My point in sending these articles, as some here simply do not get, is NOT to hone a narrow ideological line but to send science articles that I find interesting (and I assume that you would as well) and that raise questions about the dominant paradigms.
Michael Balter seems to think that I have a particular ax to grind (or is it ox to gore?). I don't. I just don't like shoddy or faith-based or manipulative pronouncements allowed to pass as "science", and I find the HIV/AIDS research riven with all of that.
Along these lines, as Jim West's references obliquely, Robert Gallo had been working on a viral-based vaccine for cancer for years when he and the CDC officials announced the POSSIBILITY that HV causes AIDS back in 1983. That soon got reported as an established fact, and Gallo never disclaimed it, as the money came pouring in.
On Jim's other point, funny, isn't it, how one of Bush's first directives as President was to raise the allowable levels of arsenic in US waters .... Don't forget, too, that arsenic was used as a form of chemotherapy for cancer (!) by many prominent clinics, inclusing Sloan Kettering, before the 1950s. A lot of water, particularly in Pakistan, is polluted not by natural arsenic (as in parts of Mexico and the US) but by manmade arsenic from the treatment of wood, particularly from telephone and electrical poles that have leached into the groundwater .... This double use of arsenic -- as carcinogenic, and also as cancer-fighting, is pretty interesting, don't you think?
>From: Jim West <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Apr 4, 2007 11:13 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Mae-Wan Ho and HIV=AIDS
>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.