First that ID nonsense, now this. Its a shame.

A. What "ID Nonsense?"

B. Why is this a shame if you have no idea what evidence he is presenting?

I'm not saying that he's right, but prejudgment has led to serious scientific errors, repeatedly. Again, I have no idea, but i try to keep an open mind about this stuff, or marshal knowledge to beat it back.

Is he more convinced or less convinced of this than he was of the fact that Kerry would win?

Peter Duesberg is a remarkable scientist who has withstood considerable malicious abuse and Bigotry from adversaries dismissing him as "contrarian." Duesberg's last few scientific papers published on the HIV/AIDS topic have been extraordinary and compellingly argued. The history of medicine is rife with tragic faux pas and vainglorious dogma that was wrong and which collectively led millions of suffering patients to their early deaths; militant orthodoxy that led directly to the arrest, beatings, huntings and murders of scientists and physicians who were later proven to be correct. This was done not by religionists, but by popular Doctors and medical scientists of the era. The story of Schimmelweis is emblematic of the secular religiosity and cult-like intellectual gangsterism that has plagued medicine over centuries and now infects much of academe. I am very interested to see what light Dr. Bialy will bravely shine upon the "ignore-ance" that pervades the popular wisdom about AIDS and HIV.

dude, doggone it, you've got me owing you again (and Reynolds, I suppose)*. this is why I read blogs - I haven't heard about this and doubt I will in MSM outlets.

and all this after the inauguration kerfuffle, in which you were clearly wrong ;-)

I'd like to point out that some people are genetically resistant to developing AIDS, even when they have been infected with the HIV virus...

Certain HLA antigens that are associated with delayed or no progression to AIDS are most common in persons with a northern European or scandinavian background, and least common in the African sub-continent.

Among the group of resistant persons, peptide binding that stops progression can "wear out" over the years if new versions of the virus show up (through re-infection or mutation) and "escape" the protection. The infected person then progresses to AIDS.

That some groups of persons don't get or are slower to get AIDS doesn't mean HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Some persons have higher risk of getting AIDS faster and dying sooner, because they lack the same defenses as the resistant population, or overwhelm them with different strains of virus (by chance mutation or re-exposure to different strains.)

Sticking with my simpler is better philosophy - I have a hard time with both the conspiracy to hide the true nature of AIDS and the we got it totally wrong camps. I think the simpler explanation is that HIV adapted. It was on course to kill off all the human hosts. A virus, being a living organism, must have some genetic impulse to survive and thrive. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the HIV virus would adapt to maintain some optimum level of surviving human hosts.

I have to agree with SarahW's previous post.

There are a number of variables that are associated with progression from HIV infection to the clinical outcome of AIDS.

Among those factors are:
1) HLA type of patient vs. strain of virus

2) Preference of HIV strain for co-receptor vs. host co-receptor expression. Some strains of HIV use a molecule knows as CCR5 as a co-receptor to CD4 while others use CXCR4. The degree to which these co-receptors are expressed correlates with ease of infection and tropism of the virus once infection occurs.

3)Actual HIV species infecting the patient. In the US HIV-1 is more common while in Africa HIV-2 is more common. Of the two, HIV-1 has been associated with a higher rate of morbidity and mortality.

4) Superinfection with new HIV strains, emergence of new strains due to the high mutation rate found in retroviruses.

5)Early detection and treatment regimens. With improved detection and treatment, many patients do not progress to full blown AIDS as they did in the mid-80s though early-90s.

So yes, although it may be true that as a population the prevalence of HIV has remained steady while the reporting of AIDS has peaked and declined, this does not mean that HIV is not the causative agent of AIDS. This disparate finding might validate the negation of the HIV-AIDS paradigm if all things had remained equal throughout that time frame, but they have not. Drug treatments have improved, many patients at least report higher discipline in taking their drugs, and general patient care has improved from the mid-90s to present as compared to the mid-80s early 90s time frame.

As an aside, when dealing with epidemiological data, and especially infectious diseases, it is always wise to keep in mind that the genetic backgrounds of the host and infective agents are paramount in determining outcome. This seems to be especially true when the infective agent is a virus. We have known for years that Epstein-Barr Virus causes Burkett's Lymphoma, however not every patient who has mono is destined to develop Burkett's. The reasons? Genetic background of the hosts.

Now for truth in advertising, I worked in an HIV research laboratory studying HIV infectivity and drug transporters until moving on to an area of research which I enjoy even more. So, I am biased in favor of the HIV-AIDS paradigm.

Sorry for the length of the post.

No apology necessary, very cool.

It's a small complaint, but even if you accept the CDC estimates of HIV infection as gospel, the rate of HIV infection has actually declined. Dean has one chart showing number of AIDS cases per 100,000 population, and another showing total number of HIV infections. To keep the number at 1 million, it means the rate of infection has steadily declined as population increased. As to the underlying hypothesis, I have no idea. I'm a lawyer, not an epidemiologist. I have deep doubts about Dean's theory that it's the drugs administered to HIV+ patients that cause AIDS symptoms, however.

I don’t see that there is anything even slightly unusual about the facts as presented.
Here’s the theory.
We have a virus that infects people. After some indeterminate time (for most people) it causes a disease which leads to death.
We would therefore expect, as infections by the virus rise, for the incidence of that disease to rise, or if infections stay static, then the disease will stay static.
Yes?
OK, now we invent a gidget, a whoosie, that in most cases stops infection by the virus proceeding to the disease.
What would we expect (in the abscence of any of the other things mentioned in comments above)?
We would expect incidence of infection by the virus to stay constant and incidence of the disease to fall.
That explains the fall in the Aids incidence, for we did indeed invent a series of drugs that stop (perhaps prevents for a time, we don’t know yet) infection with the virus turning into the disease.
OK.
How to explain the rise in Aids cases without a rise in HIV incidence in earlier years?
We tend to think that HIV and AIDS made it into the general population (ie, not just occasional cases) in the late 70s early 80s, in stages, homosexual, intravenous drug users then out into the heterosexual population (please, forgive me the PC incorrectness, but that is the route it went in the US and Western Europe). OK.
It takes time for HIV to cause AIDS. So, we could have a constant HIV infection rate but a rising AIDS rate in the early stages of the epidemic. Then we invent our whoosis that stops the conversion and the HIV rate stays constant and the AIDS rate drops.
So, a simple and logical explanation ofthe evidence presented, that HIV infection rates could be constant and AIDS cases rise then fall.
All consistent with what we know about drug treatments, time lines and all, most importantly, consistent with HIV causing AIDS.
What’s there to explain? Whay does this show in any way that HIV does not cause AIDS?
I’ve not commented over at Dean’s on this because I think he’s going up a blind alley. Didn’t think it was actually going to gain any traction to tell you the truth.
No, I have no specifc knowledge of this sort of science, just trying to be logical.

Tim -

Someone else put that explanation out on Dean's comment thread and it made a lot of sense to me.

Ok, I'll bite: that bottom graph looks so off to me that I must be wrong, but I might well be right. The graph comes from Duesberg's article, where he says he got it from the CDC, but no actual place is specified.

The lower graph is the problem. The upper graph is fine. The lower graph claims to report "incidence" in millions, that is, new hiv+ cases each year, not total cases per each year.

Briefly, the CDC says only 1.5 million *total* cases of hiv+ people have been reported from 1981 through 2003 in the U.S.. But if you look at Bialy's 1985 number, it's already one million. And the graph says to me that each year after, about 1 million new cases occured, making a total of 16 million cases allegedly having been found since 1985. That did not happen, if that's what the graph says happened.

According to the CDC 1.5 million total hiv+ cases occurred from 1981 to 2004.

But the graph is being interpreted by everyone, I think, as also total cases of all hiv+ people for each year [prevalence] and miraculously also looking level, but it almost can't be that level, either.

In actuality the cases/year have varied. I can't find the numbers for many individual years - there was one year when 150,000 cases occurred, and we are now averaging about 40-50,000 new cases/yr, over about the last 10 years. The point being that the Bialy/Duesberg graph does not reflect this yearly variation, either.

As far as I can tell the graph represents nothing. [Perhaps someone got confused with the total cases now present, which is about 1 million out of the total 1.5 million since 1981 as the CDC reports. Then subtracted 500,000 deaths from it, reasoning that the graph now represents 1 million instead of 16 million?]

But I can only possibly account for my own thinking, so I'll quit this line. It's too confusing for me so far, since I don't understand this graph.

Dean kicked me off his site yesterday, when he claimed various things, which need not be repeated before your sensitive ears. Just kidding. It's basically simply b.s..

I did not get to the CDC report itself yet: CDC Hiv Surveilance Report, vol. 23, 2004. I got it and the figures from another site which stated the 1.5 million hiv+ occurrence and the 500,000 death figure as totals since 1981, just to indroduce its own report.

I'm behind the curve on linking, but can get the address. I was unable to even email Dean. He's got me blocked from entry. But I noticed Bill, so came over here to see what was going on.

And there you have it, whatever it is.

The CDC December 1996 Surveillance Report states: "Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a specific group of diseases or conditions which are indicative of severe immunosuppression related to infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."

This definition, that the diseases or conditions defining AIDS "are indicative of severe immunosuppression", is completely inconsistent with the December 1992 definition by the CDC, which defined AIDS to be any one of 29 diseases if and only if the person is also HIV positive. Indeed, one of the defining diseases is a low T-cell count, but about 40% of the 29 diseases defining AIDS in the 1992-1993 CDC list do not involve immunosuppression. For instance, Kaposi’s sarcoma and cervical cancer are not "indicative of severe immunosuppression", but according to the December 1992 definition, they are among the AIDS defining diseases in the presence of HIV including cases when there is no immunosuppression.

Duesberg and Bialy are well on point and have made reasonable use of the charts being discussed here. There was nothing better to use. Sadly, the charts being debated are made from migrating definitions, diagnostic duplicity, circuitous data and leaps of orthodoxy. This is emblematic of the HIV-AIDS scandal that continues to emerge. A tragic mess has been made from great suffering, flawed assumptions and premature conclusions.

We need to awaken to the greater issues being raised by these scientists. We need to appreciate the magnitude of human error that has accumulated and become falsely established in our desperate race to find a cure. If you have a deepened interest in HIV-AIDS, then CAREFULLY READ Duesberg's paper cited by Dave on his website. If that is too much, then just read about the destroyed lives of history-changing physicians Ignaz Semmelweis or James Lind.

Western medical orthodoxy has a long, well established tradition of intellectual thuggery and indifference to fact. The unfolding tragicomic scandal of present HIV-AIDS orthodoxy sadly repeats a recurring pattern in western medicine's scientific and cultural history.

We need to remember the wisdom of Schopenhauer's observation that new thought and new truths go through three stages. First, they are ridiculed. Next they are violently opposed. Then, finally they are accepted as self-evident.

It normally takes a generation for flawed medical orthodoxy to be overthrown. With the help of scientists like Duesberg and Bialy, let us pray this one will not take so long.

I believe the snarky commenter above is referring to my defense--qualified though it is--of "Intelligent Design" (ID) theory.

I'm not going to get into a debate about that here and I encourage others not to. I only note that I don't actually believe what the ID theorists say. What I do believe is that fighting them tooth and nails in the courts is a horrible idea. It looks terrible. I find these people innocuous and that fighting them only makes them stronger. If giving lip service to vaguely-defined spiritual ideas will make parents with anxiety feel okay about letting their kids learn about biology, then just leave it the hell alone.

That's my sum position on that.

Bill: your request for more reliable data is fine except that these are the only available data. You accept the inherent inaccuracies in the CDC's numbers--which are inherent in any and all numbers the CDC reports by the way--or you don't. If you don't, the discussion ends.

Still. Just try checking CDC figures on any other disease. Or better yet, if you know any epidemmiologists or statisticians, just ask them to look at those two curves and ask what they think.

HIV cannot be the sole cause of AIDS. It can't. It's either a cofactor among other factors, or, it doesn't do anything at all and is merely a passenger virus that gets spread through sexual contact and sharing needles and blood transfusions along with lots of other things that get spread that way.