HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

Mainstream HIV PSEUDO-science

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2012/06/11

When at long last researchers find out how to keep HIV in check, that naturally makes news:

“Secret of HIV’s natural born killers out”
“Revealed: Secret of HIV’s natural born killers”
“SFU scientists contribute to HIV breakthrough — Natural resistance to AIDS may be key in developing a vaccine”
“Study digs into secrets of keeping HIV in check”
“People with rare natural ability to fight AIDS virus have potent ‘killer’ cells that recognise and destroy infection”

That’s just a sampling of what Google turns up about this just-announced phenomenal breakthrough. I was inspired to get the research article itself, published on-line ahead of print in Nature Immunology, 10 June 2012; doi:10.1038/ni.2342.
It’s a highly technical 12 pages long, with a rather technical title: “TCR clonotypes modulate the protective effect of HLA class I molecules in HIV-1 infection”.
There are 21 authors from 6 laboratories in 4 countries (Canada, Germany, Japan, USA).
The number of authors is greater than the number of studied subjects, who totaled 10: 5 of them “elite controllers”, the other 5 “HIV-positive” people on HAART.

Even the news reports cited researchers not involved in the work who pointed out that this in itself means nothing at all, given not only the small number of subjects but also the fact that “elite controllers” have never been found to be all alike in the immunological characteristics that seem to matter.

It is no mystery, of course, why such an inconclusive little bit of possible progress would be published: the vast majority of research articles are like this, adding no more than tiny bits of possibly useful information — LPUs, least-publishable units.
It is also no mystery, why the media would trumpet about it: Their attention was drawn to it by the paper’s authors, so that further grants and kudos would flow in their direction. After all, this work would not have been possible without grants from:
“Harvard University Center for AIDS Research . . . , the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation . . . , the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation . . . , the US National Institutes of Health . . . , the Howard Hughes Medical Institute . . . , the Mark and Lisa Schwartz Foundation . . . , the Intramural Research Program and the Office of AIDS Research of the US National Institutes of Health . . . , the Canadian Institutes for Health Research . . . and the Canada Research Chair in Viral Pathogenesis and Immunity . . . .”

The lead author, cited in the news stories, appears to be Bruce D. Walker, “professor at Harvard School of Public Health”.
One can only hope that he was not quoted correctly to the effect that “One person has been fending off AIDS since 1978”.

It would be a nice trick, after all, to have diagnosed “HIV infection” some 6 years before the purported discovery of HIV.
Not, of course, that reporters who cover such stories need know anything about the subject.
Nor, of course, that researchers studying elite controllers need know anything about the history of the discovery of “HIV”.

11 Responses to “Mainstream HIV PSEUDO-science”

  1. DC said

    This research is following the “HIV kills CD4 cells directly” model of how HIV works, but I thought the “HIV kills CD4 through immune over-stimulation” model was starting to get more tract recently.

    I went to a dinner sponsored by Glaxo Smith Klein a few weeks ago hosted by an HIV+ doctor with a successful HIV practice in West Hollywood. One of the topics that came up was the inflammation caused by HIV and how that’s probably more dangerous than the virus killing CD4 cells themselves. And in the explanation of how the virus works, the doctor kept going back and forth between the two models without realizing that they kind of contradict each other… But he didn’t seem to notice. It was all just indoctrination to make sure people take meds.

    • Henry Bauer said

      DC:
      Very good points, thanks. The mainstream literature has no agreed mechanism by which HIV does what it’s supposed to do:
      “It is not clear how much of the pathology of AIDS is directly due to the virus and how much is caused by the immune system itself. There are numerous models which have been suggested to explain how HIV causes immune deficiency” — http://www.microbiologybytes.com/virology/AIDSI.html
      (Updated 8 April 2009)

  2. Daniel A. Clinton, RN, BSN said

    Isn’t the simplest explanation to explain AIDS in America that the tests are only 99.6% specific and will thus generate 1 false positive out of every 250 or so tests which perfectly aligns with the 0.4% estimated prevalence?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Daniel Clinton:
      If you had said “HIV” in America, I could agree more!

      • Daniel A. Clinton, RN, BSN said

        The same phenomenon reveals itself globally. There are an estimated 34 million HIV positives in the world. Sounds terrifying. Until we realize that there are 7,020,470,270 people in the world which again works out to a 0.48% prevalence. And as the WHO, CDC, and Duesberg all note (though interpret quite differently), there are more than 30 million AIDS-free HIV positive people in the world.

    • Guy said

      I take it that your 99.6% “specific” rate was derived by subtracting the 0.4% prevalence from 100%. If you have any evidence that the test is specific to anything, a link might be widely appreciated.

      A better explanation could be that what the “HIV” test measures is an immune reaction to proteins that might be in our system due to any of various stresses, many of them identified many not. Since a positive reaction to the test as a whole is based on some combination of three or more positive reactions to individual proteins, it might be useful to see if there is any correlation between particular stresses (TB, pregnancy, etc.) and specific positive reactions of the individual proteins.

      Is anyone aware if Dr. Roberto Giraldo has tested his hypothesis that virtually everyone is “HIV” positive if the dilution of the blood sample used for testing is low enough?

      • Henry Bauer said

        Guy:
        Tests no longer call for the dilution needed with the original tests Giraldo was commenting on long ago

  3. Henry, I appreciate your response to Guy that HIV skeptics need to keep up to date on testing for “HIV”. There’s an awful lot of the old stuff that Rethinkers need to rethink IMO. (E.g., there’s no such thing as a Pasteur Institute Standard for retroviral isolation that governed all research after 1970.)

    I would also recommend that dissidents who want to validate their credentials in theoretical or critical analysis of retrovirology study the mechanisms of AIDS pathogenesis proposed at the microbiologybytes site. (Thanks for putting up this link.) I.e., one who is really interested in science as “that small or narrow realm of knowledge where we expect to achieve universal agreement” (Richard Muller) should be capable of arguing the varying positions of HIV experts.

    Dr Walker also has an article for lay people in July 2012 Scientific American where he describes “HIV pathogenesis” as follows: “When (HIV) infects cells, it takes over their machinery and instructs them to make new viruses instead of performing their usual cellular functions.”

    Now, this can be refuted IMO – since HIV experts accept that viral particles cannot be found in the blood of patients – by another possible result of hijacking cellular functions in many lymphocytes: constant reproduction of the complete dimeric genome. “Viral load” testing does NOT verify result of all this postulated activity and besides, Walker’s explanation is based on the old and obsolete “DNA directs” fallacy. Based on current research, it’s theoretically possible for the 70S RNA* to be transmitted cell to cell with extensive multiplication and thus detectable amounts from the patients in which this is happening.

    I would also be interested in what you have to say about the recent announcement by Muller of his “conversion”. He’s shifted his position from global warming skeptic to, it’s real and caused by human activity. See: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/2/climate_skeptic_koch_funded_scientist_richard

    _____________
    *As long ago established – the sedimentation band at which complete retrovirus genomes wind up after centrifuge processing.

    ———————–
    P.S. And a quibble: it is possible to retrospectively test for “HIV” from serum samples of patients obtained in say 1978.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Eugene Semon:
      Thanks for the points re viral load and related.
      I haven’t looked at Muller’s detailed rationale, but he’s already been criticized for too narrow a look at the data.
      Not intending to be flippant: His reasons must be based in psychology rather than the science, because the science claiming proof of human-caused or accelerated warming is faulty. For example: Average global temperatures were about 15 degrees C higher during most of the Earth’s life, and 5-6 degrees higher during most of the last million years with about 7 or 8 cycles between colder and warmer; and we’re at present only a few thousand years past one of the historical lows. It is simply not possible to demonstrate that the rate of warming in the last century or so is appreciably greater than in one of the earlier post-cold warming periods. It has also been amply shown that carbon dioxide levels do not historically correlate with temperature.

    • Guy said

      Here is a video clip where Dr. Roberto Giraldo explains his hypothesis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cEZxzQOnF0&feature=related

      Under the old test a group of 100 samples tested by Dr. Giraldo came out positive without dilution, though they had tested negative with the then standard 400 to 1 dilution. Dr. Giraldo goes on in the clip to explain that the proteins that are used in the “HIV” test are proteins produced by the body and released into the bloodstream due to various forms of stress. The immune system then produces antibodies against these proteins.

      In other words, pretty much all of us have antibodies agains the proteins in the “HIV” test but some have enough antibodies to surpass the threshold that the 400 to 1 dilution provided. This threshold might be surpassed due to an individual having undergone more stress than most or having a more sensitive immune system than most.

      I do not believe that the development of a new “HIV” test that does not require dilution in any way invalidates Dr. Giraldo’s hypothesis. He showed that there was an immune response in all his blood samples to the proteins in the test kit.

      It would be interesting to know how the test kit is modified to make the dilution not necessary.

      • Benedetto said

        yes, I agree with you.. even if the diluition is no longer needed, if Giraldo were right, he did demostrated a human origin of the test antigens!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s