From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Dealing with "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" people.
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 6163
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:34:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.000720.29209@cs.ucla.edu> downey%homer.CS.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Allen B. Downey) writes:
>     His hypothesis is that AIDS among homosexual men and intravenous
>     drug users is caused by habitual drug use, that among Africans it
>     is caused by malnutrition, intenstinal parasites, and other factors,
>     and that among hemophiliacs it is caused by repeated blood trans-
>     fusions.

That's pretty damn weak.  What about individuals who receive a SINGLE
blood transfusion?  What about children born of HIV infected women?
What about individuals who receive a needle stick?  What about straight
teenagers who are no more sexually active than any other teens but who happen
to sleep with the wrong partner?  What about women married to men who
are HIV positive (unbenownst to both of them?)  How does this begin to
explain their classical HIV symptoms?  And why has this never been noticed
before 1979 or so?  And may I point out that not all gay men who happen
to have contacted HIV are drug users or have intestinal parasites.  There
are so many ridiculously large holes in this assertion that it's an insult
to have to listen to it one more time.

>2)   I have seen an interview in which one member of the media explained
>     that she was reluctant to criticize some of the
>     more popular AIDS researchers because she was afraid of alienating
>     her own sources of information (like the CDC).  She reported that
>     after she wrote about Peter Duesberg, she found herself ostracized
>     by AIDS researchers and other reporters specializing in AIDS news.

Oh, wow, a conspiracy.

>3)   By "all the criteria" for being an causative infectious agent, I
>     assume you are referring to Koch's postulates, which the HIV-AIDS
>     hypothesis does NOT satisfy.

Koch's postulates is certainly not the end-all and be-all of determining what
is an infectious disease.

>4)   I think it is presumptuous of you to call AIDS in the absence of HIV
>     "a red herring."  It is at least worthy of consideration, regardless
>     of your confidence in the HIV-AIDS hypothesis.

Of course it's worthy of consideration.  However, I think what you will
find is that these individuals' presentations are indicative of an
immune deficiency, but one which is not identical to HIV infection.
Of course they shouldn't be ignored, but there isn't any data from
these reports which would begin to shake anyone's faith in the role of
HIV in producing AIDS.

>5)    My advice for dealing with people who don't believe the HIV-AIDS
>      hypothesis is the same as my advice for dealing with people who do:
>      evaluate what they say skeptically, think for yourself, try to find
>      the purest data you can (raw numbers, not someone's interpretation
>      of someone's interpretation of someone's...  you get the idea).

Except that this isn't an academic exercise.  People are being
misled by such irresponsible, sensational disinformation.  This
can lead to behavior which can risk their own lives and the lives
of others.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer