It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Everyone knows who's buried in Grant's tomb, and the color of Washington's white horse has long been agreed upon. But tautology collectors beware: Not all redundancies are made equal. Take, for instance, the deceptively simple statement "The AIDS virus causes AIDS."
Of course, 12 years, 100,000 scientific papers and $35 billion later, we can now look back on Gallo's initial follies with the knowledge that, as nearly any AIDS textbook will tell you, there is overwhelming evidence establishing HIV as the cause of AIDS. So overwhelming that the few remaining scientists bold enough to question the causal connection between HIV and AIDS inspire some of the most excoriating criticism in mainstream science today.
Perhaps no one has been more vilified than Professor Peter Duesberg of the University of California, Berkeley—the most outspoken opponent of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.
The scientific journal Nature, for instance, dirtied its hands in an editorial in May 1993 stating it would continue to publish attacks on Duesberg, but Nature said it considered itself under no obligation to print his responses. As Nature's editor later wrote: "The sad truth about debates on controversial issues in science is that there may come a point at which dissenters forfeit the right to make claims on other people's time and trouble by the poverty of their arguments and the exasperation they have caused."
Universal consensus being one of the greatest enemies to scientific progress, what is so dangerous about Duesberg's ideas that they must be prevented from appearing in the very forums where they belong?
Originally posted by jollyjollyjolly
AIDS/HIV/Whatever you want to call it was around in the 1940's and 50's. They have found it in sailors cryogenic frozen blood samples from WWII.
The disease was first reported by Tomisaku Kawasaki in a four-year-old child with a rash and fever at the Red Cross Hospital in Tokyo, Japan in January 1961, and later published a report on 50 similar cases. Later Kawasaki and colleagues were persuaded that there is definite cardiac involvement when they studied and reported 23 cases, of which 11(48%) patients had abnormalities detected by an electrocardiogram. It was not until 1974 that the first description of this disorder was published in the English language literature. in the year 1976 Melish et al., described the same illness in 16 children in Hawaii. Melish and Kawasaki had independently developed the same diagnostic criteria for the disorder, which are still used today to make the diagnosis of classic KD.
A question was raised whether the disease only started during the period between 1960 and 1970, but later a preserved heart of a 7 year old boy who died in 1870 was examined and showed three aneurysms of the coronary arteries with clots, as well as pathologic changes consistent with KD. KD is now recognized worldwide. In the United States and other developed nations, it appears to have replaced acute rheumatic fever as the most common cause of acquired heart disease in children.
A South African court has banned a team of scientists and doctors, including a former adviser to President Thabo Mbeki, from conducting unauthorised clinical trials into the use of vitamin therapies to treat Aids.
German doctor Matthias Rath and American biochemist David Rasnick, who used to sit on Mbeki's Aids advisory council, were among 12 people accused in the Cape high court of supervising illegal medical trials in black townships and selling unregistered vitamin supplements to poor Aids sufferers. The suit was brought by the South African Medical Association and the Treatment Action Campaign lobby group, which said some of Rath's patients died after relying on his unproven remedies rather than seeking conventional treatment at state-run clinics.
...they suddenly and finally left SA, after an estimated 300 000 people died needlessly from AIDS
In an ideal world this would be only a thought experiment. AIDS is the opposite of anecdote. Twenty-five million people have died from it already, three million in the last year alone, and 500,000 of those deaths were children. In South Africa it kills 300,000 people every year:
That the reviewer for JAIDS as well as these later five reviewers wish to remain anonymous may be understandable when it is realized that none of the six reviews even mentions the central point made by Duesberg et al. (I am one of those co-authors): the central point that Chigwedere et al. relied on computer models that estimated AIDS deaths at around 300,000 per year whereas the official South African Statistics agency reported about 12,000-15,000 on the basis of actual death certificates. Lehohla, the South Africa Statistics Director, has explained in detail why the computer model's estimate cannot be accepted, since it incorporates some very unlikely assumptions unsupported by independent evidence, for example, about the numbers of deaths of young adults from violence. It is extraordinarily unlikely that the actual AIDS deaths should exceed the death certificate data by a factor of 20 or 25, given that UNAIDS among other authorities acknowledges that the reporting system in South Africa is reasonably reliable; and that it is fiscally advantageous to African communities to place estimates of damage from AIDS as high as possible. Nearly a decade ago, the South African journalist Rian Malan had already pointed out that there was no evidence on the ground for the inflated computer estimates: for example, makers of cheap coffins who had believed the dire computer-modeled predictions found themselves without customers.
In summary, the facts are that Dr. Rasnick, a co-author of the paper by Duesberg et al., has worked to boost the sales of an alternative (but ineffective) way to treat HIV infection. His employer, the Dr. Rath Health Foundation Africa, has actively attacked the use of antiretrovirals (a proven, effective way to treat HIV infection) as part of its marketing campaign for its products. Dr. Rasnick has helped to promote these products in paid advertisements. A paper co-authored by Dr. Rasnick that attacks the use of antiretroviral drugs is therefore of commercial value to his former (and possibly current) employer, Matthias Rath.
Recent research showed how damaging denialist beliefs can be, concluding that Mbeki’s failure to roll out HIV drugs between 2000 and 2005 resulted in 330,000 unnecessary deaths and the infection of 3,500 infants with HIV.
The purpose of this website is to debunk AIDS denialist arguments and prevent further harm being done by AIDS denialists to public health. In March 2006, after Harper's Magazine published a feature article by AIDS denialist Celia Farber, a number of scientists and activists joined together to create a website for the purpose of countering AIDS denialist misinformation and debunking denialist myths, while providing truthful information about HIV and AIDS. The result is the AIDSTruth.org website.
It is common knowledge that AIDS in Africa is rampant, that it affects men and women alike, and is destroying the population and economic prospects of Sub-Saharan Africa. Everyone also thinks, as I have for most of my life, that AIDS in the West and Africa has the same diagnostic definition and symptoms; that they are clinically the same. This is only surely sensible - the same virus must cause the same illness?
But, when I investigated, I found the truth was utterly otherwise. AIDS is diagnosed entirely differently in Africa. Officially in Africa a person only has to have a few symptoms common to many diseases that ultimately are caused by great poverty, poor water supplies and lack of sanitation. Again there is no requirement to test positive for HIV for an AIDS diagnosis. This was strangely easy to discover. I only needed to go to the official WHO website and look it up. This tells me that our media has not been doing its homework when reporting AIDS in Africa.
Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by cenpuppie
There are a million different strains of immune deficiency viruses in a variety of species.
Bovine immunodeficiency virus
Bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV) is a retrovirus belonging to the lentivirus subfamily. It is similar to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and infects cattle. The cells primarily infected are lymphocytes and monocytes/macrophages.
Feline Immunodeficiency Virus
Feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) is a lentivirus that affects domesticated housecats worldwide and is the causative agent of feline AIDS. From 2.5% up to 4.4% of cats worldwide are infected with FIV
Simian immunodeficiency virus
Simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), also known as African Green Monkey virus, is a retrovirus able to infect at least 33 species of African primates
Did humans create those too?
edit on 20-5-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)
Which is not totally incompatible with the current scientific thought on the subject. Also, the researchers were using SIV not HIV as the model and so the conclusion may or may not be applicable to HIV infection process.
This study demonstrates that generalized CD4+ T cell depletion from the blood and mucosal tissues is not sufficient to induce AIDS in this natural host species. Rather, AIDS pathogenesis appears to be the cumulative result of multiple aberrant immunologic parameters that include CD4+ T cell depletion, generalized immune activation, and depletion/dysfunction of non-CD4+ T cells