scientists don't know how vaccines work

0 views
Skip to first unread message

John

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
Just in case anyone thought vaccination wasn't an ongoing experiment.

Scientists don't know how vaccines work
Source: New Scientist. 27 May 2000.

Researchers developing an AIDS vaccine have admitted that they don't know
how vaccines work. They claim that a misconception of how they work is
hindering the quest for the new vaccine, and that no one has bothered to
find out how vaccines like polio, measles, and hepatitis B actually protect
people from disease.
"I'm amazed by the amount of basic science we don't know", said Philippe
Kourilsky, director of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, "We've had many
successful vaccines over the past decades but we've missed a chance to see
how these vaccines work." The assumption that vaccines work by simply
producing antibodies is wrong.
Ron Montelaro of the University of Pittsburgh has been studying a HIVrelated
virus in horses, known as Equine Infectious Anaemia Virus, and has found
that the vaccinated horses die quicker than the unvaccinated horses.
Montelaro has suggested that. the stimulation of antibodies may actually
help pull virus particles into the cells they are trying to protect.
"It's an issue people haven't wanted to think about, but we might have to."


CBI

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
You are absolutely correct. We don't fully understand it. We do know that
they do work before using them widely and we constantly try to learn more
about how they work in order to improve them. I don't think anyone ever
claimed to know all the details.

--
CBI, M.D.

Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems
without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These posts are
intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor before
following any advice given.


"John" <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8mn3uq$f2h$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

Steven B. Harris

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
In <8mn3uq$f2h$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk> "John" writes


>Ron Montelaro of the University of Pittsburgh has been studying a
>HIVrelated virus in horses, known as Equine Infectious Anaemia Virus,
>and has found that the vaccinated horses die quicker than the
>unvaccinated horses. Montelaro has suggested that. the stimulation of
>antibodies may actually
>help pull virus particles into the cells they are trying to protect.
>"It's an issue people haven't wanted to think about, but we might have
>to."


Peter Duesberg, in particular, might have to. The man is convinced
that antibodies signal the presense of infallible viral immunity. As
your article notes, in the case of retroviruses like HIV, SIV, FIV, and
EIAV, there has long been reason to think it isn't so. The results you
quote are surely not the first evidence along this line. Just the
latest.

Steven B. Harris

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
In <8mn3uq$f2h$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk> "John"

<wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>Just in case anyone thought vaccination wasn't an ongoing experiment.
>
>Scientists don't know how vaccines work
>Source: New Scientist. 27 May 2000.
>
>Researchers developing an AIDS vaccine have admitted that they don't
know
>how vaccines work. They claim that a misconception of how they work is
>hindering the quest for the new vaccine, and that no one has bothered
to
>find out how vaccines like polio, measles, and hepatitis B actually
protect
>people from disease.
>"I'm amazed by the amount of basic science we don't know", said
Philippe
>Kourilsky, director of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, "We've had many
>successful vaccines over the past decades but we've missed a chance to
see
>how these vaccines work." The assumption that vaccines work by simply
>producing antibodies is wrong.

Steven B. Harris

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
In <8mnoht$d4b$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net> "CBI"

<c_ish...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>You are absolutely correct. We don't fully understand it. We do know
that
>they do work before using them widely and we constantly try to learn
more
>about how they work in order to improve them. I don't think anyone
ever
>claimed to know all the details.
>
>--
>CBI, M.D.

Remember also that "how vaccines work" differs from virus to virus.
Antibodies work to prevent INITIAL viral infection in most viruses. In
a few (HepB comes to mind) they assist viral control in active
infection. In most viruses they don't help much with that;
agammaglobulinemia people get all kinds of viral infections but don't
have a bad time with most. Finally, with retroviruses, antibodies
don't help much with immunity, and overall may help or hinder the
active proliferation phase (it's complex). So it's silly to imagine
that scientists would understand a process which differs so much for
each pathogen.

John

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to

Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:8mnss6

> Peter Duesberg, in particular, might have to. The man is convinced
> that antibodies signal the presense of infallible viral immunity. As
> your article notes, in the case of retroviruses like HIV, SIV, FIV, and
> EIAV, there has long been reason to think it isn't so. The results you
> quote are surely not the first evidence along this line. Just the
> latest.

You should inform people that vaccination is an experiment. Changing your
tune on antibodies as this always used to be the be all and end all of
showing vaccine effectiveness.

John

Jeffrey Peter, M.D.

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
In article <8mopu9$med$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,

Vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective. In that sense they
are not experiements. However, any treatment, from the Tylenol that you
give your kids to treat a fever to chemotherapy, is an experiment in
the sense that John is talking about. Calling it an experiment does not
change what vaccines are: safe and effective preventive treatments that
save lives.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

D. C. & M. V. Sessions

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
Jeffrey, Peter, "M.D." wrote:
>
> In article <8mopu9$med$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "John" <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:8mnss6
> >
> > > Peter Duesberg, in particular, might have to. The man is convinced
> > > that antibodies signal the presense of infallible viral immunity. As
> > > your article notes, in the case of retroviruses like HIV, SIV, FIV, and
> > > EIAV, there has long been reason to think it isn't so. The results you
> > > quote are surely not the first evidence along this line. Just the
> > > latest.
> >
> > You should inform people that vaccination is an experiment. Changing your
> > tune on antibodies as this always used to be the be all and end all of
> > showing vaccine effectiveness.

> Vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective. In that sense they


> are not experiements. However, any treatment, from the Tylenol that you
> give your kids to treat a fever to chemotherapy, is an experiment in
> the sense that John is talking about. Calling it an experiment does not
> change what vaccines are: safe and effective preventive treatments that
> save lives.

Sounds like the counsel of perfection. By that standard we shouldn't do
anything until we understand exactly how the human body, well or ill, works
and its interactions with every possible agent of harm or cure right down
to the subatomic level.

Well, if people want to live that way it's their choice. One might hope
that they would be consistent and apply the same standard across the board.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a tooth fairy, but whois toothfairy.com works. |
+----------- D. C. & M. V. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+

Carlton Hogan

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
In article <8mnss6$dgo$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>,
Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <8mn3uq$f2h$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk> "John" writes

>
>
>>Ron Montelaro of the University of Pittsburgh has been studying a
>>HIVrelated virus in horses, known as Equine Infectious Anaemia Virus,
>>and has found that the vaccinated horses die quicker than the
>>unvaccinated horses. Montelaro has suggested that. the stimulation of
>>antibodies may actually
>>help pull virus particles into the cells they are trying to protect.
>>"It's an issue people haven't wanted to think about, but we might have
>>to."
>
>
> Peter Duesberg, in particular, might have to. The man is convinced
>that antibodies signal the presense of infallible viral immunity. As
>your article notes, in the case of retroviruses like HIV, SIV, FIV, and
>EIAV, there has long been reason to think it isn't so. The results you
>quote are surely not the first evidence along this line. Just the
>latest.

Ah Steve!!

How very nice to have you back. In fact, there is tons of precedent:
Like visceral leishmaniasis, where higher Ab titers predict worse outcome.
Or the very common infectious disease technique of looking for
decrease in Ab titer to check on the efficacy of treatment.

To all who still believe the querulous Dr Duesberg, go to your local
hospital, and borrow/swipe/look at a laboratory assay order sheet.
See all the items listed as "serologic" tests? Those are ALL conditions
diagnosed by antibody. Different hospitals do it different ways - it's
likely you will find serologic assays relevant to bacteria on
a different sheet from the HIV/HBV/HCV tests - but they all diagnose
by presence of antibody.

Of course, they could ALL be wrong, and Peter Duesberg might be the
first person to realize that the foundation of infectious disease
medicine are scientifically bereft, despite empiric successes.
But if he wants to make this moronic claim about antibodies, HIV
is far down the list after many common bacteria and viruses.

Carlton

Carlton Hogan

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
In article <8mopu9$med$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
John <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:8mnss6

>
>> Peter Duesberg, in particular, might have to. The man is convinced
>> that antibodies signal the presense of infallible viral immunity. As
>> your article notes, in the case of retroviruses like HIV, SIV, FIV, and
>> EIAV, there has long been reason to think it isn't so. The results you
>> quote are surely not the first evidence along this line. Just the
>> latest.
>
>You should inform people that vaccination is an experiment.

And a remarkably successful one, if that is the case!

>Changing your
>tune on antibodies as this always used to be the be all and end all of
>showing vaccine effectiveness.

Umm. I think you have a little apples/oranges probvlem here. Antibodies
are clearly effective. They are one of the most important portions
of the immune response. Where Duesberg gets it wrong is when he claims
Abs mean you have already conquered an infection. In fact, antibody production
is at it's highest during acute disease. As the disease resolves, Ab
production slows to a trickle, and plasma cells are gradually replaced
by memory B-cells, ready to churn out more Ab in short order.

Disagreeing with Duesberg does not mean one thinks antibodies are
ineffectual or irrelevant. It's simply recognizing that the body,
in it's infinite wisdom, makes the most antibodies when it need
them the most.

Carlton

Steven B. Harris

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
In <8mopu9$med$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> "John"

<wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:8mnss6
>
>> Peter Duesberg, in particular, might have to. The man is
convinced
>> that antibodies signal the presense of infallible viral immunity. As
>> your article notes, in the case of retroviruses like HIV, SIV, FIV,
and
>> EIAV, there has long been reason to think it isn't so. The results
you
>> quote are surely not the first evidence along this line. Just the
>> latest.
>
>You should inform people that vaccination is an experiment. Changing

your
>tune on antibodies as this always used to be the be all and end all of
>showing vaccine effectiveness.
>
>John


Not at all. Once again, this is case of the establishment being
misunderstood, then piloried for saying what it never said in the first
place. In the case of Duesberg, scientists have been reminding him
that antibodies don't signal immunity for retroviruses, for more than
ten years, now. He wouldn't listen, and he still doesn't listen.
Perhaps one day he'll get to the point that he starts saying, "but you
guys in medicine always SAID antibodies mean immunity for EVERY virus."
To which the answer will properly be: "Oh, yeah? And where and when was
that?"

The problem, whale, is nature is complicated. We do know how some
vaccines work: they do indeed work by raising antibodies to a virus.
Not all vaccines work that way. Some vaccines surely don't work that
way. The fact that we don't know how all vaccines work does not mean
that we don't know how any work, or that we don't know anything about
how any of them work.

As for vaccination being an experiment, life is an experiment in
that sense. It's hard to make predictions, especially regarding the
future (as Yogi says). You don't know that the next time you step on
your brake, nothing will happen at all. Nobody promises you certainty
in this life. Medicine never has. If you've been hearing such a
promise, you've been deluding yourself.


Occam's Razor

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to

On 8-Aug-2000, sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Dr. Steven B. Harris, M.D.)
suffers another public bout of recto-cranial inversion in his flaccid
defense
of junk science "medicine":

> The problem, whale, is nature is complicated.

By Godfrey, Doc Steve is right!

> We do know how some vaccines work: they do indeed work by
> raising antibodies to a virus. Not all vaccines work that way.

Gurgle.

> Some vaccines surely don't work that way.

Snork.

> The fact that we don't know how all vaccines work does not mean
> that we don't know how any work, or that we don't know anything about
> how any of them work.

Snore......

Occam


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
Carlton Hogan wrote:
> Of course, they could ALL be wrong, and Peter Duesberg might be the
> first person to realize that the foundation of infectious disease
> medicine are scientifically bereft, despite empiric successes.

I think you are misrepresenting his views. But anyway, his
theories about HIV didn't pan out and he has moved on to radical
new theories about cancer. See his home page. His theories are
out of the mainstream, but he is not a crackpot.
http://mcb.berkeley.edu/faculty/BMB/duesbergp.html

John

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to

<Jeffrey Peter>; M.D. <dr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8mou5r$s75

> Vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective. In that sense they
> are not experiements.

That is false for starters, and if you don't know fully how the immune
system works how can you say vaccines are not an experiment?

John

"Data also suggests that the diseases of childhood are necessary for
appropriate development, maturation and function of the individual immune
and nervous systems.... Furthermore, progress in the field of
psychoneuroendocrinimmunology, has led some researchers to conclude that
vaccines in general may not only be impacting negatively on the human immune
system, but may also be adversely effecting the neurologic and psychologic
development and function of the vaccine recipient. The impact of artificial
immunity on immune, neurologic, endocrine, and psychologic systems has not
been scientifically elucidated."--- Stephen C. Marini, MS., D.C., Ph.D.

Steven B. Harris

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
In <3990706c$1...@news.newsfeeds.com> "Occam's Razor" <oc...@razor.com>
writes:

>By Godfrey, Doc Steve is right!

>Gurgle.

>Snork.
>
>Snore......
>
>Occam

If you have something intelligent to contribute, we're all waiting
to read it.

Steven B. Harris

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
In <39907536...@my-dejanews.com> Roger Schlafly


ROFL. It's not just that his theories on HIV didn't pan out. His
theories on SIV, FIV, hepatitis C, and basically any other virus that
wasn't well-characterized when he was a student, have not panned out.
Nor was he ever convinced by a mountain of opposing evidence. Nor is
he, to this day.

If Duesberg is not a crackpot, what do you call a crackpot?

Steven B. Harris

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
In <8mq0gv$fpd$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk> "John"

<wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>
><Jeffrey Peter>; M.D. <dr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8mou5r$s75
>
>> Vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective. In that sense
they
>> are not experiements.
>
>That is false for starters, and if you don't know fully how the immune
>system works how can you say vaccines are not an experiment?
>
>John


If you can't say what the precise effect is, of every different kind
of food and combination of food, on your health, how can you say that
*lunch* isn't an experiment?

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
"Steven B. Harris" wrote:
> If Duesberg is not a crackpot, what do you call a crackpot?

He is not a crackpot because he has substantial scientific
accomplishments, and because he had logically valid and defensible
reasons for expressing skepticism about the convention wisdom.

Did you see his cancer theories? They are just as goofy as his
HIV theories.

Crackpots can be identified by those who give nonsensical
arguments. There are a lot of legitimate scientific controversies,
and someone is not a crackpot just because he turns out to be wrong
about some factual matter.

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
Kerry wrote:
> Only if you believe his crackpot reasonings for expressing scepticism
> with the conventional wisdom.

Which are the crackpot reasons?

Use the links on this page to get the list of his reasons.
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index/pduesberg.htm

Gary Stein

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to

"Roger Schlafly" <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:3990A2FC...@my-dejanews.com...

> "Steven B. Harris" wrote:
> > If Duesberg is not a crackpot, what do you call a crackpot?
>
> He is not a crackpot because he has substantial scientific
> accomplishments, and because he had logically valid and defensible
> reasons for expressing skepticism about the convention wisdom.
>
> Did you see his cancer theories? They are just as goofy as his
> HIV theories.
>
> Crackpots can be identified by those who give nonsensical
> arguments.

Which is exactly what Duesburg did in regards
HIV.............................................
--
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)

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to
"Steven B. Harris" wrote:
> Correct. That's Duesberg. Example: the life expectancy in South
> Africa has fallen to about 30 for women and 40 for men. This due to a
> huge and unexpected increase in deaths in not only children, but young
> adults. Duesberg says this is malnutrition and other misdiagnosed
> infectious diseases. ... Now, how likely is that?

Not likely. But usually when crackpots write about a technical
subject, they usually expose themselves by saying stuff that is
just out-and-out nutty.

I haven't followed this controversy in detail, but I look at
sites like this, and what he says does not look nutty to me.
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/whistleblowers.htm#pd

Eg, is this nutty?

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific
documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact,
at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
Dr. Kary Mullis, biochemist, 1993 Nobel prize for chemistry

(Of course the lack of such documents might only show that the
researchers were sloppy.)

Gary Stein

unread,
Aug 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/8/00
to

"John" <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8mq0gv$fpd$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
> <Jeffrey Peter>; M.D. <dr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8mou5r$s75
>
> > Vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective. In that sense
they
> > are not experiements.
>
> That is false for starters, and if you don't know fully how the
immune
> system works how can you say vaccines are not an experiment?

If you can't fully explain gravity why do you not float out of your
chair?

David Wright

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In article <8mopu9$med$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
John <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:8mnss6
>
>> Peter Duesberg, in particular, might have to. The man is convinced
>> that antibodies signal the presense of infallible viral immunity. As
>> your article notes, in the case of retroviruses like HIV, SIV, FIV, and
>> EIAV, there has long been reason to think it isn't so. The results you
>> quote are surely not the first evidence along this line. Just the
>> latest.
>
>You should inform people that vaccination is an experiment. Changing your
>tune on antibodies as this always used to be the be all and end all of
>showing vaccine effectiveness.

That's the trouble with science -- sometimes new data show you that
what you believed was wrong.

The great thing about alt med, for the true believers like John, is
that you never have to change your mind about anything. You can just
follow your gurus to the end of time and refuse to listen to any
counterevidence. That's a religion.

-- David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
The Millennium actually begins on January 1, 2001
So Get Ready for a Second Round of Parties


Kurt Ullman

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In article <8mq6fl$e4j$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote:

> If you can't say what the precise effect is, of every different kind
>of food and combination of food, on your health, how can you say that
>*lunch* isn't an experiment?

Gee. A new addition to my sig file. You should be proud, Dr. H (grin)

--------------
Every now and then I go to the driving range to hit a
bucket of chicken.

Kerry

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 17:17:00 -0700, Roger Schlafly
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

>"Steven B. Harris" wrote:
>> If Duesberg is not a crackpot, what do you call a crackpot?
>
>He is not a crackpot because he has substantial scientific
>accomplishments, and because he had logically valid and defensible
>reasons for expressing skepticism about the convention wisdom.

Only if you believe his crackpot reasonings for expressing scepticism
with the conventional wisdom.


>Crackpots can be identified by those who give nonsensical
>arguments.

Well duh

And disproven arguments? Fabrications? Ideas that are totally at
odds with the facts?


> There are a lot of legitimate scientific controversies,
>and someone is not a crackpot just because he turns out to be wrong
>about some factual matter.

What about wrong about lots of factual matters? Incapable of
reconsidering when proven wrong?

That's not science

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a feminist bookstore. There is no humour section.
--John Callahan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David Wright

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In article <3990A2FC...@my-dejanews.com>,

Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>"Steven B. Harris" wrote:
>> If Duesberg is not a crackpot, what do you call a crackpot?
>
>He is not a crackpot because he has substantial scientific
>accomplishments, and because he had logically valid and defensible
>reasons for expressing skepticism about the convention wisdom.
>
>Did you see his cancer theories? They are just as goofy as his
>HIV theories.
>
>Crackpots can be identified by those who give nonsensical
>arguments. There are a lot of legitimate scientific controversies,

>and someone is not a crackpot just because he turns out to be wrong
>about some factual matter.

No, but he's a crackpot if he fails to recognize counterevidence,
especially when there's a mountain of it.

Occam's Razor

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to

On 8-Aug-2000, sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Dr. Steven B. Harris M.D.) wrote:

> If you have something intelligent to contribute, we're all waiting
> to read it.

Gee, Doc Steve, what a coincidence ... I was having that same exact
thought when I picked your name out of the thread...

Steven B. Harris

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In <fV1k5.32594$Z6.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>

kurtu...@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman) writes:
>
>In article <8mq6fl$e4j$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
>sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote:
>
>> If you can't say what the precise effect is, of every different
kind
>>of food and combination of food, on your health, how can you say that
>>*lunch* isn't an experiment?
>
>Gee. A new addition to my sig file. You should be proud, Dr. H (grin)


Yrrk. Grammatically, it could've been put better, but you get the
idea.

Steven B. Harris

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In <3990A2FC...@my-dejanews.com> Roger Schlafly

<roger...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
>
>"Steven B. Harris" wrote:
>> If Duesberg is not a crackpot, what do you call a crackpot?
>
>He is not a crackpot because he has substantial scientific
>accomplishments,

This only means he wasn't ALWAYS a crackpot.


> and because he had logically valid and defensible
>reasons for expressing skepticism about the convention wisdom.

No, this is incorrect. If you want to argue any specific regarding
HIV, I'll be glad to demonstrate.


>Crackpots can be identified by those who give nonsensical
>arguments.

Correct. That's Duesberg. Example: the life expectancy in South


Africa has fallen to about 30 for women and 40 for men. This due to a
huge and unexpected increase in deaths in not only children, but young
adults. Duesberg says this is malnutrition and other misdiagnosed

infectious diseases. But it would be the first time these problems
have preferrentially hit young and healthy people in Africa in the
reproductive prime. And for some reason, these age-old African problems
have suddenly hit South Africa and Botwana and so on, without hitting
the elderly in these countries at all. Now, how likely is that?

There isn't anything nonsensical per se about an epidemic of
unrecognized malnutrition that suddenly hits some African country, but
misses the elderly and has a predilection for people who have the most
sex. Hey, it could happen. In some science fiction world. But not
here on Earth.


> There are a lot of legitimate scientific controversies,
>and someone is not a crackpot just because he turns out to be wrong
>about some factual matter.


He's a crackpot if his theories require acceptance of ideas such as
the above, in order to be true. And that is just the beginning with
Duesberg.


David Wright

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In article <3990D1C9...@my-dejanews.com>,

Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>"Steven B. Harris" wrote:

>I haven't followed this controversy in detail, but I look at
>sites like this, and what he says does not look nutty to me.

So?

>http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/whistleblowers.htm#pd
>
>Eg, is this nutty?
>
>"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific
>documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact,
>at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
>Dr. Kary Mullis, biochemist, 1993 Nobel prize for chemistry

Yes, it's nutty. From what I've heard about Mullis, he is too.

In any event, why am I supposed to care what a chemist thinks of
the evidence for HIV? Whether he wants to admit it or not, there
is a ton of evidence that HIV is causative in AIDS.

John

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to

Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

> >That is false for starters, and if you don't know fully how the immune


> >system works how can you say vaccines are not an experiment?
> >

> >John


>
>
> If you can't say what the precise effect is, of every different kind
> of food and combination of food, on your health, how can you say that
> *lunch* isn't an experiment?

We have been eating for millions of years (unless you are an atheist) so we
know what foods we are meant to eat. If you can provide the studies to show
measles isn't a necessary process for the child to go through.

John

"I would challenge any colleague, clinician or research scientist to claim
that we have a basic understanding of the human newborn immune system. It
is well established in studies in animal models that the newborn immune
system is very distinct from the adolescent or adult. In fact, the immune
system of newborns in animal models can easily be perturbed to ensure that
it cannot respond properly later in life." ------This testimony was given
verbally to the United States Senate on May 12, 1999 by Dr Bonnie Dunbar,
Professor of Immunobiology with specialise work in vaccine development and
autoimmunity for over 25 years, the past 17 at Baylor College of Medicine in
Houston.


Steven B. Harris

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In <3990D1C9...@my-dejanews.com> Roger Schlafly

<roger...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
>>
>Eg, is this nutty?
>
>"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific
>documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact,
>at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
>Dr. Kary Mullis, biochemist, 1993 Nobel prize for chemistry
>
>(Of course the lack of such documents might only show that the
>researchers were sloppy.)


There are textbooks of AIDS in any good medical bookstore, each
chapter referenced with hundreds of papers. Such texts count as
"documents." Mullis has yet to read one, I suppose.

There is no direct experimental proof that HIV causes AIDS in humans,
since that would require Duesberg and Mullis to volunteer to be
injected. However, there's no direct proof that Tyranosaurs ate meat,
either. Some things in science are left to inference, like the idea
that wolf bites cause rabies. There should be scientific documents that
singly or collectively demonstrate the carnivorousness of Tyrannosaurs,
and the transmissibility of rabies to humans by bites. But there
aren't. Not if your standards of proof require prospective
experiments.

Steven B. Harris

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In <8mr374$9ec$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> "John"

<wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
>> >That is false for starters, and if you don't know fully how the
immune
>> >system works how can you say vaccines are not an experiment?
>> >
>> >John
>>
>>
>> If you can't say what the precise effect is, of every different
kind
>> of food and combination of food, on your health, how can you say
that
>> *lunch* isn't an experiment?
>
>We have been eating for millions of years (unless you are an atheist)
>so we know what foods we are meant to eat.

Tell it to the vegetarians and the cowmilk phobiacs. You eat all
your foods raw, I take it?


> If you can provide the studies to show
>measles isn't a necessary process for the child to go through.
>
>John


If you can provide the studies that going as fast as 30 mph in an
automobile is not so unnatural that it will ruin your health. That
listening to recorded music will eventually cause more brain disease in
old age. That watching those flickering movies leads children to have
more seizures than they did in the days before the motion picture
projector. That your computer won't give you leukemia (prove it
won't). One can always play hysteric before the prospect of a new
technology. It's easy. But the rest of us would rather have progress.
So would you, apparently, writing on your computer and posting to
usenet. If you held all new things to the standards that you do
advances in medicine, you'd have to be Amish. But here you are, a
selective Luddite on the nets. Hypocrite.

Nick Bennett

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to

On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Roger Schlafly wrote:

> Eg, is this nutty?
>
> "If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific
> documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact,
> at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
> Dr. Kary Mullis, biochemist, 1993 Nobel prize for chemistry

Absolutely - there's no such document for ANY disease or infectious
illness. There IS however such a collection of documents, which are
referenced in reviews such as those posted at the NIH website.

Why Mullis disregards such data, which blatantly exists, is beyond
me...

Bennett


Roger Schlafly

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
"Steven B. Harris" wrote:
> However, there's no direct proof that Tyranosaurs ate meat, either.

Someone who published a theory challenging that hypothesis would
not be attacked the way Duesberg and Mullis have been.

Duesberg has his own theories. If he is wrong, they ought to just
prove him wrong.

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
Nick Bennett wrote:
> > "If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific
> > documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact,
> > at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
> > Dr. Kary Mullis, biochemist, 1993 Nobel prize for chemistry
>
> Absolutely - there's no such document for ANY disease or infectious
> illness. There IS however such a collection of documents, which are
> referenced in reviews such as those posted at the NIH website.
>
> Why Mullis disregards such data, which blatantly exists, is beyond
> me...

IIRC, Mullis asked Gallo and other leaders in the field, and they
could not give him reference(s). (In fairness, the quote is a few
years old.)

Nick Bennett

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to

On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Roger Schlafly wrote:

> Nick Bennett wrote:
> >
> > Why Mullis disregards such data, which blatantly exists, is beyond
> > me...
>
> IIRC, Mullis asked Gallo and other leaders in the field, and they
> could not give him reference(s). (In fairness, the quote is a few
> years old.)

I thought he'd just ploughed through the literature for himself...but
regardless the date may be important.

I remember writing an article in which I had to quote a ref to say "HIV
causes AIDS". I did find a paper which basically said that...but I can't
recall what it was. I suppose if you want anything official, the 2nd
international conference on AIDS in 1986 was when HIV was named HIV as
opposed to LAV or HTLV-3, in recognition of it causing AIDS. I don't know
what data they used to come to that conclusion - I've seen some excellent
cohort studies though that plainly implicate HIV infection with the onset
of a decline in CD4 counts, which eventually lead to AIDS-defining levels.
This can be demonstrated for non-treated individuals, and no other
risk-factor links as well as HIV infection.

Like I said - I dunno how Mullis comes to that conclusion. The date of
his quote may be irrelevant actually - as recently as last year he was
still touring and lecturing against the HIV->AIDS hypothesis.

Bennett


Gary Stein

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to

"Roger Schlafly" <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:3990D1C9...@my-dejanews.com...

> "Steven B. Harris" wrote:
> > Correct. That's Duesberg. Example: the life expectancy in
South
> > Africa has fallen to about 30 for women and 40 for men. This due
to a
> > huge and unexpected increase in deaths in not only children, but
young
> > adults. Duesberg says this is malnutrition and other misdiagnosed
> > infectious diseases. ... Now, how likely is that?
>
> Not likely. But usually when crackpots write about a technical
> subject, they usually expose themselves by saying stuff that is
> just out-and-out nutty.
>
> I haven't followed this controversy in detail, but I look at
> sites like this, and what he says does not look nutty to me.
> "If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be
scientific
> documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact,
> at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
> Dr. Kary Mullis, biochemist, 1993 Nobel prize for chemistry

Yes that is nutty and a lie.......................
See the following URL's;
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/all.htm
http://www.skeptic.com/03.2.harris-aids.html#hivpos
http://www.hivnewsline.com/issues/Vol3Issue1/editorial.html
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/spotlight/hiv00/MACS+WIHS.htm
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/spotlight/hiv00/default.htm
http://www.durbandeclaration.org/
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/AIDS2000.PDF
http://www.mischealthaids.org/Links.htm#pathology
http://www.mischealthaids.org/HIV-Exist.htm

baj...@my-deja.com

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In article <3990a9fa...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz>,
ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 17:17:00 -0700, Roger Schlafly

> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> >"Steven B. Harris" wrote:
> >> If Duesberg is not a crackpot, what do you call a crackpot?
> >
> >He is not a crackpot because he has substantial scientific
> >accomplishments, and because he had logically valid and defensible

> >reasons for expressing skepticism about the convention wisdom.
>
> Only if you believe his crackpot reasonings for expressing scepticism
> with the conventional wisdom.
>

"The most formidable barrier to the advancement of science is the
conventional wisdom of the dominate group".


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

D. C. & M. V. Sessions

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> "Steven B. Harris" wrote:

Now this whole concept of 'proof' may be new to you, so pay careful
attention. For starters, 'proven' doesn't mean 'unquestionably true',
it means 'tested'. Same as liquor or armor. So a 'proven' theory is
one which has stood up to tests.

Now the HIV/AIDS connection has done exactly that: the theory predicts
a number of conclusions, which *afterward* are found to be the case.
In regards of Duesberg and the other crackpots, THEIR conjectures
also predict certain things (such as a greater death rate in the
elderly than in the young) which simply fail. On a long list of points.

So their theories *have* been 'proven' -- tested and failed, proven false.

Now if you're asking that a large, expensive research program be
started to investigate Duesberg's notions -- if that's your idea
of 'proof' -- then by all means start one. The rest of us just
aren't interested in pouring limited resources into one more
investigation of the phlogiston theory.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a tooth fairy, but whois toothfairy.com works. |
+----------- D. C. & M. V. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+

relative truth

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
| = Steven B. Harris
||| = Steven B. Harris

||| The man [Peter Duesberg] is convinced


||| that antibodies signal the presense of infallible viral immunity.

| In the case of Duesberg, scientists have been reminding him
| that antibodies don't signal immunity for retroviruses, for more than
| ten years, now. He wouldn't listen, and he still doesn't listen.
| Perhaps one day he'll get to the point that he starts saying, "but you
| guys in medicine always SAID antibodies mean immunity for EVERY virus."

"Viremia initiated from a previously suppressed virus and observed
years after infection is a classical consequence, rather than the
cause of immunodeficiency. Indeed, many normally latent parasites
become activated and may cause chronic "opportunistic infections"
in immunodeficient persons, as for example Candida, Pneumocystis,
herpes virus, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis virus, tuberculosis bacillus,
toxoplasma - and sometimes even HIV. It is consistent with this view
that HIV viremia is observed more often in AIDS patients than in
asymptomatic carriers." http://www.duesberg.com/ch6.html (1992)

See also http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=634553959 with relevant
quotes from Duesberg's original dissident paper, whose essential
statements still stand as correct as they did when the paper was
published 13 years ago.

John

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to

Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

>
>


> If you can provide the studies that going as fast as 30 mph in an
> automobile is not so unnatural that it will ruin your health. That
> listening to recorded music will eventually cause more brain disease in
> old age. That watching those flickering movies leads children to have
> more seizures than they did in the days before the motion picture
> projector. That your computer won't give you leukemia (prove it
> won't). One can always play hysteric before the prospect of a new
> technology. It's easy. But the rest of us would rather have progress.
> So would you, apparently, writing on your computer and posting to
> usenet. If you held all new things to the standards that you do
> advances in medicine, you'd have to be Amish. But here you are, a
> selective Luddite on the nets. Hypocrite.

Great spiel. No studies on measles then.

John

relative truth

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
| = Steven B. Harris
|| = Roger Schlafly
||| = Steven B. Harris

||| If Duesberg is not a crackpot, what do you call a crackpot?
||
|| He is not a crackpot because he has substantial scientific
|| accomplishments,

|| Crackpots can be identified by those who give nonsensical


|| arguments.
|
| Correct. That's Duesberg.

Incorrect, Duesberg is one of greatest scientists of our time
whereas you, Steven B. Harris, are primarily only a propagator
of disinformation.

Are you so naive, Steven, or are you so stupid, or are you
paid for lying on the internet in the same way as several
scientists are paid for spreading lies in peer reviewed journals
and as several public relation firms are paid for spreading
lies in the international mass media?

| Example: the life expectancy in South
| Africa has fallen to about 30 for women and 40 for men. This due to a
| huge and unexpected increase in deaths in not only children, but young
| adults. Duesberg says this is malnutrition and other misdiagnosed

| infectious diseases. But it would be the first time these problems
| have preferrentially hit young and healthy people in Africa in the
| reproductive prime. And for some reason, these age-old African problems
| have suddenly hit South Africa and Botwana and so on, without hitting

| the elderly in these countries at all. Now, how likely is that?

What an incredible nonsense! And someone who believes in (or simply
spreads) such lies calls the genuine scientist and logician Duesberg
a crackpot!

See my previous posts on AIDS in Africa:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=638530073
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=646420354
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=648264215
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=649729136

Look at some death rates per 1000 per year of 1999:

Afghanistan: 18.30 U.S. Bureau of the Census
Belarus: 13.96 International Data Base
Bulgaria: 14.72 http://www.census.gov/
Russia: 13.75
Ukraine: 16.41

South Africa: 13.52
Uganda: 18.93

It would be very easy to reduce life expectancy in South Africa
even below 30 or 40 years. HIV prophylaxis (e.g. with AZT) for
the general population independent of HIV-status (HIV tests are
not required in Africa for a diagosis AIDS) would do the job
very efficently.

Read at least the first part of "WITH THERAPIES LIKE THIS, WHO
NEEDS DISEASE?", Bryan Ellison and Peter Duesberg, "Inventing
the AIDS Virus", http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/pdazt.htm

An extract:

"Lindsey remains off AZT and all other toxic drugs. Her healthy
growth pattern continues, she suffers no unusual diseases, and
she is developing normally. Two years after suffering from AZT­-
induced leg cramps in 1994, she became a budding star in a local
ballet school. And on October 15, 1995, Lindsey celebrated her
fifth birthday-with HIV and without AZT-in excellent health.
According to public health officials, she should already have
died of AIDS because babies with HIV are supposed to survive
only about two years."

| There isn't anything nonsensical per se about an epidemic of
| unrecognized malnutrition that suddenly hits some African country, but
| misses the elderly and has a predilection for people who have the most
| sex. Hey, it could happen. In some science fiction world. But not
| here on Earth.

Could someone from South Africa comment on the alleged "fact"
that "people who have the most sex" are dying off like flies?

Cheers, Wolfgang

tim gueguen

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to

relative truth <z...@lol.li> wrote in message
news:8mrr69$bh$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net...

> | = Steven B. Harris
> || = Roger Schlafly
> ||| = Steven B. Harris
>
> ||| If Duesberg is not a crackpot, what do you call a crackpot?
> ||
> || He is not a crackpot because he has substantial scientific
> || accomplishments,
>
> || Crackpots can be identified by those who give nonsensical
> || arguments.
> |
> | Correct. That's Duesberg.
>
> Incorrect, Duesberg is one of greatest scientists of our time
> whereas you, Steven B. Harris, are primarily only a propagator
> of disinformation.
>
> Are you so naive, Steven, or are you so stupid, or are you
> paid for lying on the internet in the same way as several
> scientists are paid for spreading lies in peer reviewed journals
> and as several public relation firms are paid for spreading
> lies in the international mass media?
>
By falling back on conspiracy theory you've greatly reduced any possibility
anyone will take your arguments seriously.

tim gueguen 101867

yangda...@my-deja.com

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In article <8mn3uq$f2h$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"John" <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Just in case anyone thought vaccination wasn't an ongoing experiment.
>
> Scientists don't know how vaccines work
> Source: New Scientist. 27 May 2000.


As I mentioned earlier, it is a fact that, when come to the issue on
virus sickness, medical science knows 'nuts' about it.

Medical science is not even aware that, the 'look' of an aids patient's
eye would change or in another word, the face's features changes
(drastically) more than the changes on the patient's physical body. Why
it is so?

Not only that, simple question like 'why the human's heart is situated
on the leftside of our body and why, during nightfall, the human's
blood tend to be more 'active' in its circulation as compared to
daytime?
If, medical science can't intepret these sort of simple questions, how
could medical science understand exactly (beside those functioning
organs) how a human life exist with surrounding elements.

Funny thing is that, there are medical people, all their life been
preaching (to others) on how to avoid getting cancer (don't do this,
don't do that) and at the end of the day, they (these medical people)
themselves died from cancer. What's a joke!!!!

Danny Yang
The 'modern-day Medicine-man

>
> Researchers developing an AIDS vaccine have admitted that they don't
know
> how vaccines work. They claim that a misconception of how they work is
> hindering the quest for the new vaccine, and that no one has bothered
to
> find out how vaccines like polio, measles, and hepatitis B actually
protect
> people from disease.
> "I'm amazed by the amount of basic science we don't know", said
Philippe
> Kourilsky, director of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, "We've had many
> successful vaccines over the past decades but we've missed a chance
to see
> how these vaccines work." The assumption that vaccines work by simply
> producing antibodies is wrong.
> Ron Montelaro of the University of Pittsburgh has been studying a
HIVrelated
> virus in horses, known as Equine Infectious Anaemia Virus, and has
found
> that the vaccinated horses die quicker than the unvaccinated horses.
> Montelaro has suggested that. the stimulation of antibodies may
actually
> help pull virus particles into the cells they are trying to protect.
> "It's an issue people haven't wanted to think about, but we might
have to."

yangda...@my-deja.com

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to

Nick Bennett

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to

On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 baj...@my-deja.com wrote:

> "The most formidable barrier to the advancement of science is the
> conventional wisdom of the dominate group".

One of my favourite quotes is along the same lines.

"....paradoxically it is much easier for people to adapt the observed
facts...than to renounce the ruling paradigm in response to possible new
interpretations of the facts." Carlo M. Cipolla Public health and the
environment in the pre-industrial age. p6
Yale University Press. 1992

And yet I do not believe this to apply to AIDS/HIV research, despite the
best efforts of dissident scientists to convince me otherwise. Their
arguments have no substance.

(yes, this was cut and pasted from an old posting, it's not deja vue,
merely Deja News :oD )

Bennett


Nick Bennett

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to

On 9 Aug 2000, relative truth wrote:

Quoting from Duesberg...

>
> "Viremia initiated from a previously suppressed virus and observed
> years after infection is a classical consequence, rather than the
> cause of immunodeficiency. Indeed, many normally latent parasites
> become activated and may cause chronic "opportunistic infections"
> in immunodeficient persons, as for example Candida, Pneumocystis,
> herpes virus, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis virus, tuberculosis bacillus,
> toxoplasma - and sometimes even HIV. It is consistent with this view
> that HIV viremia is observed more often in AIDS patients than in
> asymptomatic carriers." http://www.duesberg.com/ch6.html (1992)

However, this fails to explain why the level of pre-AIDS viremia (and
indeed the level of pre-AIDS proviral load) predicts the rate of
progression to AIDS and the decline of CD4 cells. There's little doubt
that as the immune system fails, the control of HIV wanes and there is a
viscious circle of damage and loss of immune control, but it does seem as
though the level of virus activity precedes the immune damage.

Duesberg is right in saying it's a "classical" series of events, but that
does not make it impossible - to argue from such a premise is silly, at
least not without reference to other factors. Duesberg tries to construct
an argument using various factors, but not all are even true, never mind
strong enough to build (or destroy) a theory.

Cheers

Bennett


Nick Bennett

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to

On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, relative truth wrote:

> | = Steven B. Harris

> | Example: the life expectancy in South
> | Africa has fallen to about 30 for women and 40 for men.

<snip>

> What an incredible nonsense! And someone who believes in (or simply
> spreads) such lies calls the genuine scientist and logician Duesberg
> a crackpot!
>

Wolfgang - these are WHO figures. They're as true as anything you read
about health anywhere on the planet.

<snip>


> It would be very easy to reduce life expectancy in South Africa
> even below 30 or 40 years. HIV prophylaxis (e.g. with AZT) for
> the general population independent of HIV-status (HIV tests are
> not required in Africa for a diagosis AIDS) would do the job
> very efficently.

LOL! The whole trouble with SA is that the drugs aren't getting used to
prevent transmission, never mind treat those who are infected.

>
> Read at least the first part of "WITH THERAPIES LIKE THIS, WHO
> NEEDS DISEASE?", Bryan Ellison and Peter Duesberg, "Inventing
> the AIDS Virus", http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/pdazt.htm
>
> An extract:
>
> "Lindsey remains off AZT and all other toxic drugs. Her healthy
> growth pattern continues, she suffers no unusual diseases, and
> she is developing normally. Two years after suffering from AZT­-
> induced leg cramps in 1994, she became a budding star in a local
> ballet school. And on October 15, 1995, Lindsey celebrated her
> fifth birthday-with HIV and without AZT-in excellent health.
> According to public health officials, she should already have
> died of AIDS because babies with HIV are supposed to survive
> only about two years."

Err....no. The average life expectancy may be about 2 years, but that
means that half life less and half life more. Very very few, as I recall,
reach the age of six. I'd be interested in a follow up of young Lindsey,
on her 10th birthday this year............

>
> Could someone from South Africa comment on the alleged "fact"
> that "people who have the most sex" are dying off like flies?

I believe we may in fact have a resident from SA reading this NG...so
maybe you'll get an answer. Moira?

Bennett


David Wright

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In article <39912F5B...@my-dejanews.com>,

Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>"Steven B. Harris" wrote:
>> However, there's no direct proof that Tyranosaurs ate meat, either.
>
>Someone who published a theory challenging that hypothesis would
>not be attacked the way Duesberg and Mullis have been.

No, they'd just be laughed at. Then ignored. But the eating habits
of T. rex do not affect the health of today's humans.

>Duesberg has his own theories. If he is wrong, they ought to just
>prove him wrong.

No, if he's right, then he ought to prove himself right, including
addressing all the counter-evidence. That's how it works. The
proponent of the theory has to address the objections; it's not up to
the opponents to do his work for him.

David Wright

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 17:17:00 -0700, Roger Schlafly

>> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Steven B. Harris" wrote:
>> >> If Duesberg is not a crackpot, what do you call a crackpot?
>> >
>> >He is not a crackpot because he has substantial scientific
>> >accomplishments, and because he had logically valid and defensible
>> >reasons for expressing skepticism about the convention wisdom.
>>
>> Only if you believe his crackpot reasonings for expressing scepticism
>> with the conventional wisdom.
>
>"The most formidable barrier to the advancement of science is the
>conventional wisdom of the dominate group".

The conventional wisdom isn't always wrong. Duesberg is proposing
quite a radical notion. That requires a lot of evidence, and he's not
been supplying it.

David Wright

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
In article <8mr374$9ec$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,

John <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>We have been eating for millions of years (unless you are an atheist)

What does being an atheist have to do with it? Did you mean
creationist?

>so we know what foods we are meant to eat.

We aren't "meant" to eat any of them. We have some things we can eat
and others we can't, and others that only some people can eat.

>If you can provide the studies to show
>measles isn't a necessary process for the child to go through.

Studies are not necessary, John. Millions of people across millennia
lived in regions where measles did not not exist. The claim that
"measles is necessary" is obviously nonsensical -- otherwise, those
measles-free people would have died. And guess what!!?? A lot of
them *did* die when measles arrived. Tell me again how "necessary"
all this was.

Robert S. Holzman

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to

Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> "Steven B. Harris" wrote:

> > Correct. That's Duesberg. Example: the life expectancy in South


> > Africa has fallen to about 30 for women and 40 for men. This due to a
> > huge and unexpected increase in deaths in not only children, but young
> > adults. Duesberg says this is malnutrition and other misdiagnosed

> > infectious diseases. ... Now, how likely is that?
>
> Not likely. But usually when crackpots write about a technical
> subject, they usually expose themselves by saying stuff that is
> just out-and-out nutty.
>
> I haven't followed this controversy in detail, but I look at
> sites like this, and what he says does not look nutty to me.
> http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/whistleblowers.htm#pd
>
> Eg, is this nutty?
>
> "If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific
> documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact,
> at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
> Dr. Kary Mullis, biochemist, 1993 Nobel prize for chemistry
>

yes, that is nutty. for starters "no such document" is singular
where in the prior sentence he allows for multiple documents.
Multiple
documents, inlcuding long term followup of infected persons and
experimental
data do demonstrate it. Read any standard textbook for
references, don't come back here for them.


> (Of course the lack of such documents might only show that the
> researchers were sloppy.)

No, only that the author of the quote was.

D. C. & M. V. Sessions

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
yangda...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Not only that, simple question like 'why the human's heart is situated
> on the leftside of our body

You need to update your examples. The mechanism of bilateral
assymetry are discussed in quite fascinating detail in Scientific
American about a year ago.

Jeffrey Peter, M.D.

unread,
Aug 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/10/00
to
In article <8mq0gv$fpd$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"John" <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <Jeffrey Peter>; M.D. <dr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8mou5r$s75
>
> > Vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective. In that sense
they
> > are not experiements.

>
> That is false for starters, and if you don't know fully how the immune
> system works how can you say vaccines are not an experiment?
>
> John
>

This is no system, human or otherwsie, which we know nothing about.
Vaccines have eliminated polio and smallpox from the western world.
They have elimnated measles as an endogenous disease in the US
(although it is still imported). We certainly do not know everything
about how vaccines work. Never will. But we know they work.

> "Data also suggests that the diseases of childhood are necessary for
> appropriate development, maturation and function of the individual
immune
> and nervous systems.... Furthermore, progress in the field of
> psychoneuroendocrinimmunology, has led some researchers to conclude
that
> vaccines in general may not only be impacting negatively on the human
immune
> system, but may also be adversely effecting the neurologic and
psychologic
> development and function of the vaccine recipient. The impact of
artificial
> immunity on immune, neurologic, endocrine, and psychologic systems
has not
> been scientifically elucidated."--- Stephen C. Marini, MS., D.C.,
Ph.D.
>

Maybe. Key word. How about proof? Some nice peer-reviewed articles
would be nice. As for the neurological development, unless there is an
unusual adverse reaction, of which there are few, the immune system
rarely interacts with the brain and spinal cord because of the blood
brain barrier. Try reading a neuroscience text book like Kandel's
Principles of Neuroscience.

jeff

Jeffrey Peter, M.D.

unread,
Aug 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/10/00
to
In article <8mr374$9ec$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"John" <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> > >That is false for starters, and if you don't know fully how the
immune
> > >system works how can you say vaccines are not an experiment?
> > >
> > >John
> >
> >
> > If you can't say what the precise effect is, of every different
kind
> > of food and combination of food, on your health, how can you say
that
> > *lunch* isn't an experiment?
>
> We have been eating for millions of years (unless you are an atheist)
so we
> know what foods we are meant to eat. If you can provide the studies

to show
> measles isn't a necessary process for the child to go through.
>

Why would it be necessary for people to have measles? It is necessary
that people eat, go to the bathroom, breath and sleep. However, I know
of nothing that suggests that people must have measles. Almost every
kid now didn't and most are doing well.

If you have any real references that show that kids should get measles,
I would love to see them. Thanks.

jeff

> John
>
> "I would challenge any colleague, clinician or research scientist to
claim
> that we have a basic understanding of the human newborn immune
system. It
> is well established in studies in animal models that the newborn
immune
> system is very distinct from the adolescent or adult. In fact, the
immune
> system of newborns in animal models can easily be perturbed to ensure
that
> it cannot respond properly later in life." ------This testimony was
given
> verbally to the United States Senate on May 12, 1999 by Dr Bonnie
Dunbar,
> Professor of Immunobiology with specialise work in vaccine
development and
> autoimmunity for over 25 years, the past 17 at Baylor College of
Medicine in
> Houston.
>
>

Happy Dog

unread,
Aug 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/10/00
to
<yangda...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ms41v$vr0

> Funny thing is that, there are medical people, all their life been
> preaching (to others) on how to avoid getting cancer (don't do this,
> don't do that) and at the end of the day, they (these medical people)
> themselves died from cancer. What's a joke!!!!

What's a silly observation. Are you suggesting that, until doctors can
promise immortality, they should be silent?

> Danny Yang
> The 'modern-day Medicine-man

Sad, but true.
erf

Steven B. Harris

unread,
Aug 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/10/00
to
In <39912F5B...@my-dejanews.com> Roger Schlafly

<roger...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
>
>"Steven B. Harris" wrote:
>> However, there's no direct proof that Tyranosaurs ate meat, either.
>
>Someone who published a theory challenging that hypothesis would
>not be attacked the way Duesberg and Mullis have been.


That's because it doesn't mean any lives either way.


>Duesberg has his own theories. If he is wrong, they ought to just
>prove him wrong.

We've offered to shoot him and Mullis up with pure molecularly
cloned HIV cDNA. They've declined. Duesberg is a retrovirologist--
he's long had access to the technology to infect himself with this
virus which he says is harmless, and show that his immune system is
fine, 5 and even 7 years later. He hasn't done it.


Steven B. Harris

unread,
Aug 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/10/00
to
In <8mrr8m$1mm$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> "John"

<wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
>>
>>


That is correct. No lifetime studies on measles. Also, none on
using a computer, watching television, using a celphone, or even any
prospective randomized study of effects of the electric fields
resulting from having your house wired for electricity. Golly.

Do you live in a log cabin, John? I know you use electricity, since
you post to the net. Perhaps from the outhouse? Did I miss your rant
that we should ditch these newfangled inventions of Mr. Edison until we
know more?

Steven B. Harris

unread,
Aug 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/10/00
to
In <8mrr69$bh$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net> "relative truth" <z...@lol.li> writes:

>
>Incorrect, Duesberg is one of greatest scientists of our time
>whereas you, Steven B. Harris, are primarily only a propagator
>of disinformation.
>
>Are you so naive, Steven, or are you so stupid, or are you
>paid for lying on the internet in the same way as several
>scientists are paid for spreading lies in peer reviewed journals
>and as several public relation firms are paid for spreading
>lies in the international mass media?


Yeah, right. The establishment pays me to lie about HIV on the
nets. I'm paid so well I'm having difficulty keeping my 82 Volvo in
working order...


>
>| Example: the life expectancy in South
>| Africa has fallen to about 30 for women and 40 for men. This due to
a
>| huge and unexpected increase in deaths in not only children, but
young
>| adults. Duesberg says this is malnutrition and other misdiagnosed

>| infectious diseases. But it would be the first time these problems
>| have preferrentially hit young and healthy people in Africa in the
>| reproductive prime. And for some reason, these age-old African
problems
>| have suddenly hit South Africa and Botwana and so on, without
hitting

>| the elderly in these countries at all. Now, how likely is that?


>
>What an incredible nonsense! And someone who believes in (or simply
>spreads) such lies calls the genuine scientist and logician Duesberg
>a crackpot!
>

>See my previous posts on AIDS in Africa:
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=638530073
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=646420354
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=648264215
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=649729136
>
>Look at some death rates per 1000 per year of 1999:
>
> Afghanistan: 18.30 U.S. Bureau of the Census
> Belarus: 13.96 International Data Base
> Bulgaria: 14.72 http://www.census.gov/
> Russia: 13.75
> Ukraine: 16.41
>
> South Africa: 13.52
> Uganda: 18.93


None of which mean much without an population age-structure factor,
which is why "life-expectancy" is so useful (it takes into acount
age-adjusted mortality). For an example of how crude death rates are
misleading, in a stable ZPG society where every single citizen makes it
to 100, then dies, the death rate would still be 1% per year = 10 per
1000 (about that of the US right now). Hopefully this illustrates how
inadequate such a figure is for the purposes we're talking about.


>It would be very easy to reduce life expectancy in South Africa
>even below 30 or 40 years. HIV prophylaxis (e.g. with AZT) for
>the general population independent of HIV-status (HIV tests are
>not required in Africa for a diagosis AIDS) would do the job
>very efficently.

But there is no such general prophylaxis in South Africa, so this
comment is irrelevent.

AIDS is not due to AZT. If it was, the Concorde study of AZT would
have shown more AIDS in the AZT early-treatment group than the delayed
group. It didn't. Indeed, the group which delayed AZT until they had
very low lymphocyte counts (immune deficiency) or clinical AIDS, would
hardly have ever needed to start AZT at all, since these things would
have happened to them with much decreased frequency (according to
Duesberg's ideas). Alas, reality showed otherwise.


>
>Read at least the first part of "WITH THERAPIES LIKE THIS, WHO
>NEEDS DISEASE?", Bryan Ellison and Peter Duesberg, "Inventing
>the AIDS Virus", http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/pdazt.htm
>
>An extract:
>
> "Lindsey remains off AZT and all other toxic drugs. Her healthy
> growth pattern continues, she suffers no unusual diseases, and
> she is developing normally. Two years after suffering from AZT­-
> induced leg cramps in 1994, she became a budding star in a local
> ballet school. And on October 15, 1995, Lindsey celebrated her
> fifth birthday-with HIV and without AZT-in excellent health.
> According to public health officials, she should already have
> died of AIDS because babies with HIV are supposed to survive
> only about two years."


It's been 5 years since this was written, and there is an ominous
silence about little Lindsey in A.D. 2000. How come? I would have
expected Duesberg to be tracking frenetically, posting her lyphocyte
counts off AZT, and crowing at every developmental milestone. Her
parents, too, since they used the case to great public hurrah at the
time. But all have dropped out of sight. Very strange, methinks.

I have a special interest in this case, because I tangled with
Lindsey's mother in public, on the nets, in 1994. She'd chosen to make
the case public, and use it to show how the medical establishment was
completely wrong about HIV. So where are you now, Ms. Nagel? Show up
and use little 10 year-old Lindsey's health to show how wrong we all
were. I'm here, where are you?

John

unread,
Aug 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/10/00