From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,talk.origins
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:33:29 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.politics.medicine
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: bhjelle@carina.unm.edu

In article <-tsrq8b@lynx.unm.edu>, bhjelle@carina writes:
>In article <C01DJ3.5DF@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>>    You have not causally linked premise and conclusion. I have
>>asked if D's claim that there is NO peer-reviewd paper proving HIV
>>causes AIDS can be contradicted. No has identified any such paper.

>The 3 back-to-back Science papers by Gallo's lab in 1984 proved
>that HIV causes AIDS.

I want to disagree, but first a diversion.  We find here an interesting
analogy with creationism.  One of the more dimwitted gambits used by
creationists is to make endless hay out of the murky foundations of the
philosophy of science.  They only do this, of course, for evolution, but
the application of this fallacious mode of argument is widespread.

Currently, a maximally clueless version of this argument is being carried
on by a Randroid (ie, an Ayn Rand cult devotee).  Like creationists who
quote snippets of evolution out of context and with zero comprehension
of how galumphingly stupid their misunderstanding is, and then move on
to everything but the facts, our Randroid has been spewing out a few
colossal boners, lies, and random gibberish about HIV and AIDS, but
mostly raving on about homosexuals and Rand.

A creationist once asked in talk.origins when was the "fact of evolution"
considered proven.  He got numerous answers, and thought that this range
of answers clinched the case that scientists don't know what they're
talking about.  Of course this is ridiculous--there simply are no uniform
standards of proof in science.  Each individual scientist has his turning
point regarding when the mass of accumulating evidence is convincing.  And
usually a somewhat higher point that is considered incontrovertible proof.

Which brings us to the end of the diversion.  I'd disagree that the 1984
NCI papers were _proof_, although I agree they were damned convincing.
Proof, in my mathematical eyes, has been more recent.  Two stand out
in particular.  The restriction of the overwhelming majority of blood
transfusion AIDS cases to recipients of unscreened blood 1977-1985, and
the ability to track more recent cases to donors who seroconverted after
their donation, puts a bullseye on HIV.  As does the ability of AZT, a
reverse transcriptase inhibitor, to delay the onset of AIDS.  By a not
so surprising coincidence, HIV evolves to be AZT resistant, and AIDS
follows.  And this ability of AZT to delay AIDS is voided if the initial
HIV infection is AZT resistant.  Which makes perfects sense if HIV causes
AIDS, but which makes absolutely no sense if HIV does not cause AIDS.

>>In the context of my knowledge, therefore, HIV does not cause AIDS.

Considering that the context of your knowledge is the empty set, it's
not surprising that you come to fantasy conclusions.

>>The gauntlet has been thrown!

No, just your brain has been hurled against a wall too many times.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.homosexuality