claims and denigrating criticism.’
— The Independent (London)
‘ Crewdson’s squalid tale of grasping self-interest in the face of a
devastating epidemic is told through court documents, reports from
internal NIH and congressional investigative committees and interviews.
The enormous amount of evidence which the author has gathered in favor of
the French seems convincing.’
— Los Angeles Times
‘ Science Fictions is about scientists behaving very, very badly.
Crewdson’s research is thorough, his writing brisk.’
— Edmonton Journal
‘ A compelling case that Gallo claimed and obtained recognition for
research that had, in fact, been accomplished by the French...this book is
a successful indictment of Gallo, whom history will probably judge to have
been guilty of excessive zeal in the pursuit of scientific glory.’
— Montreal Gazette
‘ Was Gallo’s behavior so extreme as to be anomalous, or was it to some
extent encouraged by what Crewdson calls a “hypercompetitive” scientific
culture? If Science Fictions forces scientists to address these difficult
questions — and it should — it will have served its purpose.’
— New York Times Book Review
‘ Science Fictions is a profoundly disturbing account, demonstrating that
even brilliant minds may trade truth for fame or fortune...John Crewdson
has written a masterpiece.’
— Providence Journal-Bulletin
‘ Comprehensive and compelling...The level of drama here is
unprecedented…Crewdson is able to weave a story that is impossible to put
down.’
— Publishers Weekly
‘ A meticulous account of slippery science that develops slowly into a
panoramic view of the biomedical world.’
— Kirkus Reviews
determined_154
me how ignorant some people choose to be. Of course the gravy train has to
keep up the lies to keep making all that money. Too bad there are not more
people like you Paul, who use their brains and see the bogus nature of
everything *AIDS*.
GMCarter
David Bamford
vendictive lot. I can well do without your shit, I can just visualise you
in a dark room, in front of a blank TV trying to think-up the next thing you
can say to cut-down anyone who may disagree with you. You and your friends
that just can't accept that someone, indeed quite a few people may disagree
with you. Sad.
"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:iio980t2q14na0sp0...@4ax.com...
Gary Stein
It is the dishonest, unscrupulous, propagandists who make the claim that HIV
does not exist or that it can not cause illness and provide absolutely bogus
data, or misinterpreted data to back up there statements that we have
trouble with.
Gary Stein
"David Bamford" <dj...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:c63438$bnc$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
GMCarter
wrote:
>For a group that likes to call themselves appologist, your a vicious and
>vendictive lot.
LOL. Sweetie, I apologize for nothing. Certainly not for being rude to
an anonymous troll! LOL...
> I can well do without your shit, I can just visualise you
>in a dark room, in front of a blank TV trying to think-up the next thing you
>can say to cut-down anyone who may disagree with you. You and your friends
>that just can't accept that someone, indeed quite a few people may disagree
>with you. Sad.
Honeycakes, you can disagree all you like! but even your own denialist
ilk disagree with YOU. Duesberg says HIV exists!
So how do you parse that, oh blank-faced anonyme?
George M. Carter
David Bamford
Moira de Swardt
"David Bamford" <dj...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> For a group that likes to call themselves appologist, your a vicious and
> vendictive lot. I can well do without your shit, I can just visualise you
> in a dark room, in front of a blank TV trying to think-up the next thing
you
> can say to cut-down anyone who may disagree with you. You and your
friends
> that just can't accept that someone, indeed quite a few people may
disagree
> with you. Sad.
What is really sad is watching someone die of a disease which is surrounded
by silence, stigma, discrimination and denial. And then being told that
what's killing them doesn't even exist.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
"David Bamford" <dj...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> I think you all take yourselves a bit too seriously.
Sixty million people in the last twenty years have cause to take the matter
seriously.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Jordan
>
>
> What is really sad is watching someone die of a disease which is surrounded
> by silence, stigma, discrimination and denial. And then being told that
> what's killing them doesn't even exist.
>
But that's how they make a killing from selling their alternative
medicines to the desperate people. Despicable really.
Uiopp
GMCarter <fi...@verizon.net> wrote:
Can't you think of a better argument than that? Don't you realise how
silly it sounds? Duesberg's view of AIDS is not universally held by
those who dispute the HIV theory, he does not speak for all dissidents.
Uiopp
How true is it that AIDS is surrounded by "silence", given that we hear
so much more about this disease than any other in Africa?
GMCarter
>
>Can't you think of a better argument than that? Don't you realise how
>silly it sounds? Duesberg's view of AIDS is not universally held by
>those who dispute the HIV theory, he does not speak for all dissidents.
There it is. Denalists at last are recognizing that their mythmaking
is indeed split.
And the people that feel HIV doesn't exist probably feel no virus
exists, I suppose.
George M. Carter
Uiopp
GMCarter <fi...@verizon.net> wrote:
Sigh, well, now I can see why discussion on this ng is all but
pointless. You don't even want to know what the other side is saying and
why they say it. Can't you see that places you in a bad position to
dispute them?
GMCarter
Again, I am having difficulty understanding what you are saying. I
have been familiar with denialist arguments quite intensively and
looked quite hard at it for nearly 15 years. Hell, Duesberg called me
at my home once around '93. Just recently on this very NG I took apart
the entire 100 points of so-called "inconsistencies" that were nothing
of the sort.
So this claim or argument of yours is completely baseless.
More Bush-like tactics? Just make shit up?
George M. Carter
Uiopp
GMCarter <fi...@verizon.net> wrote:
"Denialists at last are recognizing..." "the people that feel HIV
doesn't exist probably feel no virus exists..."
Forgive me, but honestly those don't seem like the statements of someone
who is intensively familiar with 'denialist' arguments, or who has been
looking hard at it for fifteen years. The split between Duesberg and his
followers (who think HIV does exist but is harmless) and the Perth Group
(who think HIV doesn't exist) has not been news since at least 1997. No
one has ever denied that that division is there, and there has been
extensive coverage and discussion of it in the AIDS dissident community.
So why the "at last" in that first statement? And, to my knowledge, not
one AIDS dissident has ever argued that viruses as such don't exist.
GMCarter
snip...
>"Denialists at last are recognizing..." "the people that feel HIV
>doesn't exist probably feel no virus exists..."
>
>Forgive me, but honestly those don't seem like the statements of someone
>who is intensively familiar with 'denialist' arguments, or who has been
>looking hard at it for fifteen years. The split between Duesberg and his
>followers (who think HIV does exist but is harmless) and the Perth Group
>(who think HIV doesn't exist) has not been news since at least 1997. No
>one has ever denied that that division is there, and there has been
>extensive coverage and discussion of it in the AIDS dissident community.
That's the point. Within your fractured community occur these
debates--but I recall denialists like Ed Loeb put forward the notion
of nothing infectious being harmful whilst others seemed to vacillate
from one side of that cracked bell jar to the other, trying to present
a falsely unified front against the evidence.
>So why the "at last" in that first statement? And, to my knowledge, not
>one AIDS dissident has ever argued that viruses as such don't exist.
I just named one. And indeed, that you DO accept that viruses exist,
how do you think they're identified?
Did you know that the so-called "gold standard" the Perth Group
demands for isolation is an old technique from the 70s that was
actually developed by the discoverer of HIV, Francoise Barre-Sinoussi
at the Institut Pasteur?
Give me a break. HIV exists. If you don't believe it exists, then
clearly NONE of the extant viral isolation techniques could ever
identify ANY virus.
It's called cognitive dissonance.
George M. Carter
Uiopp
GMCarter <fi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:19:00 +1200, Uiopp <uis...@faaa.co.nz> wrote:
>
> snip...
> >"Denialists at last are recognizing..." "the people that feel HIV
> >doesn't exist probably feel no virus exists..."
> >
> >Forgive me, but honestly those don't seem like the statements of someone
> >who is intensively familiar with 'denialist' arguments, or who has been
> >looking hard at it for fifteen years. The split between Duesberg and his
> >followers (who think HIV does exist but is harmless) and the Perth Group
> >(who think HIV doesn't exist) has not been news since at least 1997. No
> >one has ever denied that that division is there, and there has been
> >extensive coverage and discussion of it in the AIDS dissident community.
>
> That's the point. Within your fractured community occur these
> debates--but I recall denialists like Ed Loeb put forward the notion
> of nothing infectious being harmful whilst others seemed to vacillate
> from one side of that cracked bell jar to the other, trying to present
> a falsely unified front against the evidence.
It's not "my" community. I have no opinion on whether HIV causes AIDS or
not. I'm still investigating the subject and trying to make up my mind.
I've never heard of Ed Loeb. Is he a scientist? I assumed you had actual
scientists in mind when you refered to 'denialists'; non-scientists
don't count, and it didn't occur to me that anyone would think they did.
There is a whole world beyond usenet, and that's the world I'm concerned
with. Abberant behaviour by usenet-abusing individuals has nothing to do
with the debates occuring among dissident scientists, none of whom deny
that viruses per se exist. That the dissident scientists disagree with
each other on various points is not surprising or even a problem.
> >So why the "at last" in that first statement? And, to my knowledge, not
> >one AIDS dissident has ever argued that viruses as such don't exist.
>
> I just named one. And indeed, that you DO accept that viruses exist,
> how do you think they're identified?
>
> Did you know that the so-called "gold standard" the Perth Group
> demands for isolation is an old technique from the 70s that was
> actually developed by the discoverer of HIV, Francoise Barre-Sinoussi
> at the Institut Pasteur?
>
> Give me a break. HIV exists. If you don't believe it exists, then
> clearly NONE of the extant viral isolation techniques could ever
> identify ANY virus.
>
> It's called cognitive dissonance.
>
> George M. Carter
You are familiar with the Perth Group's arguments on why the isolation
problem is so serious with retroviruses, right?
GMCarter
snip...
>It's not "my" community. I have no opinion on whether HIV causes AIDS or
>not. I'm still investigating the subject and trying to make up my mind.
>I've never heard of Ed Loeb. Is he a scientist? I assumed you had actual
>scientists in mind when you refered to 'denialists'; non-scientists
>don't count, and it didn't occur to me that anyone would think they did.
Nope, not a scientist. But then, the denialists wave around lists of
people they claim supports their quixotic notions. Closer inspection
yields that many have died of AIDS, many are not scientists (e.g.,
some are hack journalists, like Neville Hodgkinson).
>There is a whole world beyond usenet, and that's the world I'm concerned
>with. Abberant behaviour by usenet-abusing individuals has nothing to do
>with the debates occuring among dissident scientists, none of whom deny
>that viruses per se exist. That the dissident scientists disagree with
>each other on various points is not surprising or even a problem.
Nonsense. There ARE "scientists" who claim HIV does not exist. Check
into the so-called "Perth group" from Australia. I guess it must
depend on one's definition of a "scientist" so I guess Eleni
Papadopulos-Eleopulos could be rejected as such by some definitions.
snip
>You are familiar with the Perth Group's arguments on why the isolation
>problem is so serious with retroviruses, right?
LOL....well, yes, I am. They have been readily rejected. Duesberg,
denialist himself and a retrovirologist, has soundly rejected this
nonsense. See your own split denialist cant here:
www.duesberg.com/papers/continu1.html
I reject his notion that HIV does not cause AIDS, of course.
See also:
http://www.aegis.com/topics/hiv_exist.html
If you can't get past that, all I can say is, best of luck to you.
George M. Carter
Uiopp
GMCarter <fi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:21:39 +1200, Uiopp <uis...@faaa.co.nz> wrote:
>
> snip...
> >It's not "my" community. I have no opinion on whether HIV causes AIDS or
> >not. I'm still investigating the subject and trying to make up my mind.
> >I've never heard of Ed Loeb. Is he a scientist? I assumed you had actual
> >scientists in mind when you refered to 'denialists'; non-scientists
> >don't count, and it didn't occur to me that anyone would think they did.
>
> Nope, not a scientist. But then, the denialists wave around lists of
> people they claim supports their quixotic notions. Closer inspection
> yields that many have died of AIDS, many are not scientists (e.g.,
> some are hack journalists, like Neville Hodgkinson).
I didn't say I was a scientist. I was only saying that the views of
non-scientists who merely repeat and/or distort the views of dissident
scientists cannot be taken as representative of those scientists and are
inconsequential. In particular, the loony tunes stuff about viruses not
existing or infectious things never being harmful has nothing to do with
them.
> >There is a whole world beyond usenet, and that's the world I'm concerned
> >with. Abberant behaviour by usenet-abusing individuals has nothing to do
> >with the debates occuring among dissident scientists, none of whom deny
> >that viruses per se exist. That the dissident scientists disagree with
> >each other on various points is not surprising or even a problem.
>
> Nonsense. There ARE "scientists" who claim HIV does not exist. Check
> into the so-called "Perth group" from Australia. I guess it must
> depend on one's definition of a "scientist" so I guess Eleni
> Papadopulos-Eleopulos could be rejected as such by some definitions.
Dear oh dear. You really aren't paying attention here. You know
perfectly well that I am aware of the Perth Group. I just told you about
them, so what are you doing telling me to check them out? As with your
assertions on what 'denialists' think are the cause(s) of AIDS, you have
gotten yourself into a muddle and can't keep your story straight, which
to me indicates your lack of knowledge and/or emotional bias.
You offer that irrelevancy rather than providing even the slightest
proof that they 'feel that viruses don't exist', which is nonsense. For
that matter, how does what they, or you, or anyone else 'feel' matter?
Scientific debates aren't about people's 'feelings.'
> snip
> >You are familiar with the Perth Group's arguments on why the isolation
> >problem is so serious with retroviruses, right?
>
> LOL....well, yes, I am. They have been readily rejected. Duesberg,
> denialist himself and a retrovirologist, has soundly rejected this
> nonsense. See your own split denialist cant here:
> www.duesberg.com/papers/continu1.html
>
> I reject his notion that HIV does not cause AIDS, of course.
>
> See also:
> http://www.aegis.com/topics/hiv_exist.html
>
> If you can't get past that, all I can say is, best of luck to you.
>
> George M. Carter
No one in their right mind would expect arguments like those of the
Perth Group to be dealt with fairly. One would expect that any theory
which goes deeply against conventional wisdom would be ridiculed and
caricatured and responded to, if it at all, with a variety of debating
tricks that don't address the real point. The Perth Group have responded
to that attack on their views, did so ages ago.
Gary Stein
"Uiopp" <uis...@faaa.co.nz> wrote in message
news:uislad-D5E21B....@lust.ihug.co.nz...
(snip) >
> No one in their right mind would expect arguments like those of the
> Perth Group to be dealt with fairly. One would expect that any theory
> which goes deeply against conventional wisdom would be ridiculed and
> caricatured and responded to, if it at all, with a variety of debating
> tricks that don't address the real point. The Perth Group have responded
> to that attack on their views, did so ages ago.
So are you saying that the Perth Group has reached the point of being taken
seriously by even a fraction of the worlds virology, or medical communities?
No they have not, yet they have been advocating there theory for over a
decade, don't you think in that amount of time the validity or invalidity of
there theory would make it's self clear (or if that theory is correct then
why hasn't the Perth Group undertaken research that would convince
mainstream scientists)?
You might also notice that the Perth Group has done NO I repeat NO new
research on the underlying premise of their theory. They continue to simply
make statements about the state of HIV/AIDS knowledge (based mainly on the
state of virology in the 1980's and early 1990's) and claim that there
review of the literature proves there theory is correct.
The Perth Group's own website lists an article published in 1999 "A Critical
Analysis of the Pharmacology of AZT and its Use in AIDS" as the most recent
article published in a scientific journal and again that paper is analysis
not research. As far as my reading shows no member of the Perth Group has
ever published a research paper on HIV in any scientific journal.
Also no member of the Perth Group is a virologist and none have any
specialized training in virology. So my question is why do you hold the
Perth Group's statements on virology in such high regard? It seems to me
that they are no better trained in the science of virology them most posters
to MHA and much less trained then several MHA posters who do happen to be
trained in the science that the Perth Group is so critical of.
As to the Perth Groups statements about Viral Load or CD4 counts not being
accurate predictors of disease you might find the following analysis
interesting reading;
Answering the AIDS Denialists: CD4 (T-Cell) Counts, and Viral Load
by Bruce Mirken
Published: April 21, 2000
The self-styled "AIDS dissidents," groups and individuals advocating the
view that HIV does not cause AIDS, and often urging people with HIV to
reject medical care, have raised their profile in recent months, ratcheting
up their advocacy in the U.S. and attempting to influence the health
policies of foreign governments. Although these forces sometimes accept the
need to treat opportunistic infections, most reject the vast majority of
conventional HIV/AIDS treatment, especially use of drugs to combat HIV. This
article is part of a series in which AIDS Treatment News examines key
arguments put forth by the "dissidents"--perhaps more accurately termed
"AIDS denialists," because most deny that AIDS is a genuine epidemic and
many deny that the term "AIDS" even describes a real medical condition.
The AIDS denialist movement is not unified (for example, some groups say
that HIV is a harmless virus, while others say HIV does not exist), so the
summary here of some of their arguments is necessarily only a sketch. More
detailed descriptions can be found in the references listed below.
Answering Denialist Views
on CD4 (T-Cell) Tests
One consistent thread running through the denialist literature is the
assertion that AIDS medicine has made a serious mistake by relying on
laboratory markers such as CD4 cell counts, and viral load as measured by
techniques such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR). These markers are
criticized as unreliable at best and a devious effort to hide the failure of
HIV/AIDS science at worst. One recently-formed group, ACT UP Hollywood (not
connected with long-standing ACT UP chapters in New York, Philadelphia and
elsewhere), argues that "all HIV and viral load tests as well as T-cell
counts need to be banned immediately because they are useless indicators of
a person's health."1
The arguments against use of CD4 center around two broad issues. One is the
natural variability in CD4 counts, which can be lower than average for
reasons not related to AIDS.2,3 The other is whether or not CD4 numbers
actually correlate with clinical prognosis. In her book What If Everything
You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong?, Christine Maggiore, founder of
Los Angeles-based Alive and Well AIDS Alternatives, writes, "A number of
studies found in the biomedical literature show that low T cell counts do
not correlate with compromised immunity, and that normal ranges for T cells
in HIV negative persons can vary from 300 to 2,000."3 Some denialists cite
the famous Concorde study of early versus deferred use of AZT
monotherapy--in which an AZT-induced boost in CD4 counts did not translate
to improved survival--as proof that, as one writer put it, "there was
absolutely no correlation between CD4 T-cell counts and clinical health."4
The denialist argument appears to be built upon a narrow and highly
selective reading of the data. For example one of the sources Maggiore cites
as proof for the above statement that low CD4 counts can occur without HIV,
a Transfusion Safety Study Group report at the 9th International AIDS
Conference, specifically notes that HIV-negative individuals with two or
more CD4 counts below 300 were rare, and that both those with known and
unknown causes of immune suppression "differ from the retrovirus
immunodeficiency pattern" in a number of key parameters, including CD4
percentage and CD4/CD8 ratio.5
In other words, transient low CD4 counts seen in other circumstances do not
equal AIDS and bear little resemblance to what is typically seen in
HIV-infected individuals. What the denialists regularly ignore is that while
unusually low CD4 counts can occur for a variety of reasons, numerous large,
long-term cohort studies have demonstrated a distinct pattern associated
with HIV infection: A statistically significant CD4 decline commonly begins
around the time of seroconversion and gradually becomes more severe over
time, eventually leading to increased susceptibility to opportunistic
infections. This has been observed in cohorts of gay men, transfusion
recipients and hemophiliacs. In these cohorts a decline in CD4 count has
been consistently and strongly associated with the development of
AIDS-defining illnesses.6
Also neglected in denialist discussions of CD4 is the large body of evidence
associating specific opportunistic infections with lowered CD4 counts. For
example, in the Pulmonary Complications of HIV Study, an 1,182-person
cohort, 79 percent of cases of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) occurred
in individuals with CD4 counts below 100 and 95 percent occurred in patients
whose CD4 count was below 200.7 The Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) has
also reported a "greatly increased risk" of PCP when CD4 counts drop below
200.8 Numerous other studies have found similar associations between lowered
CD4 counts and increased risk of PCP and other opportunistic
infections.6,9,10 Such findings formed the basis for long-standing
recommendations regarding opportunistic infection prophylaxis (using drugs
to prevent these infections). Other research relevant to this discussion is
covered in the section on viral load, below.
Regarding the effect of treatment-induced increases in CD4 on clinical
prognosis, the small increases seen in Concorde indeed did not correlate
with improved long-term outcome. But numerous other studies do show a strong
correlation with lowered risk of AIDS-defining opportunistic infections or
death, particularly with larger, HAART-induced CD4 increases. In the
U.S.-government trial ACTG 320 (which compared AZT plus 3TC vs. AZT plus 3TC
plus indinavir [Crixivan孫), the indinavir group had a mean CD4 increase
roughly three times that of the AZT/3TC only group, and half as many
AIDS-defining events.11 In a meta-analysis (combined analysis) of seven
(mostly pre-HAART) antiretroviral studies, researchers found that "having
either a reduction in HIV-1 RNA level or an increase in CD4+ lymphocyte
count, or both, was associated with a delay in clinical disease
progression."12 Overall, a large body of evidence involving both treated and
untreated patients shows a clear correlation between low or declining CD4
counts and increased risk of opportunistic infections or death.13,14
The denialist view of CD4 counts is used to call into question the 1993
revision of the CDC's AIDS case definition, which added a CD4 count of 200
or lower as an AIDS-defining condition. In Maggiore's words, it "allows
HIV-positives with no symptoms or illness to be diagnosed with AIDS. Since
1993, more than half of all newly diagnosed AIDS cases are counted among
people who are not sick."3 The mass of evidence showing that HIV-infected
individuals with CD4 counts below 200 are at overwhelmingly increased risk
for life-threatening infections is simply ignored.
And on Viral Load
Maggiore states in her book that "low levels of viral load have not been
correlated with good health, with absence of illness or high T-cell counts,
while high viral loads do not correspond with low T-cells or sickness."3 In
a recent newspaper column she also complains that viral load tests are not
FDA-approved for diagnosis of HIV infection, and notes, "Viral loads are
found in people who test HIV-negative."15 Denialist objection to viral load
testing is bolstered by the fact that Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel prize for
developing the basic technique of PCR, is a supporter of their cause and has
questioned the use of his technique to quantify virus.3
In a 1996 article published in the denialist journal Reappraising AIDS,
authors Christine Johnson and Paul Philpott demonstrate their scorn for
viral load measurements in the title of their discussion, "Viral Load of
Crap." Focusing on the 1995 Ho and Shaw Nature papers on viral dynamics,
they write:
"Ho and Shaw's technique looks for HIV RNA, the genetic material found in
the viral core. They assume that since each HIV contains two HIV RNAs, there
must be one HIV for every two HIV RNAs they count. But the large amount of
HIV RNA they report is found only after sending blood samples through
polymerase chain reactions (PCR). PCR is the 'DNA fingerprinting' technology
which takes tiny numbers of genetic molecules (RNA or DNA) and turns them
into huge quantities." What these tests find, they argue, is meaningless:
"Some of these are HIVs that have been neutralized by antibodies, some are
defective HIVs (those that did not form correctly) and some are
free-floating HIV RNA. Though none of these entities has any pathological
capacity, the viral load technique confuses them with whole, infectious
virus, the only kind that has any biological significance."16
This essay is typical of the denialist analysis of viral load, illustrating
both its strengths and weaknesses. Like much of the movement's literature,
they discuss only PCR and not the other technologies used to quantify viral
load, mistakenly stating that Ho used PCR when in fact he used bDNA
(branched DNA)--a different process marketed by a different company.17,18
Philpott and Johnson effectively lay out the theoretical reasons why
PCR-based viral load tests might produce a misleading result. Indeed,
company researchers and the FDA have acknowledged potential causes of error
and variation in viral load results, and a potential margin of error in
these assays of roughly threefold.18,19 Thus, when the FDA approved the
Roche Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor (a PCR-based assay), it required the labeling
to indicate that the test can accurately detect a three-fold or greater
change in HIV RNA for patients with a viral load of 1000 copies or greater
and a six-fold or greater change for patients whose viral load is below
1000.19 (Although Maggiore is correct in saying that the FDA has not
approved PCR for diagnosing HIV infection, she neglects to mention that the
agency did approve it "to assess patient prognosis... or to monitor the
effect of antiviral therapy").
Strikingly, Philpott and Johnson stick entirely to theory and do not address
the key question of whether or not viral load measurements predict the
likelihood of disease progression or death in the real world. A very large
body of evidence indicates they do, some of which was available prior to
their dismissal of the tests as a "Viral Load of Crap." The mass of
confirming data--from ongoing cohort studies as well as antiretroviral
trials--that has accumulated since then is rarely acknowledged in denialist
writings.
Beginning in 1995 John Mellors and colleagues published a series of articles
detailing MACS cohort data showing a strong correlation between baseline
viral load and subsequent disease progression.20,21,22 Using stored blood
samples from patients' early study visits, Mellors examined the rates of
AIDS-defining events and deaths in relation to viral load levels measured
using bDNA. In a 1604-patient sample, only 0.9 percent of those whose
baseline viral load was 500 copies or lower died of AIDS within six years,
while 69.5 percent of those whose viral load was greater than 30,000 copies
died. "Plasma viral load was the single best predictor of outcome," Mellors
wrote, "followed by CD4+ lymphocyte counts [T-cell counts] and neopterin
levels, B2-microglobulin levels, and thrush or fever. We observed a strong
association between viral load and the subsequent rate of decline in CD4+
lymphocyte counts."22
Similarly strong associations between viral load levels and clinical outcome
have been reported in numerous other cohort studies, including the
1170-patient EuroSIDA cohort23 and the Multicenter Hemophilia Cohort
Study,24 among others. In the hemophilia cohort, "each log(10) increase in
baseline viral load was associated with a five-fold increase in risk for
AIDS-related illness during the first six months of follow-up." The
predictive value of viral load was independent of that of CD4 count.
One particularly interesting study looked at viral load in gay men in the
Baltimore MACS cohort and injection drug users in the Baltimore "AIDS Link
to Intravenous Experiences" (ALIVE) cohort. Rather than measuring plasma
HIV-RNA in the usual way, using PCR or bDNA, this study looked at
cell-associated infectious viral load using the quantitative microculture
assay. This method "quantifies the biologically functional and infectious
cell-associated HIV-1 by measuring the amount of HIV infected cells capable
of infecting donor cells from an uninfected person in culture."25 Looking at
the risk of AIDS-defining infections, non-AIDS-defining bacterial
infections, and death, the researchers found that "higher levels of
infectious viral load were significantly related to increased hazards for
all three outcomes," with little difference between the gay men and the
intravenous drug users. After adjusting for CD4 level and numerous other
factors, viral load was strongly predictive of risk of progression to AIDS.
The association between viral load (measured using bDNA or PCR) and clinical
progression has been seen consistently in HIV treatment trials, including
the meta-analysis of seven studies discussed above,12 in which "each 10-fold
decrease in HIV-1 RNA was associated with a 51 percent reduction in
progression risk." In both the pivotal trial of ritonavir26 and ACTG 320,11
patients randomly assigned to the protease inhibitor arm showed
significantly better suppression of viral load and significantly reduced
AIDS-defining events.
After reviewing the available data, including numerous studies not listed
here, the expert panel convened by the Department of Health and Human
Services to determine HIV treatment guidelines recommended using both CD4
and viral load in conjunction with the clinical condition of the patient to
guide therapeutic decision-making. The panel noted, "Multiple analyses in
over 5,000 patients who participated in approximately 18 trials with viral
load monitoring showed a statistically significant dose-response type
association between decreases in plasma viremia and improved clinical
outcome."27
Discussion of this data is notably absent even in current denialist
literature. Maggiore's recent column,15 for example, cites one article from
1993 28--very early in the development of these assays--as "studies showing
that viral load test results do not correlate with illness, with wellness,
with T-cell counts or even the finding of virus by co-culture." This is at
best a dubious interpretation of this study, and Maggiore fails to discuss
any of the more recent evidence showing precisely the opposite. Evidence
cited of viral loads found in HIV-negative people turns out to be a handful
of anomalous cases, several of which involve false-negative antibody tests
in people who clearly had AIDS.29
Evaluating the Evidence
No lab test or surrogate marker is perfect. All have innate limitations,
natural variation, and a chance of error, and as a result HIV/AIDS
researchers and treatment activists alike have cautioned that physicians
must always remember they are treating patients, not lab values.
The limitations of CD4 and viral load tests, both real and theoretical, have
been exhaustively described by the denialists. But their declarations that
these tests are meaningless are based on a skewed, highly selective reading
of the data that simply omits anything which might contradict their views.
The overwhelming preponderance of evidence strongly indicates that both CD4
and viral load measurements can provide useful and important information
that doctors and patients can use to evaluate progress and make treatment
decisions.
For More Information
Many of the denialist Web sites and books are accessible through the
references below.
Unfortunately, the medical mainstream has usually not bothered to answer
these views--so persons with sincere questions have heard only one side.
This is changing. Meanwhile, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases has prepared a page of links to publications with
evidence that HIV causes AIDS,
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/spotlight/hiv00/default.htm. Also, see
http://www.aegis.org/topics/aids_debate.html.
References
1. ACT UP Hollywood home page
2. Strausberg, John. The AIDS Heretics. New York Press. March 9, 2000; 13:
10.
3. Maggiore, Christine. What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS
Was Wrong? (4th Edition, 2000). American Foundation for AIDS Alternatives,
Studio City, California.
4. Conlan, Mark Gabrish. Interview: John Lauritsen. Zenger's. April 1997.
5. Mosley, James. Idiopathic CD4+ Lymphocytopenia: Other Lymphocyte Changes.
IX International Conference on AIDS, Berlin, 1993, abstract #WS-A25-5.
6. Stein, Daniel S, Korvick, Joyce A. and Vermund, Sten H. CD4+ Lymphocyte
Cell Enumeration for Prediction of Clinical Course of Human Immunodeficiency
Virus Disease, a Review. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1992; 165: 352-363.
7. Stansell, J.D., and others. Predictors of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia
in HIV-infected persons. Pulmonary Complications of AIDS Study Group.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. January 1997;
155:1, 60-66.
8. Phair, J., and others. The risk of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia among
men infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Multicenter AIDS
Cohort Study Group. New England Journal of Medicine. January 1990; 322:3,
161-165.
9. Nightingale, SD, and others. Incidence of Mycobacterium
avium-intracellulare complex bacteremia in human immunodeficiency
virus-positive patients. Journal of Infectious Diseases. June 1992; 165:
6, 1082-1085.
10. Spaide, R.F., Gaissinger, A., and Podhorzer, J.R. Risk factors for
cotton-wool spots and for cytomegalovirus retinitis in patients with human
immunodeficiency virus infection Ophthalmology. December 1995; 102:12,
1860-1864.
11. Hammer, S., and others. A controlled trial of two nucleoside analogues
plus indinavir in persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection and
CD4 cell counts of 200 per cubic milliliter or less. New England Journal of
Medicine. 1997; 337: 725-733.
12. Marschner, I. C., and others. Use of Changes in Plasma Levels of Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 RNA to Assess the Clinical Benefit of
Antiretroviral Therapy. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1998; 177: 40-47.
13. Smith, D.K., and others. Causes and rates of death among HIV-infected
women 1993-1998: The contribution of illicit drug use and suboptimal HAART
use. 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, San
Francisco, January 30-February 2, 2000, abstract #682.
14. O'Brien, William A., and others. Changes in plasma HIV RNA level and
CD4+ lymphocyte counts predict both response to antiretroviral therapy and
therapeutic failure. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126: 939-945.
15. Maggiore, Christine, Questioning AIDS, Q & A. Magnus. March/April, 2000.
16. Johnson, Christine and Philpott, Paul. Viral Load of Crap. Reappraising
AIDS. October, 1996.
17. Ho, D.D., and others. Rapid turnover of plasma virions and CD4
lymphocytes in HIV-1 infection. Nature. January 12, 1995; 373: 123-126.
18. Todd, J. Performance Characteristics for the quantitation of plasma
HIV-1 RNA using the branched DNA signal amplification technology. Journal of
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and Human Retrovirology. 1995; 10:
supplement 2, S35-44.
19. Food and Drug Administration, letter to Roche Molecular Systems, March
2, 1999.
20. Mellors, J., and others. Quantitation of HIV-1 RNA in plasma predicts
outcome after seroconversion. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1995; 122:
573-579.
21. Mellors, J., and others. Prognosis in HIV-1 infection predicted by the
quantity of virus in plasma. Science. May 24, 1996; 272: 1167-1170.
22. Mellors, J., and others. Plasma viral load and CD4+ lymphocytes as
prognostic markers in HIV-1 infection. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997;
126: 946-954.
23. Miller, V., and others. Association of viral load, CD4 cell count, and
treatment with clinical progression in HIV patients with very low CD4 cell
counts: The EuroSIDA cohort. 7th Conference on Retroviruses and
Opportunistic Infections, San Francisco, January 30-February 2, 2000,
abstract #454.
24. Engels, E., and others. Plasma HIV-1 viral load in patients with
hemophilia and late-stage HIV disease: A measure of current immune
suppression. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1999; 131:256-264.
25. Lyles, C.M., and others. Cell-associated infectious HIV-1 load as a
predictor of clinical progression and survival among HIV-1 infected
injection drug users and homosexual men. European Journal of Epidemiology.
1999, 15:99-108.
26. Cameron, D.W., and others. Randomized placebo-controlled trial of
ritonavir in advanced HIV-1 disease. The Lancet. February 21, 1998; 321:
543-549.
27. Panel on Clinical Practices for Treatment of HIV Infection. Guidelines
for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-infected adults and adolescents.
January 28, 2000. (This document is available at http://www.hivatis.org.)
28. Piatak, M, and others. High levels of HIV-1 in plasma during all stages
of infection determined by competitive PCR. Science. March 1993; 259:
1749-1753.
29. Sullivan, P.S., and others. Persistently negative HIV-1 antibody enzyme
immunoassay results for patients with HIV-1 infection and AIDS: serologic,
clinical and virologic results. Seronegative AIDS Clinical Study Group.
AIDS. January 1999; 12:1, 89-96.
Gary Stein
GMCarter
snip...
>Dear oh dear. You really aren't paying attention here. You know
>perfectly well that I am aware of the Perth Group. I just told you about
>them, so what are you doing telling me to check them out? As with your
>assertions on what 'denialists' think are the cause(s) of AIDS, you have
>gotten yourself into a muddle and can't keep your story straight, which
>to me indicates your lack of knowledge and/or emotional bias.
I do apologize for raising the issue of the Perth group when you are
clearly an adherent. My mistake!
However, as I note elsewhere, it seems that you DO have an opinion
about HIV/AIDS yet know little about it? Perhaps you can clarify.
>You offer that irrelevancy rather than providing even the slightest
>proof that they 'feel that viruses don't exist', which is nonsense. For
>that matter, how does what they, or you, or anyone else 'feel' matter?
>Scientific debates aren't about people's 'feelings.'
Indeed! And I'm sure you can clarify the Perth group's stance on the
existence of other viruses and infectious agents. As you say, I think
they do indeed recognize their existence...it's just HIV somehow
doesn't seem to live up to their high standards of purification.
>No one in their right mind would expect arguments like those of the
>Perth Group to be dealt with fairly. One would expect that any theory
>which goes deeply against conventional wisdom would be ridiculed and
>caricatured and responded to, if it at all, with a variety of debating
>tricks that don't address the real point. The Perth Group have responded
>to that attack on their views, did so ages ago.
Please help us all understand how they figured it all out then. The
exercise will do you good!
George M. Carter
Uiopp
GMCarter <fi...@verizon.net> wrote:
You are obviously unable to acknowledge your mistakes. You felt the need
to inform me of the Perth Group's existence and views on HIV after I had
already informed you of their existence and views on HIV. You did that
in response to my pointing out that they don't deny that viruses as such
exist, which you seemed to think they did. There you are - two laughable
mistakes in a row, neither of which you now admit to. This is the sort
of thing which is rapidly making me think you aren't worth talking to.
Uiopp
"Gary Stein" <ge.s...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Uiopp" <uis...@faaa.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:uislad-D5E21B....@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> (snip) >
What you snipped was highly significant, and I take it that your
removing it means that you can't respond convincingly. Gee, maybe I'm
right that you can't do science properly under the conditions described,
and maybe your response didn't do anything to show otherwise?
It's part of a bigger pattern. The humanities in America are shot to
hell as well, with all kinds of hot-shot theorists spouting rubbish and
getting payed for it. Politics ruins everything it touches. I recently
finished reading Bryan Ellison's book on AIDS, and he talks about all
the conferences the AIDS scientists go to. And something clicked. Bingo,
I thought to myself, that's just like the people in the humanities who
spend all that time going to those damn conferences of theirs.
> > No one in their right mind would expect arguments like those of the
> > Perth Group to be dealt with fairly. One would expect that any theory
> > which goes deeply against conventional wisdom would be ridiculed and
> > caricatured and responded to, if it at all, with a variety of debating
> > tricks that don't address the real point. The Perth Group have responded
> > to that attack on their views, did so ages ago.
>
> So are you saying that the Perth Group has reached the point of being taken
> seriously by even a fraction of the worlds virology, or medical communities?
No, as I said, they had responded to that particular attack. As you
probably know. In fact I think someone posted their response to that
attack to this newsgroup, some time ago.
> No they have not, yet they have been advocating there theory for over a
> decade, don't you think in that amount of time the validity or invalidity of
> there theory would make it's self clear (or if that theory is correct then
> why hasn't the Perth Group undertaken research that would convince
> mainstream scientists)?
No, I don't think that 'the validity or invalidity of their theory would
make itself clear.' Theories don't do that, they can't do anything by
themselves, as if by magic. It only becomes clear that a theory is right
or wrong if someone is willing to take the trouble to investigate it
thoroughly and impartially. There are institutional barriers to that.
> You might also notice that the Perth Group has done NO I repeat NO new
> research on the underlying premise of their theory. They continue to simply
> make statements about the state of HIV/AIDS knowledge (based mainly on the
> state of virology in the 1980's and early 1990's) and claim that there
> review of the literature proves there theory is correct.
>
> The Perth Group's own website lists an article published in 1999 "A Critical
> Analysis of the Pharmacology of AZT and its Use in AIDS" as the most recent
> article published in a scientific journal and again that paper is analysis
> not research. As far as my reading shows no member of the Perth Group has
> ever published a research paper on HIV in any scientific journal.
Research, research, research. You're making a fetish out of it. One of
the sensible points that Ellison's book makes is that we already have
tons of research, in fact if anything we have too much of it. There is
much more than any one person could absorb or make sense of. Hence the
need for someone to go through that research and reinterpret it.
> Also no member of the Perth Group is a virologist and none have any
> specialized training in virology. So my question is why do you hold the
> Perth Group's statements on virology in such high regard? It seems to me
> that they are no better trained in the science of virology them most posters
> to MHA and much less trained then several MHA posters who do happen to be
> trained in the science that the Perth Group is so critical of.
That is an ad hominem argument. Possibly if a mistaken notion gets
firmly lodged in a particular field, outsiders can see better that it's
mistaken.
> As to the Perth Groups statements about Viral Load or CD4 counts not being
> accurate predictors of disease you might find the following analysis
> interesting reading;
Nowhere does that article even refer to the Perth Group. They do mention
that some of the AIDS dissidents deny the virus exists, but they don't
address that issue anywhere. They mention arguments by for instance
Christine Maggiore, who makes mistakes that the Perth Group doesn't. The
PG recognize that Ho used branched DNA
(http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epreplypd.htm), for example.
GMCarter
Nonsense. I acknowledged that you are aware of the Perth group. I
think you are rapidly worried about continuing this thread because you
are running out of steam. I suspect you are simply a troll.
George M. Carter
Uiopp
GMCarter <fi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >You are obviously unable to acknowledge your mistakes. You felt the need
> >to inform me of the Perth Group's existence and views on HIV after I had
> >already informed you of their existence and views on HIV. You did that
> >in response to my pointing out that they don't deny that viruses as such
> >exist, which you seemed to think they did. There you are - two laughable
> >mistakes in a row, neither of which you now admit to. This is the sort
> >of thing which is rapidly making me think you aren't worth talking to.
>
> Nonsense. I acknowledged that you are aware of the Perth group. I
> think you are rapidly worried about continuing this thread because you
> are running out of steam. I suspect you are simply a troll.
>
> George M. Carter
Will you, or will you not, acknowledge that the idea that the Perth
Group deny viruses exist is your fantasy and has nothing to do with
them? Will you or will you not admit to making that absurd suggestion?
GMCarter
LOL. Nope. Prove to me that the Perth group believes viruses exist.
What's absurd about such a suggestion?
They appear not to be able to grasp that HIV exists based on
absolutely no laboratory evidence or work of their own--merely a
lambaste of techniques used that are the same used to identify other
viruses. Ergo, they must believe no viruses exist!
Indeed, I'm not sure it's been proven that THEY exist...
George M. Carter
Uiopp
GMCarter <fi...@verizon.net> wrote:
The Perth Group deal with the issue of how to isolate viruses. They
claim this method has been used successfully to isolate many viruses,
although not HIV. Ergo they accept that viruses as such exist. But it's
obvious you're not interested. You're a dishonest person. It's pretty
pathetic that you feel the need to stoop to that kind of propaganda.
GMCarter
snip...
>
>The Perth Group deal with the issue of how to isolate viruses. They
>claim this method has been used successfully to isolate many viruses,
>although not HIV. Ergo they accept that viruses as such exist. But it's
>obvious you're not interested. You're a dishonest person. It's pretty
>pathetic that you feel the need to stoop to that kind of propaganda.
Dishonest? No, just demanding that you support your point and provide
the arguments. The Perth group's arguments are crap because even when
they first started dithering about this 10 years ago, there were ready
responses to refute their armchair complaints. Indeed, they'd go on
about the "gold standard" of isolation, citing a method described in a
paper published in the 70s...by Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, the
discoverer of HIV.
Since that time, we have additional tools and techniques. For example,
there is a fascinating paper that is looking at the utilization of
cell surface receptors by HIV. The studies in this review paper
utilize many of these techniques to identify proteins that are picked
up and utilized by HIV (e.g., actin or HLA-II DR), seem to just get
picked up and distinguish those that are just randomly colocalized.
There are other papers that look at the movement of gag through the
cytoskeleton. There are movies of labeled HIV migrating to the site of
the "immunological synapse." Other researchers have looked at the
effect of HIV on lymph node architecture in humans. The association of
the virus to follicular dendritic cells plays a particularly important
role in disease pathogenesis.
Clinically, the use of PCR as an assay of blood levels of virus show a
tight, strong correlation with disease progression. And significant
attenuation of clinical disease and AIDS using a toxic mix of drugs
that then drive that level of virus down.
Darling, I reiterate. If the Perth group suggests that HIV hasn't been
isolated with all the disparate techniques and disciplines available
and used by labs around the world, then they might SAY they believe in
other viruses, but they sure as hell are suffering from cognitive
dissonance.
Now, it's your argument that HIV doesn't exist. Show some rigor and
make a convincing case.
The reality is: you can't.
George M. Carter
Uiopp
GMCarter <fi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2004 00:35:03 +1200, Uiopp <uis...@faaa.co.nz> wrote:
>
> snip...
> >
> >The Perth Group deal with the issue of how to isolate viruses. They
> >claim this method has been used successfully to isolate many viruses,
> >although not HIV. Ergo they accept that viruses as such exist. But it's
> >obvious you're not interested. You're a dishonest person. It's pretty
> >pathetic that you feel the need to stoop to that kind of propaganda.
>
> Dishonest? No, just demanding that you support your point and provide
> the arguments. The Perth group's arguments are crap because even when
> they first started dithering about this 10 years ago, there were ready
> responses to refute their armchair complaints. Indeed, they'd go on
> about the "gold standard" of isolation, citing a method described in a
> paper published in the 70s...by Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, the
> discoverer of HIV.
That reflects rather more badly on Francoise Barre-Sinoussi than it does
on the Perth Group.
I didn't argue that HIV doesn't exist, only that your view of what the
Perth Group thinks is wrong. And you haven't shown otherwise.
GMCarter
>In article <bdq59013q2k6uqld2...@4ax.com>,
> GMCarter <fi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 May 2004 00:35:03 +1200, Uiopp <uis...@faaa.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> snip...
>> >
>> >The Perth Group deal with the issue of how to isolate viruses. They
>> >claim this method has been used successfully to isolate many viruses,
>> >although not HIV. Ergo they accept that viruses as such exist. But it's
>> >obvious you're not interested. You're a dishonest person. It's pretty
>> >pathetic that you feel the need to stoop to that kind of propaganda.
>>
>> Dishonest? No, just demanding that you support your point and provide
>> the arguments. The Perth group's arguments are crap because even when
>> they first started dithering about this 10 years ago, there were ready
>> responses to refute their armchair complaints. Indeed, they'd go on
>> about the "gold standard" of isolation, citing a method described in a
>> paper published in the 70s...by Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, the
>> discoverer of HIV.
>
>That reflects rather more badly on Francoise Barre-Sinoussi than it does
>on the Perth Group.
LOL. To the contrary. Perthies want a standard that SHE
developed--well, then I trust her ability to identify a novel viral
pathogen. A lot more than the Perthies who have never seen the inside
of a lab!!
>> Since that time, we have additional tools and techniques. For example,
>> there is a fascinating paper that is looking at the utilization of
>> cell surface receptors by HIV. The studies in this review paper
>> utilize many of these techniques to identify proteins that are picked
>> up and utilized by HIV (e.g., actin or HLA-II DR), seem to just get
>> picked up and distinguish those that are just randomly colocalized.
>>
>> There are other papers that look at the movement of gag through the
>> cytoskeleton. There are movies of labeled HIV migrating to the site of
>> the "immunological synapse." Other researchers have looked at the
>> effect of HIV on lymph node architecture in humans. The association of
>> the virus to follicular dendritic cells plays a particularly important
>> role in disease pathogenesis.
>>
>> Clinically, the use of PCR as an assay of blood levels of virus show a
>> tight, strong correlation with disease progression. And significant
>> attenuation of clinical disease and AIDS using a toxic mix of drugs
>> that then drive that level of virus down.
>>
>> Darling, I reiterate. If the Perth group suggests that HIV hasn't been
>> isolated with all the disparate techniques and disciplines available
>> and used by labs around the world, then they might SAY they believe in
>> other viruses, but they sure as hell are suffering from cognitive
>> dissonance.
>>
>> Now, it's your argument that HIV doesn't exist. Show some rigor and
>> make a convincing case.
>>
>I didn't argue that HIV doesn't exist, only that your view of what the
>Perth Group thinks is wrong. And you haven't shown otherwise.
ROFLMAO! You are SOOOO disingenuous.
Taking lessons from Bush and Condee Rice?
George M. Carter