Mathematicians Reach Breakthrough In HIV Research

Here’s a great real world example of why math is important kids! From the Wall Street Journal:

Scientists using a powerful mathematical tool previously applied to the stock market have identified an Achilles heel in HIV that could be a prime target for AIDS vaccines or drugs.

The research adds weight to a provocative hypothesis—that an HIV vaccine should avoid a broadside attack and instead home in on a few targets. Indeed, there is a rare group of patients who naturally control HIV without medication, and these “elite controllers” most often assail the virus at precisely this vulnerable area.

“This is a wonderful piece of science, and it helps us understand why the elite controllers keep HIV under control,” said Nobel laureate David Baltimore. Bette Korber, an expert on HIV mutation at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, said the study added “an elegant analytical strategy” to HIV vaccine research.

“What would be very cool is if they could apply it to hepatitis C or other viruses that are huge pathogens—Ebola virus, Marburg virus,” said Mark Yeager, chair of the physiology department at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. “The hope would be there would be predictive power in this approach.” Drs. Baltimore, Korber and Yeager weren’t involved in the new research.

One of the most vexing problems in HIV research is the virus’s extreme mutability. But the researchers found that there are some HIV sectors, or groups of amino acids, that rarely make multiple mutations. Scientists generally believe that the virus needs to keep such regions intact. Targeting such sectors could trap HIV: If it mutated, it would disrupt its own internal machinery and sputter out. If it didn’t mutate, it would lie defenseless against a drug or vaccine attack…

[continues in the Wall Street Journal]

, , , ,

  • Yith

    Intriguing… here, by the way, is another article on “random matrix theory”:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627550.200-enter-the-matrix-the-deep-law-that-shapes-our-reality.html

    And you may find this interesting as well:

    http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-spectrum-of-riemannium

  • Yith

    Intriguing… here, by the way, is another article on “random matrix theory”:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627550.200-enter-the-matrix-the-deep-law-that-shapes-our-reality.html

    And you may find this interesting as well:

    http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-spectrum-of-riemannium

  • Anonymous

    What is referred to as the various ‘strains’ of ‘HIV’ are merely endogenous proteins and nucleic acids that are produced in large amounts in response to certain physiological conditions. Modern ‘AIDS researchers’, with their absolute dependence on models and algorithms as well as NIH funds, (if you don’t believe me, look up the ‘AIDS journal’ and read some of the recent submissions) are in no position to question the NIH and CDC’s party line, despite repeated proof that HIV is NOT transmissible but is rather the average of various endogenous particles whose production is induced by various immunosuppressive stimuli (poppers, crack cocaine, intravenous drug use, overuse of antibiotics, chronic poor diet, anal fisting, ‘antivirals’, and even being told one ‘has HIV’.

    My point is that after 30 years and more money than has ever been spent on any kind of research, it is indefensible to promote the NIH’s dogma, especially considering the list of ‘AIDS defining diseases’ grew from 3 to 32 in an attempt to fulfill predictions of an ‘epidemic’. Such ‘research’ is pure disinformation, and its results have killed millions of people who might have lived had they known the real causes of their illness.

  • JoiquimCouteau

    What is referred to as the various ‘strains’ of ‘HIV’ are merely endogenous proteins and nucleic acids that are produced in large amounts in response to certain physiological conditions. Modern ‘AIDS researchers’, with their absolute dependence on models and algorithms as well as NIH funds, (if you don’t believe me, look up the ‘AIDS journal’ and read some of the recent submissions) are in no position to question the NIH and CDC’s party line, despite repeated proof that HIV is NOT transmissible but is rather the average of various endogenous particles whose production is induced by various immunosuppressive stimuli (poppers, crack cocaine, intravenous drug use, overuse of antibiotics, chronic poor diet, anal fisting, ‘antivirals’, and even being told one ‘has HIV’.

    My point is that after 30 years and more money than has ever been spent on any kind of research, it is indefensible to promote the NIH’s dogma, especially considering the list of ‘AIDS defining diseases’ grew from 3 to 32 in an attempt to fulfill predictions of an ‘epidemic’. Such ‘research’ is pure disinformation, and its results have killed millions of people who might have lived had they known the real causes of their illness.

    • Yith

      See

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis

      and in particular the section “Scientific Response to Duesberg Hypothesis”. 

      • JoiquimCouteau

        That wikipedia article is worse than worthless as are all of the ones having to do with AIDS or AIDS researchers. That a majority of scientists give lip-service to the ‘infectious AIDS’ hypothesis has more to do with their source of funding and their desire to keep their jobs than with the validity of their hypothesis. Have you read the basic scientific literature that is held up as ‘proof’ of viral causation? Do you know the early history of ‘AIDS’ and what causes were proposed before gallo claimed it was a retrovirus in order to save his lab? Do you know what happens to anyone who questions the HIV dogma? 

        No, you don’t know any of these things, but on the other hand “HIV-AIDS” is very easy to understand, and very few people will give you any trouble for saying it whereas you WILL lose your job for opposing it, and so you have millions of ignorant uninformed individuals basking in their collective ignorance. It’s as if you’re waiting for Mr. Baltimore, or Mr. Fauci, or Mr. Gallo, or Mr. Broder to come out and say ‘sorry guys, we were completely wrong, those 32 unrelated diseases really were caused by a variety of factors, sorry for causing the death and misery of millions of people and burning billions upon billions of dollars’. 

        • Yith

          “That a majority of scientists give lip-service to the ‘infectious AIDS’
          hypothesis has more to do with their source of funding and their desire
          to keep their jobs than with the validity of their hypothesis.”

          That’s a blanket statement.  What percent of AIDS researchers have federal funding?  What percent have tenure (i.e. “job security”)? 

          “Have you read the basic scientific literature that is held up as
          ‘proof’ of viral causation? Do you know the early history of ‘AIDS’ and
          what causes were proposed before gallo claimed it was a retrovirus in
          order to save his lab? ”

          I know a little, not a lot.  I read some of Serge Lang’s “file”, the Duesberg, Gallo, etc. story, and have read what Kary Mullis thinks. 

          “Do you know what happens to anyone who questions
          the HIV dogma?”

          Tell me!!!   

          And then tell me how hemophiliacs come down with AIDS after being infected by blood from people who are HIV+, despite not taking poppers, crack cocaine, intravenous drugs, too many antibiotics, ‘antivirals’, or having chronic poor diet and/or engaging in anal fisting. 

           

          • JoiquimCouteau

            “That’s a blanket statement.  What percent of AIDS researchers have federal funding?”  
            Effectively all of them. The NIH (and to varying extents its ‘copycat’ institutions in other countries) funds and sets the direction of very nearly all medical research, whether directly or through intramural grants through universities. They ARE the ‘scientific consensus’, and that is good enough for the majority of people who have no problem deferring to ‘authority’. Much of the research is also conducted (sometimes funded) by the very pharmaceutical and ‘biotechnology’ companies which have so magnanimously provided immune-deficient (and often pregnant) individuals with genotoxic ‘antiviral’ drugs for over two decades. 

            “I know a little, not a lot.  I read some of Serge Lang’s “file”, the Duesberg, Gallo, etc. story, and have read what Kary Mullis thinks. ”

            Did you read the unpublished drafts of the Gallo’s 1984 papers that Popovic had secretly sent to his sister so that if (when) they were charged with scientific misconduct he could prove that gallo made him do it?
            http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/fraud-in-key-hiv-research-background
            “And then tell me how hemophiliacs come down with AIDS after being infected by blood from people who are HIV+, despite not taking poppers, crack cocaine, intravenous drugs, too many antibiotics, ‘antivirals’, or having chronic poor diet and/or engaging in anal fisting. ”

            Before the early 1990s many hemopheliacs received transplants of factor VIII, a component of blood plasma, that came from thousands of different donors and was not fully purified. They would therefore have immense amounts of foreign proteins injected directly into their bloodstream. In the early 1990s recombinant synthetic factor VIII began to be used and AIDS in hemopheliacs subsequently declined.

            http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/ephemophilia.htm

             “In 1975, the average patient received an estimated 40 000 units of factor VIII per year (a unit being the equivalent of 1mL of fresh frozen plasma as to factor VIII content). By 1981, the average patient was consuming 60 000 to 80 000 units per year” (Levine, 1985). The introduction of factor VIII led to a dramatic decrease in haemophilia deaths from bleeding but it also had some harmful effects including myocardial ischaemia, visual disturbances, headache, dyspnoea, bronchospasm, hypotension and anemia (Eyster & Nau, 1978; Kopitsky & Geltman, 1986; Beeser, 1991). As previously stated, factor VIII preparations contain immunoglobulin which may produce systemic reactions such as pruritus, chills, fever, tremor, flushing, malaise, nausea, vomiting, back pain and joint pain (van Aken, 1991). Before the AIDS era, no immunological studies were carried out in haemophiliacs but subsequently, as has been mentioned, in 1985, Eyster et al showed that the frequency of lymphocytopenia and thrombocytopenia was increased in haemophiliacs prior to the AIDS era (Eyster et al., 1985). More recently performed immunological studies including determination of T4 cell numbers, led to the generally accepted view that factor VIII itself is immunosuppressive. Recently, researchers from the UK showed that progression to AIDS in HIV seropositive haemophiliacs is determined by abnormalities induced by factors other than HIV all of which existed before seroconversion (Simmonds et al., 1991). In other words, HIV is not sufficient for the development of AIDS in patients with haemophilia.

            Please tell me how a single protein-nucleic acid complex can induce 32 different ‘AIDS defining’ diseases, with drastically different distributions among various ‘risk populations’. Or maybe you think we just need more time and money?

          • Yith

             “Effectively all of them. The NIH (and to varying extents its ‘copycat’ institutions in other countries) funds and sets the direction of very nearly all medical research, whether directly or through intramural grants through universities.”

            I can believe that they fund most of the EXPENSIVE HIV research, e.g. large-scale studies and research requiring the most up-to-date equipment; but I have my doubts that NIH funds MOST of the research out there.  For example, a quick internet search turned up the following article:

            http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2011/01/unc_aids_researchers_fear_federal_budget_cuts

            which says that “92 percent of projects aren’t chosen to be funded”.  Now, granted, some people may write multiple grants, or maybe most grants have lots of co-PI’s, or maybe they last for 5 years or more so that one only has to get one ONCE in that time-frame — I’d like to see some hard data.  My suspicion is that the MAJORITY of AIDS researchers DON’T have NIH funding currently, and that the MAJORITY of AIDS publications are not written by authors with current NIH funding.

            “They ARE the ‘scientific consensus’, and that is good enough for the majority of people who have no problem deferring to ‘authority’.”

            I can’t speak about how the NIH operates, but I do know a little something about how the National Science Foundation operates.  Here’s how grant funding is decided at NSF:  you submit a proposal, and then the director in your particular field of study (e.g. PHYSICS, BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY) sends it on to the director of the appropriate sub-discipline (condensed matter physics, evolutionary biology, organic chemistry).  He or she then chooses a panel to review the grants.  The panel is made of up of previous grant recipients and even volunteers (people with the requisite expertise can volunteer to be a panelist).  Every attempt is made to make the panel balanced, so that all the voices of all the different sub-sub-disciplines are heard.  Next, the panelists each browse the grant proposals and pick out which ones they feel comfortable reviewing, and then write summaries of those proposals, along with tentative ratings (Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, Exceptional).  The panelists then get together to discuss the proposals, and ask questions like, “Will this work lead anywhere?  Does this guy know what he’s talking about?  Is this really cutting-edge, or is it just rehashing such-and-so’s work?”  Gradually, over a period of days, a ranking of the proposals emerges, and then the top so many are placed in the “Highly Recommended for Funding” category; the next batch is then placed in the “Recommended” category; and lastly, the remaining grants are placed in the “Not recommended for funding” category.  

            There are no back-room secret conspiracies to “fix the consensus” and “set the agenda” at NSF that I am aware of, and I would guess the same is true of the NIH as well.

            I can believe, however, that if someone submitted a proposal to the effect of, “The proposer wishes to unseat the long-held dogma that HIV causes AIDS,” it would be frowned upon; if, however, the proposal is written to say, “In preliminary studies A, B and C, the proposer has discovered patients with AIDS-like symptoms who test seronegative for HIV.  He wishes to explore the casual mechanisms behind these constellation of symptoms, and seeks 500K of funding for lab equipment, etc.” it would have a much, much greater chance of being funded.

            I have some comments related to the other things you wrote, but don’t have time to write them up just now.  Maybe in a week, once I return from my trip abroad.

  • Yith

    See

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis

    and in particular the section “Scientific Response to Duesberg Hypothesis”. 

  • Anonymous

    That wikipedia article is worse than worthless as are all of the ones having to do with AIDS or AIDS researchers. That a majority of scientists give lip-service to the ‘infectious AIDS’ hypothesis has more to do with their source of funding and their desire to keep their jobs than with the validity of their hypothesis. Have you read the basic scientific literature that is held up as ‘proof’ of viral causation? Do you know the early history of ‘AIDS’ and what causes were proposed before gallo claimed it was a retrovirus in order to save his lab? Do you know what happens to anyone who questions the HIV dogma? 

    No, you don’t know any of these things, but on the other hand “HIV-AIDS” is very easy to understand, and very few people will give you any trouble for saying it whereas you WILL lose your job for opposing it, and so you have millions of ignorant uninformed individuals basking in their collective ignorance. It’s as if you’re waiting for Mr. Baltimore, or Mr. Fauci, or Mr. Gallo, or Mr. Broder to come out and say ‘sorry guys, we were completely wrong, those 32 unrelated diseases really were caused by a variety of factors, sorry for causing the death and misery of millions of people and burning billions upon billions of dollars’. 

  • Yith

    “That a majority of scientists give lip-service to the ‘infectious AIDS’
    hypothesis has more to do with their source of funding and their desire
    to keep their jobs than with the validity of their hypothesis.”

    That’s a blanket statement.  What percent of AIDS researchers have federal funding?  What percent have tenure (i.e. “job security”)? 

    “Have you read the basic scientific literature that is held up as
    ‘proof’ of viral causation? Do you know the early history of ‘AIDS’ and
    what causes were proposed before gallo claimed it was a retrovirus in
    order to save his lab? ”

    I know a little, not a lot.  I read some of Serge Lang’s “file”, the Duesberg, Gallo, etc. story, and have read what Kary Mullis thinks. 

    “Do you know what happens to anyone who questions
    the HIV dogma?”

    Tell me!!!   

    And then tell me how hemophiliacs come down with AIDS after being infected by blood from people who are HIV+, despite not taking poppers, crack cocaine, intravenous drugs, too many antibiotics, ‘antivirals’, or having chronic poor diet and/or engaging in anal fisting. 

     

  • Anonymous

    “That’s a blanket statement.  What percent of AIDS researchers have federal funding?”  
    Effectively all of them. The NIH (and to varying extents its ‘copycat’ institutions in other countries) funds and sets the direction of very nearly all medical research, whether directly or through intramural grants through universities. They ARE the ‘scientific consensus’, and that is good enough for the majority of people who have no problem deferring to ‘authority’. Much of the research is also conducted (sometimes funded) by the very pharmaceutical and ‘biotechnology’ companies which have so magnanimously provided immune-deficient (and often pregnant) individuals with genotoxic ‘antiviral’ drugs for over two decades. 

    “I know a little, not a lot.  I read some of Serge Lang’s “file”, the Duesberg, Gallo, etc. story, and have read what Kary Mullis thinks. ”

    Did you read the unpublished drafts of the Gallo’s 1984 papers that Popovic had secretly sent to his sister so that if (when) they were charged with scientific misconduct he could prove that gallo made him do it?
    http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/fraud-in-key-hiv-research-background
    “And then tell me how hemophiliacs come down with AIDS after being infected by blood from people who are HIV+, despite not taking poppers, crack cocaine, intravenous drugs, too many antibiotics, ‘antivirals’, or having chronic poor diet and/or engaging in anal fisting. ”

    Before the early 1990s many hemopheliacs received transplants of factor VIII, a component of blood plasma, that came from thousands of different donors and was not fully purified. They would therefore have immense amounts of foreign proteins injected directly into their bloodstream. In the early 1990s recombinant synthetic factor VIII began to be used and AIDS in hemopheliacs subsequently declined.

    http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/ephemophilia.htm

     “In 1975, the average patient received an estimated 40 000 units of factor VIII per year (a unit being the equivalent of 1mL of fresh frozen plasma as to factor VIII content). By 1981, the average patient was consuming 60 000 to 80 000 units per year” (Levine, 1985). The introduction of factor VIII led to a dramatic decrease in haemophilia deaths from bleeding but it also had some harmful effects including myocardial ischaemia, visual disturbances, headache, dyspnoea, bronchospasm, hypotension and anemia (Eyster & Nau, 1978; Kopitsky & Geltman, 1986; Beeser, 1991). As previously stated, factor VIII preparations contain immunoglobulin which may produce systemic reactions such as pruritus, chills, fever, tremor, flushing, malaise, nausea, vomiting, back pain and joint pain (van Aken, 1991). Before the AIDS era, no immunological studies were carried out in haemophiliacs but subsequently, as has been mentioned, in 1985, Eyster et al showed that the frequency of lymphocytopenia and thrombocytopenia was increased in haemophiliacs prior to the AIDS era (Eyster et al., 1985). More recently performed immunological studies including determination of T4 cell numbers, led to the generally accepted view that factor VIII itself is immunosuppressive. Recently, researchers from the UK showed that progression to AIDS in HIV seropositive haemophiliacs is determined by abnormalities induced by factors other than HIV all of which existed before seroconversion (Simmonds et al., 1991). In other words, HIV is not sufficient for the development of AIDS in patients with haemophilia.

    Please tell me how a single protein-nucleic acid complex can induce 32 different ‘AIDS defining’ diseases, with drastically different distributions among various ‘risk populations’. Or maybe you think we just need more time and money?

  • GoodDoktorBad

    I have the sneaking suspicion that HIV-AIDS is an engineered disease. I have no proof I could give. It’s just a feeling backed up only by external observations. It’s main victims seem to be mostly among poor minorities and gay people. People who are outside those groups often get from it those who mingle with them. 

    Some may think I’m crazy (sometimes I do) but there seems to be a plan in motion to depopulate the earth. There is a general consensus that is little spoken of that believes there are too many people on the planet. I would generally agree with that statement, although I wouldn’t condone or approve of killing off the “surplus” with AIDS or constant wars etc. to correct it. That’s like killing your family for the insurance money….

  • Anonymous

    I have the sneaking suspicion that HIV?aids is an engineered disease. I have no proof I could give. It’s just a feeling backed up only by external observations. It main victims seem to be mostly among poor minorities and gay people. People who are outside those groups often get from it those who mingle with them. 

    Some may think I’m crazy (sometimes I do) but there seems to be a plan in motion to depopulate the earth. There is a general consensus that is little spoken of that believes there are too many people on the planet. I would generally agree with that statement, although I wouldn’t condone or approve of killing off the “surplus” with AIDS or constant wars etc. to correct it. That’s like killing your family for the insurance money….

  • Yith

     “Effectively all of them. The NIH (and to varying extents its ‘copycat’ institutions in other countries) funds and sets the direction of very nearly all medical research, whether directly or through intramural grants through universities.”

    I can believe that they fund most of the EXPENSIVE HIV research, e.g. large-scale studies and research requiring the most up-to-date equipment; but I have my doubts that NIH funds MOST of the research out there.  For example, a quick internet search turned up the following article:

    http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2011/01/unc_aids_researchers_fear_federal_budget_cuts

    which says that “92 percent of projects aren’t chosen to be funded”.  Now, granted, some people may write multiple grants, or maybe most grants have lots of co-PI’s, or maybe they last for 5 years or more so that one only has to get one ONCE in that time-frame — I’d like to see some hard data.  My suspicion is that the MAJORITY of AIDS researchers DON’T have NIH funding currently, and that the MAJORITY of AIDS publications are not written by authors with current NIH funding.

    “They ARE the ‘scientific consensus’, and that is good enough for the majority of people who have no problem deferring to ‘authority’.”

    I can’t speak about how the NIH operates, but I do know a little something about how the National Science Foundation operates.  Here’s how grant funding is decided at NSF:  you submit a proposal, and then the director in your particular field of study (e.g. PHYSICS, BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY) sends it on to the director of the appropriate sub-discipline (condensed matter physics, evolutionary biology, organic chemistry).  He or she then chooses a panel to review the grants.  The panel is made of up of previous grant recipients and even volunteers (people with the requisite expertise can volunteer to be a panelist).  Every attempt is made to make the panel balanced, so that all the voices of all the different sub-sub-disciplines are heard.  Next, the panelists each browse the grant proposals and pick out which ones they feel comfortable reviewing, and then write summaries of those proposals, along with tentative ratings (Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, Exceptional).  The panelists then get together to discuss the proposals, and ask questions like, “Will this work lead anywhere?  Does this guy know what he’s talking about?  Is this really cutting-edge, or is it just rehashing such-and-so’s work?”  Gradually, over a period of days, a ranking of the proposals emerges, and then the top so many are placed in the “Highly Recommended for Funding” category; the next batch is then placed in the “Recommended” category; and lastly, the remaining grants are placed in the “Not recommended for funding” category.  

    There are no back-room secret conspiracies to “fix the consensus” and “set the agenda” at NSF that I am aware of, and I would guess the same is true of the NIH as well.

    I can believe, however, that if someone submitted a proposal to the effect of, “The proposer wishes to unseat the long-held dogma that HIV causes AIDS,” it would be frowned upon; if, however, the proposal is written to say, “In preliminary studies A, B and C, the proposer has discovered patients with AIDS-like symptoms who test seronegative for HIV.  He wishes to explore the casual mechanisms behind these constellation of symptoms, and seeks 500K of funding for lab equipment, etc.” it would have a much, much greater chance of being funded.

    I have some comments related to the other things you wrote, but don’t have time to write them up just now.  Maybe in a week, once I return from my trip abroad.

  • JoiquimCouteau

    “My suspicion is that the MAJORITY of AIDS researchers DON’T have NIH funding currently, and that the MAJORITY of AIDS publications are not written by authors with current NIH funding.”
    Maybe not a majority, but a plurality. The other sources include the WHO, world bank, and other analogous organizations. Private donors are in the vein of Bill Gates, who invariably go along with ‘HIV->AIDS’.

    “There are no back-room secret conspiracies to “fix the consensus” and “set the agenda” at NSF that I am aware of, and I would guess the same is true of the NIH as well. ”

    There may not have been on in the NIH either (although we can never know for sure, considering the character of some of the people working there). On the other hand, in the early ’80s labs such as Gallo’s, which had spent the ’70s unsuccessfully hunting for ‘RNA tumor viruses’ (which were later renamed ‘retroviruses’), faced obsolescence once the ‘war on cancer’ failed utterly. ‘HIV’ saved his lab (and those of many others) and kept the money flowing. 
    “I can believe, however, that if someone submitted a proposal to the effect of, “The proposer wishes to unseat the long-held dogma that HIV causes AIDS,” it would be frowned upon; if, however, the proposal is written to say, “In preliminary studies A, B and C, the proposer has discovered patients with AIDS-like symptoms who test seronegative for HIV.  He wishes to explore the casual mechanisms behind these constellation of symptoms, and seeks 500K of funding for lab equipment, etc.” it would have a much, much greater chance of being funded.”

    Peter Duesberg, who is a MODERATE critic of the HIV dogma, won dozens of awards and NEVER had a grant request denied before he wrote his paper ‘Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality”. After writing that paper, EVERY one of his grant applications has been denied. There does not need to be a conspiracy for pervasive, self-serving ignorance to become institutionalized, it’s enough to publish ridiculous studies that claim duesberg killed hundreds of thousands of people than to answer his criticism in the context of legitimate scientific debate, which to my knowledge no one has ever even attempted to do.

    What is most incredible to me is how people assume that ‘HIV=AIDS’ is some sort of ‘default position’ because it’s so simple and easy for anyone to understand. On the other hand, to say ‘a protein and nucelic acid complex that is present in miniscule amounts even in those who test ‘positive’ for ‘antibodies’ to it and destroys lymphocytes thousands of times its size after a ‘latent’ period of up to 20 years causing 32 different conditions heterogeneously in different ‘risk groups’ is simply ridiculous, and should make anyone seriously reconsider what they read in the CDC pamphlet.

    I don’t agree with everything that duesberg says, but ‘Inventing the AIDS virus’ is a very good history of the NIH, albeit overly sympathetic to it. If you want to know the specifics of the NIH in the ’70s and ’80s, that’s a good (neutral) place to start. 

  • Anonymous

    “My suspicion is that the MAJORITY of AIDS researchers DON’T have NIH funding currently, and that the MAJORITY of AIDS publications are not written by authors with current NIH funding.”
    Maybe not a majority, but a plurality. The other sources include the WHO, world bank, and other analogous organizations. Private donors are in the vein of Bill Gates, who invariably go along with ‘HIV->AIDS’.

    “There are no back-room secret conspiracies to “fix the consensus” and “set the agenda” at NSF that I am aware of, and I would guess the same is true of the NIH as well. ”

    There may not have been on in the NIH either (although we can never know for sure, considering the character of some of the people working there). On the other hand, in the early ’80s labs such as Gallo’s, which had spent the ’70s unsuccessfully hunting for ‘RNA tumor viruses’ (which were later renamed ‘retroviruses’), faced obsolescence once the ‘war on cancer’ failed utterly. ‘HIV’ saved his lab (and those of many others) and kept the money flowing. 
    “I can believe, however, that if someone submitted a proposal to the effect of, “The proposer wishes to unseat the long-held dogma that HIV causes AIDS,” it would be frowned upon; if, however, the proposal is written to say, “In preliminary studies A, B and C, the proposer has discovered patients with AIDS-like symptoms who test seronegative for HIV.  He wishes to explore the casual mechanisms behind these constellation of symptoms, and seeks 500K of funding for lab equipment, etc.” it would have a much, much greater chance of being funded.”

    Peter Duesberg, who is a MODERATE critic of the HIV dogma, won dozens of awards and NEVER had a grant request denied before he wrote his paper ‘Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality”. After writing that paper, EVERY one of his grant applications has been denied. There does not need to be a conspiracy for pervasive, self-serving ignorance to become institutionalized, it’s enough to publish ridiculous studies that claim duesberg killed hundreds of thousands of people than to answer his criticism in the context of legitimate scientific debate, which to my knowledge no one has ever even attempted to do.

    What is most incredible to me is how people assume that ‘HIV=AIDS’ is some sort of ‘default position’ because it’s so simple and easy for anyone to understand. On the other hand, to say ‘a protein and nucelic acid complex that is present in miniscule amounts even in those who test ‘positive’ for ‘antibodies’ to it and destroys lymphocytes thousands of times its size after a ‘latent’ period of up to 20 years causing 32 different conditions heterogeneously in different ‘risk groups’ is simply ridiculous, and should make anyone seriously reconsider what they read in the CDC pamphlet.

    I don’t agree with everything that duesberg says, but ‘Inventing the AIDS virus’ is a very good history of the NIH, albeit overly sympathetic to it. If you want to know the specifics of the NIH in the ’70s and ’80s, that’s a good (neutral) place to start. 

21
More in HIV, Mathematics, medical research, Science
Male Birth Control Pill On The Horizon

Reports LiveScience via MNN: Equality for men may be on the horizon — contraceptive equality, that is. For more than a half century, women have been able to pop a...

Close