Print

Print


No doubt true, and nothing in the article 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.

MB

On 4/3/07, Alex Dajkovic <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> An alternative (and simpler) explanation is that the models are wrong
> because
> 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, missing
> (or
> 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.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>

-- 
www.michaelbalter.com

******************************************
Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
[log in to unmask]
******************************************