PJ and AIDS

From: Joel Duff (joelduff@nls.net)
Date: Sat Jan 01 2000 - 20:02:26 EST

  • Next message: Vernon Jenkins: "Re: Exceptional Measures"

    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