With all respect due to Duesberg, Mullis, etc. In my opinion these guys are quite probably barking up the wrong tree. I am not saying that Duesberg
shouldn't be free to do his research and test his own hypothesis, but other scientists shouldn't be criticized for pursuing what they believe to be
a valid hypothesis.
I wrote that there should at be a paper that proves it AT LEAST TO A HIGH PROBABILITY. But there is no such paper.
I wonder if you have personally searched pubmed re: this issue. I am certainly aware that Duesberg doesn't believe that HIV causes AIDS, but have
Darby SC, Ewart DW, Giangrande PLF, Dolin PJ, et al. Mortality before and after HIV infection in the complete UK population of hemophiliacs. Nature
1995; 377: 792-8.
Reitz MS Jr, Hall L, Robert-Guroff M, et al. Viral variability and serum antibody response in a laboratory worker infected with HIV-1 (HTLV-IIIB).
AIDS 1994; 10: 1143-55.
Palca J. The case of the Florida dentist. Science 1992; 255: 392-4.
Ou CY, Ciesielski CA, Myers G, Bandea CI, Luo CC, et al. Molecular epidemiology of HIV transmission in a dental practice. Science 1992; 256:
Hillis DM, Huelsenbeck J. Support for dental HIV transmission. Nature 1994; 369: 24-5?
How about these:
Smith TF, Waterman MS. The continuing case of the Florida dentist. Science 1992; 256: 1155-6.
DeBry RW, Abele LG, Weiss SH, Hill MD, et al. Dental HIV transmission? Nature 1993; 361: 691.
I would take a look at these refs. before I wholeheartedly supported Duesbergs hypothesis.
As far as hypothersising goes you are right but the point is that scientists also attempt to prove their hypothersese wrong. This hasnt been
Scientists, ideally, neither attempt to prove or disprove ANY hypothesis, it's a matter of TESTING certain hypotheses and moving on. Hypotheses
surrounding HIV as the cause of AIDS have been tested to the satisfaction of many, if not most scientists within the field. Admittedly, consensus
opinion does not make something correct, but needs to be considered.
This is true. My objection however is that these hypotherses are presented as fact to the general population. For instance an earlier poster
said 'I cant beleive people are still arguing that HIV dosnt cause AIDS. Its common knowladge' He wasnt aware that its a hypothersis.
I sympathize with you 100% on this particular point. I would beg to differ with you however, the overwhelming amount of evidence suggests that HIV is
in fact the cause of AIDS. There may be isolated pieces of evidence that argue otherwise. Admittedly, I myself have not performed an exhaustive
literature search on the topic in quite some time, however if you know of some cases, I would be happy to discuss them here with you in this forum.
Only if those who fund the research see fit and not in this case it would appear
This is admittedly a problem with science, but it's not limited to HIV and AIDS. For example, changes in diet, lifestyle, etc. have been hypothesized
with good reason to affect cancer incidence and mortality. However these projects get almost no funding. Why not? Because molecular funding is
currently what's 'in.' This bias pervades every level of biological research funding I am aware of. Certain ideas, concepts, technologies are
promoted and funded more heavily than others. What can you do? If you've got a solution, I've got some colleagues who'd love to hear it. People
that fund research have a limited amount of funds that they have to distribute in the manner in which they perceive the most potential for success. In
a world of unlimited funds, Duesberg probably would be able to get funding. It's not like this whole thing started out as a vendetta against
Duesberg, even though he percieved it that way.
You can prove things to a greater or lesser extent. i.e. to a lower or higher probability. The HIV hypothersis has not been proven to a high
Please see my above refs. and get back to me. What is this burden of proof that you require?
Money is the simple reason. The AIDS 'establishment' (those working on the premmise that HIV causes AIDS get all the cash for research.
That is the point of the sites like duesbugs - to reinvestigate the initial hypothersis.
Sigh.... Yes this is true, but it's not like its a conspiracy. To imply that the scientists working on these problems don't actually care about the
problem, but only the money is quite frankly, insulting. For a scientist to prove or discover that HIV doesn't cause AIDS would be a
'career-maker.' They aren't evil people trying to hide this information. Do you know any scientists doing HIV research? I know plenty. Yes they
want their research to get funded. Why? Because they believe it's important, and they believe it can help people. Furthermore the progress that has
been made as a result of HIV research in other related areas in undeniable. Research on HIV has spawned new classes of anti-viral drugs, a much better
understanding of viral genomics and viral mechanisms, and lots of other stuff I am either not mentioning or am unaware of. Even if scientists are
barking up the wrong tree, people ARE benefiting from the knowledge, and according to the literature people with HIV are benefiting from the