Reece
Member
This took me quite by surprise.Here's the latest video (2013) about the controversy:
Make up your own mind.
This took me quite by surprise.Here's the latest video (2013) about the controversy:
Make up your own mind.
Sure. That, more or less, is what I thought about several things he said. But then after watching the video Michael posted, I'm forced to seriously question the orthodoxy.Obviously these would have to be looked at in detail to see what sense they made. For example, the first one, about pregnancy, apparently means not that pregnancy is a risk factor for acquiring the disease, but that pregnancy correlates with the likelihood of a false-positive test for the virus. What could that possibly tell us about whether the virus causes the disease?
Sure. That, more or less, is what I thought about several things he said. But then after watching the video Michael posted, I'm forced to seriously question the orthodoxy.
Have you seen it?
The point is that the alternative views that Bauer and other prominent scientists absolutely need to be argued out at conferences - not dismissed with talk of "Deniers". Here is a quote from another 'AIDS denier' and Nobel Prize winner, Kary Mullis:Perhaps it would be pertinent to ask whether anyone here feels they know enough to defend his theory (whatever his theory is - I listened to quite a bit of the podcast, which seemed to cover his beliefs on AIDS, and it didn't include a theory, only some questions about a couple of epidemiological statistics, which might have any number of reasonable answers).
In 1988 I was working as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, CA, setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why they hired me.
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), on the other hand, was something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when I found myself writing a report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, I recognized that I did not know the scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and competent fellow, and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I disagreed. While it's true that certain scientific discoveries or techniques are so well established that their sources are no longer referenced in the contemporary literature, that didn't seem to be the case with the HIV/AIDS connection. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten. But as I would soon learn, the name of that individual - who would surely be Nobel material - was on the tip of no one's tongue.
Of course, this simple reference had to be out there somewhere. Otherwise, tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many callings, trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of homosexual and/or intravenous (IV) drug-using men between the ages of twenty-five and forty, would not have allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investigation. Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond unless it was well established that all the other ponds were empty. There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.
I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you can miss something important in computer searches by not putting in just the right key words. To be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask other scientists directly. That's one thing that scientific conferences in faraway places with nice beaches are for.
I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.
Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and AIDS research, DL Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him.
With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control? "
I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"
"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.
"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" the good doctor offered.
"I read that too, DL Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS.
This time, DL Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room.
Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from Mendocino to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more about AIDS than I wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined that it was caused by HIV. Getting sleepy as I came over the San Bernardino Mountains, I switched on the radio and tuned in a guy who was talking about AIDS. His name was Peter Duesberg, and he was a prominent virologist at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his papers or heard him speak. But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained exactly why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren't any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. When I got home, I invited Duesberg down to San Diego to present his ideas to a meeting of the American Association for Chemistry. Mostly skeptical at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then an hour of questions, and then stayed talking to each other until requested to clear the room. Everyone left with more questions than they had brought.
I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS.
We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.
We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint other than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug for any reason.
We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.
I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time.
The point is that the alternative views that Bauer and other prominent scientists absolutely need to be argued out at conferences - not dismissed with talk of "Deniers".
Sorry - I just don't have the time to sit through a video of an hour and a half.
But if you can't evaluate the strength of their arguments, what can be your basis for saying they should be discussed at conferences?
Did you listen to the podcast? Did you get the point that at least two senior scientists were just cold shouldered when they began to question if HIV caused AIDS. Did you read the statement by Kary Mullis that I posted - he is the guy that got the Nobel Prize for the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR).But if you can't evaluate the strength of their arguments, what can be your basis for saying they should be discussed at conferences?
Comment as much as you like - but wouldn't it help to first understand what Bauer is saying?Michael
That's just a bit too easy, isn't it? You do see that someone on the other side could just as easily say to you that you shouldn't be commenting unless you've read/watched/listed to XYZ book/video/podcast pushing the opposite point of view?
However, as this thread is Mod+ I presumably shouldn't be criticising Bauer at all, so I'll stop.
Comment as much as you like - but wouldn't it help to understand what Bauer is saying?
Mod+ isn't meant to suppress sensible discussion. I remember a discussion about Dianne Powell's video in which most of us - myself included - were highly sceptical and critical.Apparently you missed my comment above, where I said that I'm not going to criticise Bauer further here because the thread is Mod+.
If anyone who is convinced by Bauer's arguments would like to explain why on another thread that isn't Mod+ I'd be (mildly) interested.
Mod+ isn't meant to suppress sensible discussion. I remember a discussion about Dianne Powell's video in which most of us - myself included - were highly sceptical and critical.
interesting point... we do tend to glorify past accomplishments.I think I am starting to agree with Alex - that modern science is really running off the rails - it just lives on the glories of the past.
good point. I was watching a clip with one of the twitter founders and was inspired by the vitality/creativity... seemed so different than the "science" folks I encounter.Only areas that are pinned down by the need to produce a working product can be trusted!
funny... ironic... true.It is so bad that there is no way to tell if Dr. Bauer is right or wrong.
In the original application for clemency submitted on behalf of David Gutierrez shortly after his trial, experts opined that David Gutierrez was, in all likelihood, HIV free and the diagnosis was in error.
I am struck by the fact that AZT is primarily a cancer drug and acts by preventing cell creation. I have no doubt that the drug itself could be responsible for deaths. I watched my husband react to chemotherapy...did much research on the subject...and have come to the conclusion that chemotherapy is simply the pharmaceutical's way to make even more money.
.
Donna Sweet MD received $2.93 million from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) weeks after she testified against her own patient. BMS is the maker of the drug Sustiva, the highly addictive psychotropic ingredient contained in the drug Atripla, which generated $3.57 billion in sales for HIV drug giant Gilead Sciences in 2012. Dr. Sweet prescribed Atripla to her patient despite the fact that Gutierrez had no signs or symptoms of HIV infection. In his press release, attorney Kevin McDermott wrote:
Henry Bauer was mainly talking about science in general, but if you want to understand his HIV != AIDS argument, look here:OK, then if anyone finds Bauer's arguments convincing and wants to explain here. I've already told you I listened to quite a bit of the podcast and didn't hear anything that convinced me, or really anything that qualified as an argument.