he didn't just deny it, that is why I have posted full version of his report, he gives statistics. And I don't think, it was his point, "people die all the time" so who cares, 350 000 more 350 000 less... On contrary, the whole point of this "denialism thing" is that a lot of people die everyday from many diseases, but nothing is done to prevent that and we do have cure and a proper treatment for those diseases, meanwhile billions of dollars spent everyday to fight smthg, that is a myth. At least this is how I understood it so far. "[SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]Far more people are ill (and often die) from tuberculosis and malaria than AIDS, but it is hard to get relief for these diseases. Many people are faced with a crisis of finding nutritious fresh food and clean drinking water, but there seems to be plenty of US dollars to send questionable AIDS drugs to poor countries as a "good will" gesture."[/SIZE][/SIZE] http://www.whatisaids.com/ All over the internet I find numbers, formulas, statistics, that denialists offer as evidence to support their theory, however when I am trying to prove them wrong using supporters materials, all I find out there is accusing denialists in quackery, lies and ignorance. And I cannot understand why not engage in an open scientific debate instead, if there is undebunkable evidence. if you are interested to take a look at the African aids epidemic case from the denialist's point of view also read a book by Anthony Brinck "Debating AZT" -Mbeki and the aids drug controversy. I haven't finished it yet, but find it easy to read and interesting.
I quote Duesberg here because he seems to be a credible medical scientist to me, and his reports is all I find on the internet, so it is true that denialists are outnumbered. And as I said earlier I still haven't decided who I chose to believe to, but what fascinates me is- why are you so sure they are wrong? no offence, but you don't have a medical degree, you didn't make experiments in a laboratory, you didn't study statistics, so all you have is 20+ years of mass media telling you HIV=AIDS, so you just firmly believe it is impossible, that pharmaceutical companies would come into an agreement with governments, create a myth and start making money from poisoning people with toxic antiHIV drugs? why? just because it is too hard to believe? or too scary? really just wondering. why do you chose to believe a microbiologist who states "it is a certain thing that we evolved from apes" instead of to believe a microbiologist who gives you formulas, numbers, statistics?
I agree with the dissidents in the sense that it would be very smart for them to keep studying potential causes of AIDS directly to come up with different theories and different viewpoints in it. It seems like the "HIV exists" argument doesn't just mean that HIV exists.. but rather the current drug manufacturers can keep pumping the same drugs that make the most money. Whereas the HIV doesn't exist argument requires investing milliosn of dollars into alternate areas of research that wouldn't return as much money. I find it interesting how on this site http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm 'the perth group' is the group that claims HIV doesn't exist. That article says how their test to prove HIV's existence is ridiculous, but yet they don't go into any explanation of why, they just try to dismiss them with ad-hominem attacks also from how that articles explain the method mainstream science uses to prove HIV, it seems like they don't have a singular virus pinpointed, but rather a clump of similiar genetic material and virus like behavior in particles This seems to insinuate that whatever HIV is, even if it is viral, is more complex than just this simple theoretical model of HIV they've developed. All they know is that there is something HIV-esque in AIDS patients, but theres alot more to be said about what exactly HIV is
Even better, challenge Duesberg to inject himself with HIV as a show of faith in his claim that HIV is nothing but a harmless passenger virus and HIV/AIDS is a mere myth. I've heard some blog talk that Duesberg mentioned this proposal but never actually did it. It could be called The Duesberg Challenge. Considering Duesberg is in his 70s and the often relatively long incubation time for HIV/AIDS to develop, if he died of old age or an illness not related to HIV/AIDS after being injected, then it could be used to the advantage of the denialist/dissident groups. .
Another proposal would involve hundreds of denialist/dissident supporters willingly injected with HIV. A long-term cohort study could be done to track the development of HIV/AIDS in the group. Some of the denialist websites have mentioned denialists who have stated that they are having unprotected intercourse with risky partners but have no fear of HIV/AIDS. That situation is already fairly close to being willfully injected with HIV directly. .
Not might. Null got his degree from a correspondence school in Ohio. Moore got his degree from Cambridge, has about 20 years of formal research experience in viruses and HIV/AIDS at Cornell and other respected institutions, and published over a hundred papers in research journals. http://www.isihighlycited.com/author.cgi?&id=444 Null has no experience with HIV/AIDS. He's a marketer who is spreading misinformation about HIV/AIDS as a way of propping up his supplement business. .
shaggie, again, it is not about Null and Moore, it is about Duesberg and Moore. now compare I don't care where he got his degree from, i have no degree but I know Darwin theory better than he does, is it not enough for you to assume that Moore might be wrong on the AIDS/HIV topic as well? It is not that I believe Duesberg is right, but you believe Moore cannot be wrong, that's scary. Yeah, in order for something to get to people, something fanatically ridiculous is still required, like for all the dessidents to go onto the streets and inject themselves HIV on public, then you would be impressed, such things as common sense and scientific discussion, and above of all desire to know the truth are still unpopular
I didn't see the remark about Perth being called ridiculous. Maybe I missed it. From what I can gather, currently there are only two doctors actively involved with the Perth group. One of the contentions of the Perth group is that HIV hasn't been isolated. In that respect, its denialist stance is even more extreme than that of Duesberg. Duesberg believes that HIV has been isolated, although he doesn't believe it is the cause of AIDS. In 1996 Duesberg tried to collect the monetary award of 1000 pounds offered by the Continuum, a denialist newsletter that denied that HIV had been isolated and which offered an award to anyone who could prove that HIV had been isolated. Duesberg made a reasonably good argument that HIV had been isolated but wasn't awarded the money. Continuum had a stringent 7-step requirement that they felt was needed to prove isolation. .
On a related note, Continuum is no longer being published. The denialists who were running it died of HIV/AIDS. Some denialists deny that it was HIV/AIDS and claim other causes. Duesberg claimed that the writers of Continuum died from excessive use of inhalation nitrites, although there isn't any evidence that inhalation of nitrites causes AIDS. .
It's not about Duesberg vs. Moore or a belief that one or the other can't be wrong. It's about the preponderance of the scientific research during the past 25 years that doesn't support Duesberg's position that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Yet people will still cling to a denialist stance that often ends with tragic results, the writers of Continuum being an example. .
where is this scientific research? can we see it and compare with Duesberg's scientific research to see what terrible mistakes he made?
A summary of the problems with denialist claims. http://www.aidstruth.org/new/print/1 Duesberg's professional experience wasn't in HIV/AIDS. The issues related to him concern the mistakes in the contentions that he makes about the work of others who have actually conducted research in HIV/AIDS. .
Over 100,000 research papers have been written on the subject of HIV/AIDS. Many are available on the web. Others can be obtained at local and university libraries. This site was already posted previously in this thread. It has a long list of references at the end. http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm .
Duesberg is known for manipulation of the content of other people's papers on HIV/AIDS to try to make it appear that the treatments are the cause of HIV/AIDS. An example occurs in the following paper he published with Koehnlein and Rasnick in the Journal of Biosciences: Duesberg, P., C. Koehnlein, and D. Rasnick. The Chemical Bases of the Various AIDS Epidemics: Recreational Drugs, Anti-viral Chemotherapy and Malnutrition. J Biosci, 2003. 28(4): p. 383-412. Duesberg quoted various research papers but misquoted or left out phrases in the original text of some of the papers in a way that downplayed the improvement in prognosis that resulted from the AIDS treatments. When Duesberg cited a paper by R.S. Hogg, he stated that the annual mortality rate was 6.7 % in the Hogg study. That's not what the Hogg paper stated. 6.7 % was the total mortality rate. The cumulative mortality rate at 12 months stated in the Hogg paper was 2.9%. Duesberg also cited the 6.7 % figure as if it was for asymptomatic patients when the data in the Hogg paper included people who were not asymptomatic (some already had AIDS defining illnesses at the start of the study). It's an attempt by Duesberg to make it sound as if the treatments were causing the deaths or that the treatments were not effective at preventing AIDS defining illnesses from developing. .
The full text paper by R.S. Hogg can be obtained here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1230111 The Duesberg paper can be obtained here http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrchemical.pdf At the end of the Duesberg paper is a long list of references. It's worth reading the original papers without the slant that Duesberg placed on some of them. .