Mod+ 273. DR. HENRY BAUER, DOGMATIC SCIENCE WRONG ABOUT HIV-AIDS CONNECTION

You know what, delete my account, whatever this forum was meant to be, it's long gone, it should have been put down like a sick dog a long time ago. The fact that AIDS denial gets any airtime at all is a pretty good indication of this.
Where's the denial? The argument is that HIV-AIDS dissidents' arguments ought to be taken seriously. You're confusing denial with healthy scepticism. I'm still waiting for a straight answer to my question about the provenance of the image posted here claiming to be a picture from 1985 of HIV-1. If you can point me to the paper, I'm perfectly prepared to accept it if it actually depicts HIV-1 and shows the virus was isolated and purified from infected tissue.
 
That works in reverse too, right? For parapsychology?
Precisely so! Parapsychologists point to evidence that mainstream science would rather forget about - evidence that something is radically wrong with the way science views consciousness.

I think the reason issues like the AIDS debate are important here, is that they illustrate very clearly how science has become closed and authoritarian on a whole range of issues. I think science needs a structure that values people with divergent views and debates with such people seriosly. Once you have a a system that excludes mavericks, you risk making the most enormous blunders, and you send the message to upcoming scientists that disagreeing with the 'official' line will wreck your career. Remember the MIT lectures from a professor who takes cold fusion seriously. He started each lecture with a warning - taking cold fusion seriously will seriously damage your career!

David
 
Last edited:
You know what, delete my account, whatever this forum was meant to be, it's long gone, it should have been put down like a sick dog a long time ago. The fact that AIDS denial gets any airtime at all is a pretty good indication of this.
Looks like your account is still active. Could an admin please delete politcaljunkie's account, asap??
 
If anyone is convinced about HIV being the cause of AIDS, please show me a paper where:

1. Sample tissue that contained the HIV virus was taken from a patient with AIDS.
2. Where HIV virus from that sample was isolated and purified, and electronmicrographs taken to prove it.
3. Where the virus from that sample was also used to infect a susceptible uninfected host tissue sample: i.e. where "before" EM pictures showed no HIV was present, and "after" EM pictures showed HIV proliferation.

Even that wouldn't be definitive: it doesn't prove that HIV causes the actual symptoms of AIDS, many of which are known to be caused by pre-existing pathogens; but nonetheless, it would go some way towards assuaging my doubts.

Can anyone do that? If you can, please provide the reference.
 
If anyone is convinced about HIV being the cause of AIDS, please show me a paper where:

1. Sample tissue that contained the HIV virus was taken from a patient with AIDS.
2. Where HIV virus from that sample was isolated and purified, and electronmicrographs taken to prove it.
3. Where the virus from that sample was also used to infect a susceptible uninfected host tissue sample: i.e. where "before" EM pictures showed no HIV was present, and "after" EM pictures showed HIV proliferation.

Even that wouldn't be definitive: it doesn't prove that HIV causes the actual symptoms of AIDS, many of which are known to be caused by pre-existing pathogens; but nonetheless, it would go some way towards assuaging my doubts.

Can anyone do that? If you can, please provide the reference.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/howhivcausesaids/pages/hivcausesaids.aspx

HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS.
 
If anyone is convinced about HIV being the cause of AIDS, please show me a paper where:

1. Sample tissue that contained the HIV virus was taken from a patient with AIDS.
2. Where HIV virus from that sample was isolated and purified, and electronmicrographs taken to prove it.
3. Where the virus from that sample was also used to infect a susceptible uninfected host tissue sample: i.e. where "before" EM pictures showed no HIV was present, and "after" EM pictures showed HIV proliferation.

Even that wouldn't be definitive: it doesn't prove that HIV causes the actual symptoms of AIDS, many of which are known to be caused by pre-existing pathogens; but nonetheless, it would go some way towards assuaging my doubts.

Can anyone do that? If you can, please provide the reference.
Michael, please debunk the image here. Not with an opinion, or an article, or a link to the Perth Group's page. But with a scientific paper.
http://phil.cdc.gov/phil/details.asp?pid=948

Actually, you have me on ignore so you won't see this post. So anyone else please take a crack at debunking this exact image with a scientific paper.
 
That isn't a scientific paper - it is an editorial, if you like! ML is asking for an original research paper.

David
What an odd thing to say. That piece is (extraordinarily well) backed up by references to scientific papers throughout.

The "editorial" lays out how converging lines of evidence strongly suggest that HIV leads to AIDS. These are the points that need to be addressed by those who see a different causal factor.
 
What an odd thing to say. That piece is (extraordinarily well) backed up by references to scientific papers throughout.

The "editorial" lays out how converging lines of evidence strongly suggest that HIV leads to AIDS. These are the points that need to be addressed by those who see a different causal factor.
No, converging lines of evidence don't matter. Someone needs to prove with a scientific paper that what what Dr. Eleni Papadopulos said in that interview from 1997 about the isolation and purification is wrong. That's the only thing.
 
No, converging lines of evidence don't matter. Someone needs to prove with a scientific paper that what what Dr. Eleni Papadopulos said in that interview from 1997 about the isolation and purification is wrong. That's the only thing.

I can't access the full paper and probably wouldn't understand it if I did but when I google isolation and purification of HIV I get this paper:

Purification of HIV-1 virions by subtilisin digestion or CD45 immunoaffinity depletion for biochemical studies.

Is this what people are looking for? Abstract:

The presence of cellular proteins outside and inside retroviruses can indicate the roles they play in viral biology. However, experiments examining retroviruses can be complicated by the contamination of even highly purified virion preparations with nonviral particles (either microvesicles or exosomes). Two useful methods have been developed that can remove contaminating particles from virus stocks to produce highly pure virus preparations. One approach, the subtilisin digestion procedure, enzymatically removes the proteins outside the virions. While this method is well suited for the analysis of the interior proteins in the virions, it removes the extracellular domains of the integral membrane proteins on the virion. To preserve the proteins on the exterior of the virion for biochemical studies, a CD45 immunoaffinity depletion procedure that removes vesicles by capture with antibody-linked microbeads is employed. These methods allow for the isolation of highly purified virion preparations that are suitable for a wide variety of experiments, including the biochemical characterization of cellular proteins both on and in HIV virions, examination of virion/cell interactions, and imaging of virions.
 
What an odd thing to say. That piece is (extraordinarily well) backed up by references to scientific papers throughout.

The "editorial" lays out how converging lines of evidence strongly suggest that HIV leads to AIDS. These are the points that need to be addressed by those who see a different causal factor.
Clearly the evidence doesn't count unless it's in a journal with a fancy title.
 
Where's the denial? The argument is that HIV-AIDS dissidents' arguments ought to be taken seriously. You're confusing denial with healthy scepticism. I'm still waiting for a straight answer to my question about the provenance of the image posted here claiming to be a picture from 1985 of HIV-1. If you can point me to the paper, I'm perfectly prepared to accept it if it actually depicts HIV-1 and shows the virus was isolated and purified from infected tissue.
It is not healthy skepticism. It is dangerous nonsense. You liken Bauer and Deusberg to pioneers. They are not. The latter worked with Mbeki, this is well known, as is Mbeki's mistrust of western science, which to some extend is understandable given the events of the previous decades. The South African government consequently prevented people getting treatment, and As a 100s of thousands died. Before you start citing that (retracted) paper by Deusberg, I will reiterate that South African statistics can be incredibly unreliable. Coupled with the fact that Deusberg was an advisor to the president, and the president enabled his views, that (retracted) paper has an enormous conflict of interest problem. In essence, Deusberg was bigging up his mate Mbeki. If you also want a demonstration that HIV leads to AIDS and is deadly, this article demonstrating that deniers die of it is pretty revealing.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/feb/21/death-denial-hiv-aids
 
Top