Hello Jim. You wrote:
[...]
>I'm not sure where Tim gets his characterizations here,
Firsthand, primarily, from reading Johnson's articles in sci.med.aids
and in the "Reason" article; and from others who have worked with Peter
Duesberg and Kary Mullis. Peter's lab is one building over and roughly
100 yards away from mine. I've heard Peter talk in seminars and have
read some of his articles. From what you've read of Duesberg and
the biology of HIV & AIDS, would you consider him to be a reliable
source for information about the role of HIV in AIDS? Could one
evaluate his arguments by logic alone or is there a fair amount of
familiarity with the subject that is required?
For example, what do you think of Peter's repeated claim that people
infected with HIV never have more than one in 10,000 T-cells actively
producing copies of the virus? True or false? (Answer: False) Or
how about this: It was demonstrated that HIV DNA was only rarely
detected (by PCR) in the seminal fluid of infected individuals. Does
this lend credence to the idea that AIDS can't be infectious (via sex)
because there's so little HIV in such body? (Answer: The Taq polymerase
which is normally used in PCR only amplifies *DNA*, not RNA. The
infectious form of the virus uses RNA and thus reverse polymerase must
be used to copy the RNA into DNA _before_ PCR amplification can be used
to detect the HIV particles. When a reverse transcriptase step is
added to detection system, HIV is found in abundance among infected
individuals). For the most part, Johnson (and others) were relying on
long out-of-date results and methods (some from 1986, no less!) -- Not
the state of the art as existed in 1993. As I said, the field moves
fast; at the time Johnson was getting into the debate, the case was
essentially closed and most of the HIV-dissidents had come/were coming
to accept HIV as the intial cause for the cascade of progression
into AIDS. Currently, most work is focused on determining the
mechanisms behind the immune system collapse and the roles of
secondary (& opportunistic) agents in the syndrome.
>but when Charles A. Thomas, Jr., the biochemist who is president of the
>Helicon Foundation; and Kary Mullis, who is the 1993 Nobel Prize winner
>in chemistry, join with Phil to write a lengthy and detailed article
>which Reason not only published, but characterized as a "strong case,"
>I think Phil's grasp of the details must have been just fine.
I really have no idea who Charles Thomas is, but I do know Kary; or at
least I know of his reputation (He did come out of UC Berkeley and at
one time worked for Cetus. I know people that worked with him at both
places). I've also met many Nobel Prize winners and allow me to suggest
that Kary is one of the rare examples of a Nobel Prize winner from the
United States who will probably never be elected into the US National
Academy of Sciences -- And let me also suggest that this prediction
has nothing to do with his position on HIV and AIDS. In the field he
is not much more highly regarded than Peter Duesberg and with the single
instance of PCR, Kary has certainly contributed less to biochemistry
than Peter. Check his scientific publications if you doubt this. If
one is going to present Kary's credentials (Nobel Prize, and he can
be a pretty bright guy) as an indicator that Johnson must know what he's
doing, one might want to check Kary's "other" credentials (including
the present address of his lab).
Let me put my spin on the relationship between "credentials" and
reliability. Though I am a biochemist, I am not an expert on viruses,
immunology, or animal pathology. However, my experience and work would
allow me to move into this field relatively easily (as any other move
in biochemistry). Even so, and even after much study and background
reading, I would personally be hesitant to take a definite position
against the real researchers studying HIV without first doing extensive
research and possibly some work in the field. I would also take the
time to consult others who hold different opinions. This is not
because of some fear of personal retribution but because I find it
extremely repulsive to "muddy up" the waters by publishing trash or
data I couldn't validate professionally. Insofar as Phil Johnson relied
on the opinions of a select and inappropriate few, he can be excused
for being mistaken or misled. However, to publish on that basis takes
stony cajones and a fair amount of recklessness (IMHO).
------------------------------------------------------
In another post, Steve Clark mentions...
S: [...] Peter has criticised the scientific establishment of too hastily
S: favoring one conclusion and ignoring contradictory evidence. Does
S: this sound like an issue Phil would rise to or what?
*grin* What people say of Peter's thoughts about oncogenes...
S: Deusberg's major complaint is that even though there is an extremely
S: strong correlation between HIV infection and development of AIDS, no
S: one has injected HIV into someone in order to document its role in
S: AIDS. However, a related simian virus (SIV) causes identical symptoms
S: in monkeys so a viral origin for AIDS has precedence.
I think no one has deliberately been injected with HIV, but there are
cases where inadvertent needle-sticks produced unwilling subjects.
Transfusions, transplantations and epidemiological data have also
gone a long way to establish the infectious nature of the disease.
But all this was history long before 1993. [John Moore's review of
Duesberg's book in Nature (28 Mar 96 - 380:293-294) absolutely rips
on Peter, FWIW.]
Regards, Tim Ikeda (timi@mendel.berkeley.edu)