The Church of HIV: Inventing the AIDS Virus

reply to post by phalanx001

Your quoted posts are 20+ years old

This is a prime example of the logical fallacies you use. In the O.P. I linked the four papers published by Gallo, et al after he held that international press conference declaring he found the "probable cause" for AIDS. Those papers are, of course, 20+ years old. The entire HIV paradigm hinges upon those four papers hastily written back in 1984 - which are 20+ years old. None of your are going to dismiss those papers due to their age, but anything published then that you disagree with has no validity because those papers - not as old as the four Gallo and his cohorts papers - are too old.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Wikipedia article on the hypothesis contains refutations:
en.wikipedia.org...

What I get from this is what I get from everything in the scientific field:

Question pretty near all conclusions; look at the raw data yourself. It doesn't mean that you will not come to the same conclusion as the establishment, but at least you didn't mindlessly agree with someone because they used big words, spent years with a one-track-conclusion-on-their-data. Be open-minded, and give doubts a chance, even in things you've assumed accurate for years.

Problem is that we're not really wired to challenge our conclusions. So have fun with overcoming your conditioning.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Wikipedia article on the hypothesis contains refutations:
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 24/5/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

On page 3 - that would be the page after you entered with your drive by post with the all ready linked "AidsTruth" propaganda RealSpoke posted a Wikipedia article. I fact checked the first reference cited in the first quote provided by Wikipedia via RealSpoke and they cited a Deusberg paper of which they grossly misrepresented. Duesberg never said what Wikipedia claimed he said. It appears that they were counting on the fact that people like you would read it and not bother to do any fact checking for yourself. You've allowed Wikipedia to do your fact checking for you, and Wikipedia thanks you very much. "AIDSTruth" thanks you very much.

Keep up the good laziness.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I fact checked the first reference cited in the first quote provided by Wikipedia via RealSpoke and they cited a Deusberg paper of which they grossly misrepresented. Duesberg never said what Wikipedia claimed he said.

False. Lets cite the abstract of the paper:
Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: correlation but not causation. - P H Duesberg

Since AIDS also correlates with antibody to a retrovirus, confirmed in about 40% of American cases, it has been hypothesized that this virus causes AIDS by killing T cells.

The hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS is examined in terms of Koch's postulates and epidemiological, biochemical, genetic, and evolutionary conditions of viral pathology. HIV does not fulfill Koch's postulates: (i) free virus is not detectable in most cases of AIDS

Compare that to Wikipedia claim:
Duesberg argued in 1989 that a significant number of AIDS victims had died without proof of HIV infection.

The claims in the linked study support this sentence. Duesberg indeed argues that a significant number of AIDS victims had died without proof of HIV infection.

reply to post by Maslo


There you go with your laziness again. In spite of the fact that I have linked, not once, not twice, but thrice now the full paper of Deusbergs, for your convenience, it was obviously an inconvenience for you to read the full paper and instead merely glance over an abstract, which in all likelihood is precisely what Wikipedia did too. Wikipedia then also, and inexplicably so, finished that paragraph by pointing that PCP had demonstrated "virtually" all AIDS patients had HIV, but as I have all ready demonstrated the first time PCP was used to successfully identify what they believe is HIV was in 1991, but Deusberg's paper was published in 1989.

Even so, if you had bothered to read the full paper and not just do what Wikipedia apparently did and glance over an abstract, you would discover this:

About 40% of the AIDS patients in the U.S. (5), and many of those who are at risk for AIDS, have been confirmed to have neutralizing antibodies to a retrovirus (3, 7) that was discovered in 1983 (15). These antibodies are detected by the "AIDS test" (3). Less than a year later, in 1984, this virus was adopted as the cause of AIDS by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the AIDS test was registered as a patent, even before the first American study on the virus was published (16). The epidemiological correlation between these antibodies and AIDS is the primary basis for the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by this virus (3, 7, 12, 14, 17, 18). AIDS is also believed to be caused by this virus because AIDS diseases appear in a small percentage (see below) of recipients of blood transfusions that have antibodies to this virus (3, 12, 19-22). In view of this the virus has been named human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by an international committee of retrovirologists (18) and antibody to HIV became part of the definition of AIDS (3, 5, 7). "... Patients are excluded as AIDS cases if they have a negative result(s) on testing for serum antibody to HIV, do not have a positive culture for HIV" (3). If confirmed, HIV would be the first clinically relevant retrovirus since the Virus-Cancer Program called for viral carcinogens in 1971 (23, 24).

And later in the paper this:

HIV Cannot Account for the Loss of T Cells and the Clinical Course of AIDS. The causative agent of an infectious disease is classically defined by the postulates of Robert Koch and Jacob Henle (66, 67). They were originally formulated a priori by Henle about 50 years before bacteria and viruses were discovered to be pathogens (67). However, their definitive text was formulated by Koch to distinguish causative from other bacteria at a time when bacteriologists applying newly developed tools in the search for pathogenic microbes found all sorts of bacteria in humans. This situation was quite similar to our current increasing proficiency in demonstrating viruses (68). The first of these postulates states that "the parasite must be present in every single case of the disease, under conditions that can account for the pathological lesions and the clinical course of the disease" (67). However, there is no free virus in most-and very little in some-persons with AIDS, or in asymptomatic carriers (69, 70). Virus titers range from 0 to 10 infectious units per milliliter of blood (69, 70). Viral RNA is found in a very low percentage (see below) of blood cells of 50-80% of antibody-positive persons (71-74, 187). Further, no provirus is detectable in blood cells of 70-100% of symptomatic or asymptomatic antibody-positive persons, if tested by direct hybridization of cellular DNA with cloned proviral DNA (73, 75, 187) at the limit of detection by this method (76). Antibody to HIV is confirmed in only about 40% of the U.S. cases and in only 7% of the AIDS cases from New York and San Francisco, which represent one-third of all U.S. cases (5). In some cases, even the antibody to HIV disappears, due to chronic dormancy or loss of the HIV provirus (77, 78)-analogous to the loss of antibody to other viruses long after infection. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control publishes specific guidelines for AIDS cases in which laboratory evidence for HIV is totally negative (5). Thus, although viral elements can be traced in many AIDS patients, and antibody to HIV is, at least by definition, present in all of them, HIV violates Koch's first postulate in terms of a tangible presence, of being "under conditions that can account for" the loss of T cells, and of the "clinical course of the disease" that lags 8 years behind infection.

Far from arguing that a "significant number of AIDS victims had died without proof of HIV infection", Duesberg is arguing the correlation found between HIV and AIDS does not prove causation. Hence: Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: correlation but not causation.

HIV causes decreases in CD4 Tcell counts, drug use does not. there are plenty enough studies on this.

(Chao, C., et al., Recreational Drug Use and T lymphocyte subpopulations in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected men, Drug Alchol Depend (2008), doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.11.010).

There are literally dozens and dozens of these types of studies. I don't feel the need to go dig them all up, because this is a non issue.

There is nothing to debunk, it has long been debunked already.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Far from arguing that a "significant number of AIDS victims had died without proof of HIV infection"

How so? The body of the study exactly repeats whats in the abstract:

About 40% of the AIDS patients in the U.S. (5), and many of those who are at risk for AIDS, have been confirmed to have neutralizing antibodies to a retrovirus

Antibody to HIV is confirmed in only about 40% of the U.S. cases and in only 7% of the AIDS cases from New York and San Francisco, which represent one-third of all U.S. cases (5). In some cases, even the antibody to HIV disappears, due to chronic dormancy or loss of the HIV provirus (77, 78)-analogous to the loss of antibody to other viruses long after infection. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control publishes specific guidelines for AIDS cases in which laboratory evidence for HIV is totally negative (5). Thus, although viral elements can be traced in many AIDS patients, and antibody to HIV is, at least by definition, present in all of them, HIV violates Koch's first postulate in terms of a tangible presence..

Yes, he also argues that "correlation does not prove causation" and other things, but that does not mean his claims about HIV not being detected in significant number of AIDS victims should be ignored. They are there (even in the abstract, so author considers them important), and thus that Wikipedia sentence is justified.


Besides, his claims of HIV - AIDS theory not fulfilling Kochs postulates were proven wrong in numerous studies:
www.sciencemag.org...
history.nih.gov...
HIV causes AIDS: Koch's postulates fulfilled
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

reply to post by Maslo

Yes, he also argues that "correlation does not prove causation" and other things, but that does not mean his claims about HIV not being detected in significant number of AIDS victims should be ignored.

I have never argued any such thing and have instead argued that the Wikipedia article grossly misrepresented Deusberg's paper, as you did too and are now just backpedaling.

In terms of your assertion that Deusberg's own assertions about Koch's postulates were "proven wrong", far from doing so, instead what this camp has done is rig the definitions of AIDS in order for the HIV theory to flourish. I have all ready linked a site describing "Non-HIV AIDS", which are those people who are clearly afflicted with AIDS but have never tested positive for the HIV virus. What the CDC has most disingenuously done is take Non-HIV AIDS and call it by another name: Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia, or ICL. Why have they done this? Why because had they not, Deusberg would be right and HIV does not fulfill this postulate:

The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Maslo

 

Yes, he also argues that "correlation does not prove causation" and other things, but that does not mean his claims about HIV not being detected in significant number of AIDS victims should be ignored.

I have never argued any such thing and have instead argued that the Wikipedia article grossly misrepresented Deusberg's paper, as you did too and are now just backpedaling.

Well, since Wikipedia simply paraphrases what Deusberg said in the abstract (and body, as you pointed out) of the paper, your assertion that it "grossly misrepresented" the paper is unfounded.

Wikipedia:

Duesberg argued in 1989 that a significant number of AIDS victims had died without proof of HIV infection.

Duesberg:

Antibody to HIV is confirmed in only about 40% of the U.S. cases and in only 7% of the AIDS cases from New York and San Francisco, which represent one-third of all U.S. cases (5)

Where is the problem?

If you want to discuss other claims in his paper, then feel free to do so, but what you are doing now amounts to arguing pointless semantics.

Altrough it seems his other claims were also debunked:

The consensus in the scientific community is that the Duesberg hypothesis has been refuted by a large and growing mass of evidence showing that HIV causes AIDS, that the amount of virus in the blood correlates with disease progression, that a plausible mechanism for HIV's action has been proposed, and that anti-HIV medication decreases mortality and opportunistic infection in people with AIDS.[4]

In the December 9, 1994 issue of Science (Vol. 266, No. 5191),[3] Duesberg's methods and claims were evaluated in a group of articles. The authors concluded that:
it is abundantly evident that HIV causes disease and death in hemophiliacs, a group generally lacking Duesberg's proposed risk factors.[4][45]
HIV fulfills Koch's postulates, which are one set of criteria for demonstrating a causal relationship between a microbe and a disease.[46][47] (Subsequently, additional data further demonstrated the fulfillment of Koch's postulates.[48][49])
the AIDS epidemic in Thailand cited by Duesberg as confirmation of his hypothesis is in fact evidence of the role of HIV in AIDS.[50]
According to researchers who conducted large-scale studies of AZT, the drug does not cause AIDS. Furthermore, researchers acknowledged that recreational drugs do cause immune abnormalities, though not the type of immunodeficiency seen in AIDS.[51]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

In terms of your assertion that Deusberg's own assertions about Koch's postulates were "proven wrong", far from doing so, instead what this camp has done is rig the definitions of AIDS in order for the HIV theory to flourish. I have all ready linked a site describing "Non-HIV AIDS", which are those people who are clearly afflicted with AIDS but have never tested positive for the HIV virus. What the CDC has most disingenuously done is take Non-HIV AIDS and call it by another name: Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia, or ICL. Why have they done this? Why because had they not, Deusberg would be right and HIV does not fulfill this postulate:

Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia

Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia (ICL) is a very rare medical syndrome in which the body has too few CD4+ T lymphocytes, which are a kind of white blood cell.[1] ICL is sometimes characterized as "HIV-negative AIDS" by AIDS denialists, though in fact its clinical presentation differs from that seen with HIV/AIDS.[2] People with ICL have a weakened immune system and are susceptible to opportunistic infections, although the rate of infections is lower than in people with AIDS.[3]

In contrast to the CD4+ cell depletion caused by HIV, patients with idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia generally have a good prognosis.[5][9][10][11] The decline in CD4+ T-cells in patients with ICL is generally slower than that seen in HIV-infected patients.[2]. The condition may also resolve on its own.[12]

Since not only its causation, but also its clinical presentation differs from AIDS caused by HIV, I dont see anything wrong with categorising it as a different disease. That some conditions are superficially similar does not mean they are the same diseases.

reply to post by Maslo

Well, since Wikipedia simply paraphrases what Deusberg said in the abstract (and body, as you pointed out) of the paper, your assertion that it "grossly misrepresented" the paper is unfounded.

It is not unfounded at all! Why would Deusberg include in his title of the paper a subtitle that states "correlation but not causation"? Wikipedia did not "summarize" Deusberg's paper, Wikipedia summarized the "AIDS denialists" denialists claims.

If you want to discuss other claims in his paper, then feel free to do so, but what you are doing now amounts to arguing pointless semantics.

Semantics? Are you out of your mind? Do you know what semantics means? To take Deusberg's paper and reduce it down to a "summary" that presents the paper as being an argument that a "significant number of people died without proof of HIV infection" is unfounded.

Further, it is telling that after you declare I am arguing "semantics", and after you've declared Wikipedia's "summary" as well founded, you then feel compelled to argue this:

Altrough it seems his other claims were also debunked:

You then offer up this to "prove" this "debunking":

The consensus in the scientific community is that the Duesberg hypothesis has been refuted by a large and growing mass of evidence showing that HIV causes AIDS, that the amount of virus in the blood correlates with disease progression, that a plausible mechanism for HIV's action has been proposed, and that anti-HIV medication decreases mortality and opportunistic infection in people with AIDS

The "consensus"? Really? Science is not a democracy. Further, this very "debunking" you provide uses language such as "correlates" and "plausible" as their "debunking", of which you expect everyone to accept as proof. Sigh.

reply to post by Maslo

Since not only its causation, but also its clinical presentation differs from AIDS caused by HIV, I dont see anything wrong with categorising it as a different disease. That some conditions are superficially similar does not mean they are the same diseases.

Since what you bolded to illustrate your claim was this:

In contrast to the CD4+ cell depletion caused by HIV, patients with idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia generally have a good prognosis.[5][9][10][11] The decline in CD4+ T-cells in patients with ICL is generally slower than that seen in HIV-infected patients.[2]. The condition may also resolve on its own.[12]

And since many of those questioning the HIV paradigm with its focus on toxic drugs are claiming - including Deusberg - that it is the drugs that are killing people diagnosed with HIV, your highlight of the ICL page linked tends to support Deusberg, et al contentions. Perhaps those afflicted with "ICL" have a better prognosis because they were fortunate enough to escape the HIV industry with their toxic drugs.

Further, your declaration that "Since not only its causation..." is nonsensical given that what is issue here is that there are scientists questioning the efficacy of HIV as the cause of AIDS. Now that is semantics! It always the same with those insisting that Deusberg has been "debunked", and what is always the same is that ultimately the argument becomes: HIV causes AIDS because HIV causes AIDS. That is not science.

reply to post by macaronicaesar

There are literally dozens and dozens of these types of studies. I don't feel the need to go dig them all up, because this is a non issue.

Of course you don't feel the need to go dig up any study. You've handily demonstrated this throughout this thread. You have spent the entirety of your effort in this thread reifying, and nothing more.

At least Maslo is making an honest attempt (finally) at addressing the science, and that is far more admirable than what you have done in this thread.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It is not unfounded at all! Why would Deusberg include in his title of the paper a subtitle that states "correlation but not causation"? Wikipedia did not "summarize" Deusberg's paper, Wikipedia summarized the "AIDS denialists" denialists claims.

I never said that sentence is a good summary of the paper. I only pointed out that your objection: " Duesberg never said what Wikipedia claimed he said." is false, since its said in the paper.

I acknowledged that there are also other things in the paper besides that, and pointed out that they are debunked elsewhere in the not very long article. See the "Scientific response to the Duesberg hypothesis" section for it.

Further, this very "debunking" you provide uses language such as "correlates" and "plausible" as their "debunking", of which you expect everyone to accept as proof. Sigh.

You seem to not know how scientific proof works. 100% certainty is never possible. And correlation is indeed very good evidence of causation, if you have a plausible mechanism of the casual link (especially in medicine).
In fact, everything we can observe in this world are only correlations. "Correlation does not imply causation" is often misinterpreted. "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality" would be better. In the case of HIV - AIDS we have more than correlations.

Feel free to follow the references if you want to know more.

reply to post by halfoldman


In terms of placing labels on scientists who are making arguments, I do not believe any labels should be placed on them, and certainly not highly politicized labels. There are three main theories to the origin of the universe. There is the Steady State theory, the Big Bang theory, and the Pulsating theory. What is generally referred to as accepted conventional wisdom is the Big Bang theory, but it is not as if those scientists advocating the Big Bang theory call the other two camps names. You don't ever hear scientists screaming about Universe denialists, and none of them are called dissidents for advocating different theories, nor should they be.

The highly politicized nature of the HIV = AIDS paradigm is inappropriate for science. The fact that the only reason "AIDSTruth" exists is to propagate propaganda about "AIDS denialists" is inappropriate. In "AIDSTruth's" About AIDSTruth page they explain why they exist as such:

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.

Yet on their home page they make this claim:

There is a substantial body of evidence showing that HIV causes AIDS—and that antiretroviral treatment (ART) has turned the viral infection from a death sentence into a chronic disease.1 Yet a small group of AIDS denialists keeps alive the conspiratorial argument that ART is harmful and that HIV science has been corrupted by commercial interests.

Apparently a bastion of scientists have felt compelled to create this website simply to refute a "small group of AIDS denialists".

Worse still, in this gleeful politicization of AIDS is "AIDSTruth's" has morbidly created a page called: "AIDS denialists who have died" and use this page to solicit people:

AIDStruth.org is continuing to compile this list. Please send names of denialists who have died from HIV disease and supporting documentation to [email protected] for review and posting.

These so called scientists have no interest in actually debating the science that is contention, but would rather attack the patients who've been diagnosed with HIV and refused the toxic drugs being shoved down so many peoples throats. It matters not to these so called scientists that plenty of people who have taken the drugs designed to attack HIV have died too, all they care about is politicizing the issue.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Perhaps those afflicted with "ICL" have a better prognosis because they were fortunate enough to escape the HIV industry with their toxic drugs.

Effectiveness of antiretroviral medication

Effectiveness of antiretroviral medication

The vast majority of people with AIDS have never received antiretroviral drugs, including those in developed countries prior to the licensure of AZT (zidovudine) in 1987, and people in developing countries today where very few individuals have access to these medications.[52]

The NIAID reports that, "In the mid-1980s, clinical trials enrolling patients with AIDS found that AZT given as single-drug therapy conferred a modest survival advantage compared to placebo. Among HIV-infected patients who had not yet developed AIDS, placebo-controlled trials found that AZT given as single-drug therapy delayed, for a year or two, the onset of AIDS-related illnesses. Significantly, long-term follow-up of these trials did not show a prolonged benefit of AZT, but also did not indicate that the drug increased disease progression or mortality. The lack of excess AIDS cases and death in the AZT arms of these placebo-controlled trials effectively counters the argument that AZT causes AIDS. Subsequent clinical trials found that patients receiving two-drug combinations had up to 50 percent improvements in time to progression to AIDS and in survival when compared to people receiving single-drug therapy. In more recent years, three-drug combination therapies have produced another 50 to 80 percent improvement in progression to AIDS and in survival when compared to two-drug regimens in clinical trials."[53] "Use of potent anti-HIV combination therapies has contributed to dramatic reductions in the incidence of AIDS and AIDS-related deaths in populations where these drugs are widely available, an effect which clearly would not be seen if antiretroviral drugs caused AIDS."[4][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]

Could Drugs, Rather Than a Virus, Be the Cause of AIDS?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


To be fair, spreading misinformation about a public health issue that can actually endanger health and lives of people is entirely different from such purely theoretical issues as origin of the universe, where being wrong does not harm anyone. AIDS denialism has already resulted in great damage to public health:

AIDS denialist claims have had a major political, social, and public health impact in South Africa. The government of then President Thabo Mbeki was sympathetic to the views of AIDS denialists, with critics charging that denialist influence was responsible for the slow and ineffective governmental response to the country's massive AIDS epidemic.

Independent studies have arrived at almost identical estimates of the human costs of AIDS denialism in South Africa. According to a paper written by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, between 2000 and 2005, more than 330,000 deaths and an estimated 35,000 infant HIV infections occurred "because of a failure to accept the use of available [antiretroviral drugs] to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS in a timely manner."[13] Nicoli Nattrass of the University of Cape Town estimates that 343,000 excess AIDS deaths and 171,000 infections resulted from the Mbeki administration's policies, an outcome she refers to in the words of Peter Mandelson as "genocide by sloth".[14]

In the light of these facts, stronger response is IMHO justified.

reply to post by Maslo


I am well aware of how science works:

Because assumptions in science are inescapable, our hypothetical study can only say that phosphorus concentrations seem to behave a certain way. Thus, a central tenet of the scientific method--science cannot prove anything with 100% certainty. Rather, scientists use statistical methods to say that, with a specific degree of confidence -- for example with 95% certainty -- our study results "are not due to chance." The research team is then left to describe what the results "are due to" through a credible and logical discussion of their methods and reasoning.

So, when scrutinizing scientific statements, it is always wise to ask: "How certain are you of the results? Is there a large margin of possible error? Have other scientists replicated the results? Did the study have adequate controls that ruled out other factors that might be responsible for your result?"

The highlighted portion of that citation is precisely what I am demanding be done here. I appreciate, Maslo, that you have finally accepted this challenge and do appreciate your efforts. However, I find this statement of yours interesting:

In fact, everything we can observe in this world are only correlations. "Correlation does not imply causation" is often misinterpreted. "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality" would be better. In the case of HIV - AIDS we have more than correlations.

First, I should point out that covariation means correlated variation of two or more variables so it is unclear what you mean by "we have more than correlations". Secondly, in terms of "correlation does not prove causation" there is also counterfactual theories of causation to consider.

The basic idea of counterfactual theories of causation is that the meaning of causal claims can be explained in terms of counterfactual conditionals of the form “If A had not occurred, C would not have occurred”.

Wikipedia explains counterfactual dependence as such:

Intuitively, causation seems to require not just a correlation, but a counterfactual dependence. Suppose that a student performed poorly on a test and guesses that the cause was his not studying. To prove this, one thinks of the counterfactual – the same student writing the same test under the same circumstances but having studied the night before. If one could rewind history, and change only one small thing (making the student study for the exam), then causation could be observed (by comparing version 1 to version 2). Because one cannot rewind history and replay events after making small controlled changes, causation can only be inferred, never exactly known. This is referred to as the Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference – it is impossible to directly observe causal effects.[14]

A major goal of scientific experiments and statistical methods is to approximate as best as possible the counterfactual state of the world.[15] For example, one could run an experiment on identical twins who were known to consistently get the same grades on their tests. One twin is sent to study for six hours while the other is sent to the amusement park. If their test scores suddenly diverged by a large degree, this would be strong evidence that studying (or going to the amusement park) had a causal effect on test scores. In this case, correlation between studying and test scores would almost certainly imply causation.

This type of counterfactual state doesn't seem to exist in the HIV = AIDS camp. To be sure, the HIV = AIDS camp is arguing that if HIV had not have happened then AIDS would not have happened, but when faced with anomalies such as Non-HIV AIDS, they simple eject this anomaly and rename it because it contradicts their HIV paradigm.

What is often offered in a disingenuous way implying a counterfactual state are the deaths of people who have been diagnosed with HIV, refused the drugs and at some point died, but this necessarily ignores those diagnosed with HIV, took the drugs and died within or before the time frame of those who refused the drugs.

reply to post by Maslo


Unfortunately, a few months ago my computer started giving me a problem downloading PDF files and keeps telling me the converter failed. I have not yet figured out what is causing that problem and am unable to read Cohen's article, and of course, in my search for a non PDF file of that article and I can find none, so I will just simply address the Wikipedia article you actually cited.

First, that Wikipedia article, or the two paragraphs you cited begin as such:

The vast majority of people with AIDS have never received antiretroviral drugs, including those in developed countries prior to the licensure of AZT (zidovudine) in 1987, and people in developing countries today where very few individuals have access to these medications.[52]

However [52], their "clickable link" is a UNAIDS page that led me to this:

Sorry, but the page you are looking for cannot be found. You may have followed a broken link, an outdated search result, or there may be an error on our site. The links below may help you to find what you are looking for.

We can only guess whether the problem is a broken link, an error on their site, or an outdated search result.

The next reference [53] leads to "related searches" page of HIVatis.org, which apparently are all PDF's. I do not know why Wikipedia cited this site instead of citing the actual source, but this kind of hide and seek game is common among the "AIDS denialists" denialists. While the NIAID makes the claims they do, here is what the L.A. Times reported on June 20th of 1993 - which includes facts mysteriously missing from the NIAID account - Toxic Hope : Widely Embraced, The Aids Drug Is Now Under Heavy Fire. : The Azt Story:

Every week, researchers at the 12 centers around the country waited for word to halt the painful tests. They heard nothing. However, after the initial reaction to the drug, some patients seemed to get better--they put on weight, and symptoms such as night sweats, fatigue and neurological problems eased or disappeared. "It became apparent some people were doing better, recalls Paul A. Volberding, a professor of medicine at the UC San Francisco Medical Center who was the PI for the test at San Francisco General Hospital.

Suddenly, the trials were halted after only 16 weeks, two months earlier than planned, because officials felt that it was unethical to withhold a potentially lifesaving drug. Although patients using AZT had suffered horribly at first, their survival rate was astonishing. Nineteen people in the placebo group had died versus one in the group receiving AZT. An NIH press release proclaimed that AZT "showed great promise in prolonging life in AIDS patients.

The article continues with:

But in the meantime, there were reports of problems at one of the test sites. The understaffed FDA relies primarily on the honor system when testing new drugs, but the agency does do audits when there are complaints. In this instance, it dispatched an investigator, Patricia Spitzig, to Massachusetts General Hospital.

Spitzig discovered "serious violations of the protocols. People received the wrong medications. One patients who died was listed as part of the placebo group, but he may have been getting AZT. At least 84 vials of medication had disappeared. But after the FDA analyzed her report, officials decided that, despite the violations, the Mass General data was strong enough to include in the final test results.

The story continues:

On the morning of Jan. 16, 1987, an FDA panel convened in the agency's Rockville, Md., headquarters to decide whether to approve the commercial sale of AZT for treating AIDS. The group included a panel of advisers; the approval panel; a contingent from Burroughs Wellcome led by David Barry, the company's vice president in charge of research; half a dozen of the AZT trial's principal investigators and several government officials led by Samuel Broder, who had come to be known around the NIH as "Mr. AZT because of his promotion of the drug.

This story will have to continue in the next post...