Highly esteemed Lynn Margulis on HIV/AIDS

[Sheri Nakken]

The highly esteemed Dr. Lynn Margulis - one of the great scientists of our age because of her radical insights into the evolution of cells.

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/03/post_33.php
"From the CDC (Center for Disease Control) in Atlanta I have requested the scientific papers that prove the causal relationship between the HIV retrovirus and the IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME commonly known as AIDS. They have never sent even references to the peer-reviewed primary scientific literature that establishes the causal relationship because they can't. Such papers do not exist. "

"The HIV tests, nearly always positive for pregnant women, that vary significantly in the US, Europe and Australia are particularly disturbing. "

"I have observed that the closer one comes to the study of humans the shoddier the quality of the scientific evidence. Maybe that is one of the reasons that I work with bacteria and protoctists (the eukaryotic microorganisms and their immediate descendants exclusive of plants, animals and fungi). The vast majority of these are harmless to human health. '

"HIV purports to kill CD4 cells. That is the sine qua non of the disease.

Yet, many other factors kill CD4 cells, too:

1. Alterations in lymphocyte cell surface markers during various human infections.
--Williams et al, Am J Med. 1983 Nov;75(5):807-16.

2. CD4+ lymphocytopenia without HIV in patient with cryptococcal disease. Seligmann et al., Lancet, 1991,Jan 5;337(8732):57-8

3. Reduced CD4+ T cells and severe oral candidiasis in absence of HIV infection. Pankhurst et al., Lancet. 1989 Mar 25;1(8639):672.

4. CD4 lymphocytopenia without HIV in patient with cryptococcal infection. Jowitt et al., Lancet. 1991 Feb 23;337(8739):500-1

5. Acquired immunodeficiency without evidence of infection with human immunodeficiency virus types 1 -- Laurence et al. Lancet. 1992 Aug 1;340(8814):273-4

6. Reduced CD4+ T cells and candidiasis in absence of HIV infection. Gatenby et al., Lancet. 1989 May 6;1(8645):1027-

7. Profound CD4+ lymphocytopenia in the absence of HIV infection in a patient with visceral leishmaniasis, Cozon et al. N Engl J Med. 1990 Jan 11;322(2):132.

These are all papers/letters in the mainstream scientific literature, so they cannot be dismissed.

So, many other factors cause the exact same effect (depleted CD4 cells) as HIV.

So, each of the these factors must, if one is to be intellectually honest, ruled out, before claiming that the virus is the cause of any particular CD4 cell decline.

This is a massive "confounding" factor. Also, much of the AIDS literature suffers from "confirmation bias." Either the authors merely assume that HIV is the cause of AIDS or they clearly hope to find this relationship.

I found Dr. Margulis' comments to be quite interesting and provocative. I think highly of scientists who don't meekly follow the herd in any field. It would be much better if proponents of the viral cause of AIDS would state a priori what evidence would prove their own claim false, and then go about testing the claim.'

"
Let me explain to you a very simple argument:

1. CD4 cell decline is the sine qua non of the disease called AIDS.

2. Many things, other than HIV, cause CD4 cell decline.

3. Therefore, HIV is not necessary to cause AIDS.

Very simple. Please tell us that you understand this.
"
And determining the viral strain?
"
The judge is trying to understand how one can tell where different strains come from as well, considering the gene banks only look at about 11 to 16 percent of the entire 9600 genome structure of the reputed virus to compare. It is particularly troubling to the judge after the foremost researcher in Australia told him that up to 30 percent of the virus can drop out or be altered.

Just how do you run a gene bank based on analyzing 11 to 16 percent and surmising where the strain came from, when the variable is as high as 30 percent of the genomic structure of the entire supposed retrovirus?

What sort of sequencing science is that?
"
**********
"We find the paucity of evidence published in standard peer-reviewed primary scientific journals that leads to the conclusion that "HIV causes AIDS" appalling. No amount of moralizing censorship, rhetorical tricks, consensus of opinion, pulling rank, obfuscation, ad hominem attacks or blustering newspaper editorials changes this fact. The conflation "HIV-AIDS" may be good marketing but is it science? No.
"

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_wor ... rguli.html
Dr. Lynn Margulis: A great scientist, a classy lady.

We return to the latest fusillade in the Amazon wars over a great book by our Pal, Dr. Harvey Bialy .

To recap:

1. Dr. Peter Duesberg, a member of the National Academy of Science, continues his remarkable scientific career, where he created (then ultimately rejected) the oncogene theory of cancer, refuted the viral theory of AIDS, and resurrected the aneuploidy theory of cancer.

2. Dr. Harvey Bialy, former scientific editor of Nature BioTechnology, wrote a great book about Doc Duesberg.

3.Now, the highly esteemed, Dr. Lynn Margulis, and her colleague, James MacAllister, have joined the fray at Amazon, writing a remarkably, eloquent, coherent, informative and provocative review of Bialy's book. In a nutshell, Dr. Margulis thought the book a "riveting narrative [that] documents the troubling censorship and punishment of a tenacious scientist seeking answers."

Ok, so who is Dr. Margulis, you ask?

1. She is a distinguished Professor of Geosciences at University of Massachussets at Amherst, and a member of the National Academy of Science;

2. She received the Presidential Medal of Science in 1999 from President Clinton;

3. Overcoming much entrenched bad scientific dogma, she developed the brilliant "endosymbiosis theory" -- --which posits, essentially, that cellular mitochondria were once independent critters, gobbled up by more sophisticated organisms as evolution progressed thru the ages.

4. Richard Dawkins once wrote about her:

I greatly admire Lynn Margulis's sheer courage and stamina in sticking by the endosymbiosis theory, and carrying it through from being an unorthodoxy to an orthodoxy. I'm referring to the theory that the eukaryotic cell is a symbiotic union of primitive prokaryotic cells. This is one of the great achievements of twentieth-century evolutionary biology, and I greatly admire her for it

5. She was once married to the great Astro-Biologist, Carl Sagan .

In short, her credentials, achievements and guts in challenging the experts in her field (and prevailing) can only be questioned by the rankest of amateur poseurs, who have staked their lives and fortune on the bogus oncogene theory of cancer -- and even more bogus viral theory of AIDS

So, what does she think about Bialy, Duesberg, the book, and the science? A few excerpts from her Review at Amazon:

On Duesberg and Bialy:

Bialy and Duesberg are foremost excellent scientists who follow David Bohm's adage "Science is the search for truth, whether we like it or not". It strains credulity to ascribe any other motivation to their stance.

Peter Duesberg continues his splendid 35-year research career at the University of California at Berkeley...

On the Book:

"..hotly contested...rivetting narrative..."

On the Science:

We find the paucity of evidence published in standard peer-reviewed primary scientific journals that leads to the conclusion that "HIV causes AIDS" appalling. No amount of moralizing censorship, rhetorical tricks, consensus of opinion, pulling rank, obfuscation, ad hominem attacks or blustering newspaper editorials changes this fact. The conflation "HIV-AIDS" may be good marketing but is it science? No.

We nominate and declare Dr. Margulis as our Scientist of the Week. We hereby retire the award in her name. Check out the review and buy the book!

***********
http://sciencewomen.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... v-and.html

and
http://www.deanesmay.com/questioning_th ... 6_07.shtml
"Duesberg's paper caused such an uproar in the medical research community that it led to rewriting of the rules for submission by members of their own scientific articles for the PNAS [note: that would be the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences --Dean]. His questions are still valid. Lives are at stake. We find the paucity of evidence published in standard peer-reviewed primary scientific journals that leads to the conclusion that "HIV causes AIDS" appalling. No amount of moralizing censorship, rhetorical tricks, consensus of opinion, pulling rank, obfuscation, ad hominem attacks or blustering newspaper editorials changes this fact. The conflation "HIV-AIDS" may be good marketing but is it science? No. Yet certainly the political and economic implications of the term "HIV-AIDS" are staggering. "

"troubling censorship and punishment of a tenacious scientist seeking answers. Unjustifiably labelled "denialists", "homophobes", "charlatans", or "Nazis", "

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=1556435312 /wellwithinA/
Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg (Paperback)
"exposes and documents the sleazy underbelly of HIV research and drug development. "

review by Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1993 (inventor of PCR testing)
I recommend it to anyone who cares to be entertained or educated in the details of how the science of cancer or AIDS has been done in this last half century. But it is far more than that. It is a window cracked not just on Peter's travails but on all of the science and sorcery since the invention of money. A long winter's tale. "
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases - next classes start in September