AIDS, idiots, and self-serving liars

[Charles F. Albert]

I am in awe of the capacities of some p-listers to be authorities on 
everything. Some recent crap that's passed over the transom includes:
 
> and when self-serving
> >liars
> >post bs merely to attract attention then they must be have their lies
> >brought out into the light of day

Taking a gratuitous swipe at his nemesis, Peter 13 offers the above. 
I cannot and will not address the root causes of his animosity, but 
Peter should take care to identify just who he suspects is the 
"self-serving liar". I assume that Jules has no interest (other than 
intellectual) in this matter, so the self server must then be 
Duesberg. Because I make no claims to know all, or even the 
difference between mitochondria and protease inhibitors, I will limit 
myself to quoting liberally from the May 23 1996 issue of the New 
York Review of Books. It includes a review of Duesbergs work by one 
Richard Horton who is identified as the editor of LANCET.
Qouth Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and lsd enthusiast:
"I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows 
necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But 
we are both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS."

> >If  there was a conspiracy to supress "the truth about AIDS" than the idiotic
> >book by Peter Duesberg (touted by Jules) would have gotten no coverage
> >at all - Instead it has been reviewed everywhere - Unfortunately for
> >Jules and Duesberg it as also been shown to be a fraud

On the matter of suppression I offer the following:
"The standoff betwen Duesberg and the AIDS establishment has become 
increasingly embittered and ugly (gee, have we seen this somewhere?).
The professional science journals, such as Nature and Science, which 
represent the majority opinion of researchers, have displayed an 
alarmingly uneven attitude during this dispute. Nature's former 
editor, John Maddox, in 1993 denied Duesberg the right of reply to a 
paper purportedly showing that AIDS was not linked to drug use.

'The truth is that a person's "right of reply" may conflict with a 
journal's obligations to its readers to provide them with authentic 
information. Whatever Duesberg's friends say, the right of reply must 
be modulated by its content.'

Two years later, Maddox relented - at least in principle. By then, he 
was forced to admit that Duesberg had drawn important and correct 
conclusions about the paradoxes of linking HIV and AIDS. With the 
publication of new evidence that addressed many of these paradoxes, 
he could no longer deny Duesberg a voice in his journal."

Horton does indeed take D to task for some of the conclusions that he 
arrives at in his book, but is also careful to credit him where 
appropriate.
"One long running dispute has concerned the way that HIV destroys 
immune cells. Duesberg has argued that HIV could not possibly kill 
CD4 bearing cells directly. In 1987 he wrote that HIV is" not directly 
cytocidal"- i.e. does not kill cells directly. In 1995 other 
scientists conceded this point. Simon Wain-Hobson, WITHOUT CREDITING 
DUESBERG ORIGINAL CLAIM (emphasis mine) wrote that "an intrinsic 
cytopathic effect of the virus is no longer credible"

 
> Duesberg is a crackpot, plain and simple, not unlike the people whose
> missives it was Mason's task to read on behalf of the Royal A.

Mr. Horton differs:
"But how far will this rethinking be allowed to proceed? Duesberg, 
for his part, not only fails to understand the strenghts and 
weaknesses of the epidemiological method; he also, as has been seen, 
recklessly deploys ill-thought out epidemiological arguments to 
support his own drug-aids point of view. NEVERTHELESS, as a 
retrovirologist, Duesberg deserves to be heard, and the ideological 
assasination that he has undergone will remain an embarrasing 
testament to the reactionary tendencies of modern science. 
Irrespective of one's views about the validity of some of Duesberg's 
arguments, one is forced to ask: At a time when fresh ideas and the 
new paths of investigation are so desparately being sought, how can 
the AIDS community afford NOT to fund Duesberg's research."

BTW, June Osborne is identified in the article as a former 
chairperson of the US National Commission on AIDS, and an outspoken 
opponent of Dr. Duesberg's.


I do not offer this as a last word on the AIDS debate, but merely to 
remind some of the blowhards on the list that their opinions are for 
the most part unqualified with respect to this issue. Having taken so 
much of everyones time with this, I ultimately agree with Dr. Porter,
pontification on this topic is inappropriate in the absence of such
qualifications. Honest debate, on the other hand, may serve to 
enlighten those who wish to know more.


> As I have sworn to take no notice of Jules, I won't bother reading what he
> said even for the purpose of refuting it; the fact that he's pushing this
> crap (here and perhaps in print) confirms my judgement of him as a
> dishonest, stupid, unprincipled humbug.

And thank you, Kim, for sharing that balanced bit of logic with us, I 
admire your principles.
love,
cfa