Here is the page I am responding to in this post of mine (on another newsgroup):

http://www.anaesthetist.com/icu/infect/virus/dues2.htm

Response:

Now this is the kind of essay a student might have written in one of my courses. I would have advised the student to rewrite it, realizing that the student is "trying" but does not understand certain essentials about the scientific method.

Quote: We cannot simply make bland statements like "HIV causes AIDS". We must provide practical, relevant, and testable (falsifiable) assertions that should allow "dissident scientists" to attack our standpoint using the scientific approach of falsification. Needless to say, we should welcome well-formulated attacks, for science can only proceed by the identification of problems, the creation and refinement of explanatory hypotheses, and the testing of these hypotheses for their ability to withstand the sharpest arrows we can shoot at them. In this sense, and this sense alone, we should welcome criticism from Professor Duesberg and his colleagues. We should perhaps be grateful to Prof. Duesberg for providing us with an opportunity to explore the nature of science, and see how badly one can go off the rails if one concentrates on "proof of causation" rather than "falsification". Unquote.

This is good, and I would mention that Copernicus was correct about the heliocentric notion but not about the perfectly circular orbit. In a similar way, Duesberg was correct about certain obvious problems with the "HIV/AIDS" claims but appears to be wrong about the notion that "HIV" is a virus the way the flu is, for example, and that there are "antibodies to HIV." He has only been able to think so far "outside the box," like Copernicus.

The onus is on the person or people making the claim to demonstrate that it meets the criteria of the scientific method. All factors have to be controlled for in on point experiments. Talking about "AIDS in Africa" is supposed to demonstrate what, exactly? Most of these "AIDS patients" are not even given the tests considered basic in other nations. This is a terrible argument, if one can even call it an argument.

Some, like Ho, have diligently tried to demonstrate causation, but they have all failed. The Perth Group points out that "testing positive" is an indicator (not necessarily a great one) of cellular level damage or distress, and so "correlations" with 30 or so "diseases" several years later would make perfect sense (while Duesberg's notions do not).

Some "dissidents" do spend a lot of time of questins of "isolation" but this is irrelevant for the claimant, as his/her burden is clear; there needs to be a formal scientific hypothesis stated, then tests must be done that control for all possible factors. This has not been done with the "HIV/AIDS" claims, and hence it cannot be regarded as "science" at this point, regardless of what any "dissident" remarks.

The person who wrote the essay, however, has decided to state a hyothyesis:

Quote: AIDS can be defined as a syndrome of acquired immunodeficiency characterised by lowered CD4 counts and 'disseminated tuberculosis or unusual opportunistic infections or certain aggressive neoplasms'. (1) Most cases of African AIDS are associated with repeatable serological evidence of 'HIV infection'. (2) Prevention of transmission of 'HIV' (as indicated by repeated negative serology) prevents AIDS. (3) Continued suppression of 'HIV' replication (as indicated by lowered 'viral load' in the blood) constitutes an effective therapy, and is associated with improvement in immune function, and a lower incidence of opportunistic infections. Unquote.

Now defining a clinical syndrome has nothing to do with meeting the criteria of the scientific method. It is used by doctors to try and help patients in the absence of such an attainment, hopefully without doing harm (Hippocratic Oath). Then he talks of "associations" in Africa and "repeated serological evidence." Associations are used to point a scientist in the right direction and do not meet the criteria of the scientific method. If this were so, it should be quite easy to demonstrate that because there is an association between people with the smelliest socks at the end of the day and a "disease" that the smelly socks caused the disease. Moreover, talking about "evidence" of "HIV infection" is assuming what needs to be demonstrated. The markers now used to claim that a person is infected are ubiquitous, and that comes from the relevant "non-dissident" literature. First, "HIV/AIDS" claimants need to demonstrate that the markers they are using are specific for a particular virus, and then the would need to show how this particular virus causes harm ten or so years later.

The statement "Prevention of transmission of 'HIV' (as indicated by repeated negative serology) prevents AIDS" demonstrates the problem with this way of thinking. "AIDS" can only be deemed present if there are "positive HIV tests," so there is nothing here but circular reasoning. The alternative that makes the most sense is that these markers demonstrate cellular level damage and/or cellular debris in amounts larger than normal, demonstrating that there is pathological process, and so one would expect such people to be more likely to develop certain "diseases" 10 or so years later. Taking "medication" that is highly toxic makes it impossible to determine why one of the "AIDS defining diseases" develop. Just telling a person that he/she is going to die in 10 years (a terrible death) introduces a stressor that is not present in a control population (not that controls are used by "HIV/AIDS experts" anyway). If one argues that "HIV positives" who don't take the "medication" die a bit sooner (not exactly a great argument to make when prescribing such "medicine"), then one has to have convincing evidence that this is indeed the case, along with controlling for all factors. It may be, for example, that most who refuse the "medicine" are people who continue to do what caused the cellular level damage in the first place, and therefore one would expect them to "develop and AIDS defining disease" a bit sooner. Again, circular reasoning is present but the scientfic method is not.

Also not mentioned is the fact that two or more hypotheses can exist at the same time, but only one can become a scientifc theory (though none may). It is only with time and properly controlled experiments (that are repeated for verification) that one can claim that a hypothesis should be considered a theory. If one reads the literature on dangerous viruses, as I have, one is struck by how these "experts" (who don't question the "HIV/AIDS" claim) point out that deadly viruses appear to kill indirectly, buy provoking a powerful inflammatory response. This explains the 1918 pandemic, for example, because there the young, healthy, and physically active died in greater proportions. Their "good health" meant that their bodies responded with a more potent inflammatory response, and from there direct damage and/or a bacterial pathogen could have done the deadly damage. We now have the technology to determine exactly what is going on at the molecular level, so there is no reason for speculation. However, it is true that those who determine who gets the money to do the kinds of experiments to make such determinations don't often see the value in doing so. And thus those who understand the scientific method realize that one must refrain from making definitive statements until such experiments are done. Too many these days do what the author has done, that is, assume that textbook statements or models are correct, and then engage in circular reasoning as "proof."

First and foremost, I would ask the author to restate the "working hypothesis" (in a sense, all hypotheses must be "working" in order for them to be of much use). I have tried to think of one, but in light of the evidence, it is difficult. The best I could do would be something like: "there is evidence of what is considered by most virolgists to be a retroviral infection. This seems to correlate with a clinical syndrome some number of years later at this point in time. I propose to isolate people who test 'HIV negative' and expose them to all the stressors present among the early 'AIDS patients,' including chronic use of 'poppers,' antibiotics, corticosteriods, receptive anal sex, a 'junk food diet,' etc., for three years, then have them take AZT for at least two years. At that point, it will be observed whether they suffer from conditions that appear to be consistent with the clinical syndrome that is now called 'AIDS.' The subjects (volunteers, of course) will be male homosexuals who agree to be monitored in a way that will prevent any possibility of becoming what is now considered to be 'infected with HIV.' In this way, we eliminate the possibility that any other factor present in this population but not others could be the cause of 'AIDS' rather than what is considered to be a retroviral infection."

I hope everyone sees the problem here: "HIV/AIDS" claimants would argue that what these volunteers might develop is "non-HIV AIDS" (or some other phrase meaning the same thing). Thus, they preclude the possibility of using the scientific method because they hold their definition of the phenomena to be more important than the scientific method. This is unacceptable and such people should not be allowed to call themselves scientists, among other things. At this point, It has become something much more like a cult than science, actually, and attacking critics, who may indeed be incorrect about something specific (or more likely, overstate their case) does nothing to remedy the situation. Only an understanding and willingness to meet the simple standards of the scientific method will acheive this.

I think I should make an important point explicitly: one can refute a hypothesis by showing that it's essential points are wrong. For example, in 1930 and experiment was done on rats (Burr & Burr), and from that experiment (done with improper controls) came the claim that certain animals require dietary sources of specific fatty acids. In 1948, a properly controlled experiment was done in which one group of rats was given no fat source and there was did not develop any symptoms of disease or deficiency. It was determined that a B vitamin (unknown in 1930) was what the rats needed. This is a direct refutation, and there is nothing that can be done to resurrect the 1930 claim, assuming the 1948 experiment was not outright fraudulent (it found its way into the Enclycopedia Britannica). There is no reason to pursue the 1930 claim beyond this point (at least in rats), and yet it is a darling of "health and nutrition gurus" these days, so the "HIV/AIDS" situation is hardly unique or new. The point is that the "HIV/AIDS" claimants, if they truly want to do science, can define "AIDS" precisely, then my experiment could be conducted, and if the volunteers developed "AIDS" the "HIV/AIDS" claim would be directly refuted and would need to be abandond completely. There would be no need to attack "dissidents" or argue that this or that correlation "proved" that "HIV/AIDS" is "true." However, because of the circular reasoning present (which is not in the "essential fatty acid" claim) they are basically asserting something akin to Papal Infallibility.

End of response.

Note that a "typo" error or two occur in my response.

And here's a response to a person who wanted to know about how to "prove" the existence of a deadly virus:

"Proof" is for math and logic. Here, there is a need for a clear demonstration, done in a way that is consistent with the scientific method. If that has been done, I'd like to see it. I asked about the "SIV" monkey studies on another post, but it didn't seem like anyone knew about what was asking. Now, in order for any virus to be deadly it has to provoke a strong inflammatory/immune response or it has to have a direct cytotoxic effect on at least one kind of cell. However, if you demonstrate that animals in poor health are killed off by a direct cytotoxic effect, you have demonstrated evolutionary theory, not virus theory. That is, if you want to demonstrate that a virus is deadly, you need to kill off healthy animals in a way that is just like conditions in the wild. Otherwise, you do not have proper controls, and there is no way to know exactly what you have demonstrated. However, even viruses that are considered "the worst" usually kill no more than about 25% of the population, and all of this may be due to the inflammatory response, not a direct cytotoxic effect (except perhaps in the very weak). Since one can modulate the inflammatory response by doing rather mundane things (dietatry, for example), my sense is that this is where the resesarch should be directed now.

As I've said elsewhere, there is more than enough evidence and the technology is now available: if a virus is killing a person, there is no reason to be unable to demnonstrate exactly how, down to the molecular level. Instead, we get models derived from old assumptions that found their way into textbooks. Then, the evidence is "massaged," in an attempt to force the square pegs into the round holes. This is true for other claims as well (such as the lipid bilayer membrane and "essential" fatty acids), and represents a failure to understand the scientific method. I've had students who were majors in a scientific discipline tell me that they never really understood the fundamental principles upon which science was based until they took my history class. They would say that after taking my class, their science classes made a lot more sense to them. Moreover, my interactions with scientists has led me to conclude that most of them either don't understand or don't pay much attention to the scientific method. Career advancement, developing things that can be patented, etc., seem to be more important than "worrying" about the scientific method, and so here we are, in the midst of the great failure of the modern biomedical establishment.