At the bottom of this note is an anecdote of a competent individual who was asked to look into the connection between HIV and AIDS. So, he tried to find the original paper or papers that made the connection. He is Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry. As he said:
"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."
Mullis continued to search, but could not find any of the basic papers demonstrating a link between HIV and AIDS. This is no surprise for there aren't any.
If you want additional notes on his search, read the excerpt lower down. For all of it, you can find his story at:
http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.html
I must say, I find a similar "non-connection" between CO2 and Global Warming. Is the connection as stated - or perhaps it's Global Warming that increases CO2? Or perhaps there is no connection either way.
Perhaps, scientists are sure there must be a connection. They have assumed so. But, they also assumed there was a connection between AIDS and HIV. Also a connection between interest rates and recession. And . . . . . ?
I must say, my two little assumptions of the Classical Analysis - self evident observations of human behavior, subject to instant confirmation or rejection - seem mild by comparison.
My assumptions (they aren't really mine) come into play in the AIDS arena. The CDC's needed a new and important virus for their raison d'etre. They were beginning to be considered an unnecessary expense. Also, virologists are just lab technicians until something new and terrifying arrives. AIDS was a godsend to the professionals in the field.
It's also the way for virologists to become stars - a not unnoticed consequence.
So, there have apparently been tens of thousands of papers about AIDS - but not one establishing a connection between HIV and AIDS.
Yet, how many times have you read the mantra: "HIV - the virus that causes AIDS."
You'll note I said that an ordinary disease becomes AIDS if you test HIV positive. It's worse than that. There is evidently still no real definition of AIDS. There is a list of (now) 29 illnesses which are officially an indication of AIDS (including such no-nos as cervical cancer - what in heavens name does this have to do with anything?)
Well, including cervical cancer, tuberculosis, and some others brings heterosexuals into the action. A problem for the AIDS advocates is that it is non-random. You expect anyone and everyone to contract flu, for example. Not so with AIDS which attacks specific easily identified groups.
Why?
However, this isn't so in Africa, where everyone can get it and probably does as Stephen indicates when he tears our hearts with his disaster stories.
From '91 to '99, the continent of Africa generated 75,000 cases of AIDS a year (average from WHO). There is no breakdown into deaths, survival, or recoveries.
The population of the continent is 616 million. Is 75,000 cases in 616 million an epidemic? If you assume that all the 75,000 are deaths and relate them to total African deaths the AIDS deaths are 0.6% of the total.
However, the plot thickens. The HIV testing is poor. False positives abound - indeed, tuberculosis and malaria will give positives without HIV. Zambian doctors have gotten pretty mad when the same person can be tested twice and give opposite results.
That's not all. In South Africa - and perhaps elsewhere - an HIV test is not necessary to diagnose AIDS. (Tell me how the two Classical assumptions apply.)
Just like everywhere else, African AIDS is not defined. There are simply a bunch of diseases which are called AIDS. These include:
weight loss over 10%,
chronic diarrhea for more than a month,
fever for more than a month,
persistent cough,
generalized pruritic dermatitis,
recurrent herpes zoster (shingles),
candidiasis oral and pharyngeal,
chronic or persistent herpes,
cryptococcal meningitis,
Kaposi's sarcoma.
As Peter Duesberg says:
"Since these diseases include the most common diseases in Africa and in much of the rest of the world, it is impossible to distinguish clinically African AIDS diseases from previously known, and concurrently diagnosed, conventional African diseases."
Oh, yes it is. President Clinton told us: " ... spurred by US intelligence reports that looked at the pandemic's broadest consequences, ... particularly Africa ... [he] projected that a quarter of southern Africa's population is likely to die of AIDS ..." (Washington Post, April 30, 2000).
Heaven save us from politicians! As I said, an ordinary everyday disease, when suffered by an HIV positive becomes instant AIDS. Yet, the testing procedure for positives is severely compromised.
Africans don't realize their danger of their extinction. They are breeding like crazy as Steve would no doubt confirm. Population of the whole African continent has grown from 274 million in 1960, to 356 million in 1970, to 469 million in 1980, and to 616 million in 1990 (UN). The relatively small incidence of AIDS cases (whatever they are) is perhaps statistically insignificant (except to President Clinton).
Pete, could your "crippled food production" be caused by something else - say drought, or African politicians, or food aid?
Then, you start getting bitter.
"Besides, they're just black africans, so who cares?" and
"Yes, maybe better to just let them suffer and die without treatment. They'll be gone so much sooner, and then we'll have access to all that land, that they never seemed to know how to put to proper use." and
"We need a fine follow up post here by Dean Swift. I'm too disgusted to try."
As I mentioned - I think to Karen - emotion is good to get you incensed about a wrong. It is effective when you are actively doing something about a wrong. But, in between, you need to think about what must be done. Emotion is not an asset to thinking - as you show.
The fact is, Pete, you've been had. The conn job worked - and you are not alone.
(I've deleted your post, as I've quoted from it. If anyone thinks I may have misquoted Pete, I'll repost with it. The Mullis excerpt is below. Latest about Montagnier is that he might be changing his mind about the "certainty" of HIV/Aids.
Harry
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hopeless Quest (My title) - Kary Mullis (Nobel Laureate)
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------
******************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
*******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002
