Hi,
I am wondering if there was any discussion of the following letter to
Science in 1995. I just ran accross this today and what caught my eye was
one of the people that signed this complaint. I have not followed the
AIDS literature very closely. Is there anyone out there that has followed
the story close enough that they are aware of this group "Group for the
Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis?" I keep up on current
literature so I could imagine that if there was no evidence that the HIV
virus was the causitive agent it would appear to PJ that this was yet
another example of the scientific community putting its blinders. Reading
the material on the web site there is much language there that sounds like
PJs writing so I wasn't too surprised to find his name attached.
Interesting his seems to be the only name of a non-scientist and I wonder
how he became involved.
Just trying to kick of the new millenium with another hot topic.
TTFN,
Joel Duff
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data2/letterscience.htm
Begin quote:
AIDS PROPOSAL
The following letter was published in Science (17 Feb. 1995, vol.267
pp.945-946):
In 1991, we, the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the
HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, became dissatisfied
with the state of the evidence that the human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) did, in fact, cause AIDS.
Specifically, we have proposed that researchers independent of
the HIV establishment should audit the
Centers for Disease Control's records of AIDS cases, bearing in
mind that the correlation of HIV with
AIDS, upon which the case for HIV causation rests, is itself an
artefact of the definition of AIDS. Since
1985, exactly the same diseases or conditions have been defined
as "AIDS" when antibodies are present,
and as "non-AIDS" when HIV and antibodies are absent.
Independent professional groups such as the
Society of Actuaries should be invited to nominate members for
an independent commission to
investigate the following question: How frequently do
AIDS-defining diseases (or low T cell counts)
occur in the absence of HIV? Until we have a definition of AIDS
that is independent of HIV, the
supposed correlation of HIV and AIDS is mere tautology.
Other independent researchers should examine the validity of the
so-called "AIDS tests," especially
when these tests are used in Africa and Southern Asia, to see if
they reliably record the presence of
antibodies, let alone live and replicating virus.
The bottom line is this: the skeptics are eager to see the
results of independent scientific testing. Those
who uphold the HIV "party line" have so far refused. We object.
Eleen Baumann
Tom Bethell
Harvey Bialy
Peter H. Duesberg
Celia Farber
Charles L. Geshekter
Phillip E. Johnson
Robert W. Maver
Russell Schoch
Gordon T. Stewart
Richard C. Strohman
Charles A. Thomas Jr.
For the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the
HIV/AIDS Hypothesis.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 01 2000 - 17:09:56 EST