To the general list because I'm spam-banned by Balter et al (pro-HIV-AIDS
people). My commentary:
I have to agree with Balter's item here, in that Mae-Wan Ho and similar
thinkers are not effective critics of HIV=AIDS. Mae-Wan actually dramatizes
the possibilities of viral paradigms while appearing to critique them in a
quibbling manner. Mae-Wan also writes prolifically (and supportively,
fearfully) about virus bioterrorism press releases, accepting them
uncritically, though that science would be secret, covert military science,
surrounded by confusing military propaganda.
Regarding the other item, 'cancer', in Balter's post. The toxicological
paradigm is well accepted by NIH and other institutions, but tremendously
downplayed publicly in favor of viral models and vaccines. That is
undoubtedly because of economics: toxicological models increase industry's
No scientist ever received a prize for discovering that benzene, arsenic or
radiation causes cancer, but many have received prizes for attempting and
failing to find a virus cause for cancer. It is well accepted that virus
proliferation naturally occurs in poisoned tissue (google "Ames Test", a
standard assay test for carcinogencity), so there are clear and obvious
avenues to critique the virus model for cancer.
No doubt true, and nothing in the article [Mae Wan Ho] that Mitchel posted
actually challenges HIV as the cause of AIDS. Researchers have been trying
to pin down the detailed mechanisms of how the virus produces the disease,
just as cancer researchers are still figuring out the exact mechanisms that
cause cells to go awry, reproduce uncontrollably, and spread to other
tissues. But no one questions that cancer does not exist or that it is not
due to cell proliferation.
HIV is hard to pin down because it is a virus that specifically attacks the
immune system. Mitchel posts these long articles but he would be hard put to
either understand or defend the science behind these issues. So he simply
posts longer and longer ones.
When he is ready to do what he agreed to, I shall be ready as well.
On 4/3/07, Alex Dajkovic < [log in to unmask]> wrote:
An alternative (and simpler) explanation is that the models are wrong
ordinary differential equations do not capture the nature of HIV infection.
This could be due to a number of factors, not the least of which is the
'continuous' nature of the models, in contrast to the stochastic nature of
biological events. There could be missing (or wrong) parameters,
wrong) equations, etc. For example, the fact that HIV interacts with many
different cells in many different tissues is not accounted for by these
models. Many such objections could (and should) be raised against any
positive interpretation of the predictions of the models.