Media’s Manto-bashing has undermined important nutrition message
Has the South African media’s derision of Manto’s beetroot-and-African-potato diet been detrimental to the fight against HIV/AIDS? One has to wonder that they might have taken the joke too far for the good of HIV-positive people.
An HIV/AIDS and food security officer told journalists at the 16th International AIDS conference on August 11: “Sick people can’t farm, they can’t work. Hungry people can’t eat AIDS messages.”
Dr Gabriel Rugulema said people were getting sick because they were not being fed properly and couldn’t be bothered with AIDS messages. The South African government, he argued, should be spending more money on promoting good nutrition. SAPA reported:
“Rugulema said too much emphasis is currently being placed on Aids as a medical problem, when in rural areas good nutrition is the key to the efficacy of anti-retroviral drugs, as they have to be taken after a meal. ‘The critical role of nutrition must be given its proper attention in Aids policy.’”
Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang must be dancing on the rooftops in delight at these comments. For years, she has been ridiculed for her stance that good nutrition would go a long way in making the lives of HIV-positive people that much longer and healthier. Although Rugulema says the efficacy of the foods in the “Manto Diet” (mainly beetroot, olive oil and garlic) has not been proven, eating these foods should be “a part of a broader basket of foods”.
Tshabalala-Msimang has come under fire many times for punting her diet at every opportunity she gets, making her the brunt of media jokes and the frequent target of cartoonists like Zapiro. Many have ridiculed her obsession with nutrition and this has gone a long way in making ordinary people undermine it also.
“Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang has done it again - and this time it includes lemons and beetroot. Briefing the media in Cape Town on health and social development issues on Monday, she regarnished her anti-Aids prescription of olive oil and garlic,” IOL once reported, for example.
The idea is not to totally disregard anti-retroviral treatment but to supplement it with good nutrition and Rugulema says this is what the government should be concentrating on, rather than spending money and time in telling people about HIV/AIDS.
“Rugulema said the South African Department of Health can ‘do more and do better’ when it comes to fighting HIV/Aids. South Africa has the highest number of people living with the virus in the world, accounting for more than one-eighth of the estimated 40,3-million cases.”
Although Tshabalala-Msimang has criticised ARVs, to a certain extent she has been right about the need for good nutrition, and the media’s disdain for her “diet” has probably caused damage in people’s perceptions about the real need for this. Hopefully, Rugulema’s statements will help to remind people not to rely only on ARVs. –Akhona Cira
August 14th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Science nd Responsible Journalism at the World AIDS Conference, Toronto Canada.
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=1786
video of the speakers is available via this web site.
August 15th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Manto is simply seeing the grass roots issus. She is treating a deep pandemic of overpopulating. Her policy will cull the population so there will be more jobs.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
This program works. We are the people of this program and have been working with sick people for many years. Tine van der Maas healthed@mweb.co.za
August 18th, 2006 at 7:35 am
Tine van der Maas? Aren’t you that nurse that looked after DJ Kahabzela who died because you were giving him your “diet”? How can you claim it works? This blog is not saying only the diet works, it’s saying good nutrition helps ARVs.
August 18th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Q: What do Manto and Hendrik Verwoerd have in common?
A: They both don’t care if black people die.
August 25th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Tine claims “This program works”. But exactly how well does it work? What percentage of the people who take it are still alive after 2 years on the program? Is there any reason why it didn’t work so well for Khabzela?
http://www.news24.com/News24/AnanziArticle/0,,2-7-659_1713547,00.html
states that you have adequate medical records for at least 400 patients, even if puglars peed on the records of others. Have those medical records been open to examination by any scientists or doctors?
August 28th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Tine van der Maas’ programme works for everyone who sticks to the treatments. That is the fact. If you-all bothered to investigate her achievements you would understand why our health minister supports her efforts - she personally has seen it work on numerous occasions. Tine has never had the funding support to do trials to prove her case, but obviously that is not for want of trying. It is scandalous that even with 45 hours of video taped proof of 400 people treated over four months in one area in the epicentre of Aids in South Africa no one is prepared to finance her work. I have personal experience of just how effective her programme is from my own investigations.
As to Khabzela - you should make sure you possess the facts before you throw stones. Liz MacGregor’s book was a lamentable piece. If you had read it you would also be able to spot the errors. Khabzela’s story is no different to many others and his death has nothing to do with Tine. He wasn’t ever on her programme, that is why Tine severed connections. Tine’s programme demands real discipline and it is not a walk in the park. It is medicine and it is extremely difficult to stick to it because it is not pleasant - just try one element for one day and then we will talk. The following has to be taken three times a day: one lemon pips peel and all blended to a milkshake with one tablespoon olive oil and 1 cup of water; one tablespooon crushed garlic either in the milkshake or just eaten. One talespoon ginger diced and eaten.
As to you Dr Foley - you just never give up, do you? You had the opportunity to be on President Mbeki’s panel and you never took it up. You pop up all over the place with your red herrings and personal insults instead of addressing the scientific issues with people who are qualified like Dr Howard Urnovitz. On that occasion you just disconnected, didn’t you?
For your information, Tine keeps meticulous records of all people who approach her. In the 45 hours of video every person who agreed to be video taped appears holding their chart recording progress which can be easily read. Why don’t you go onto Tine’s website (www.powertothepeople.co.za) and order her CD which is a 45 minute synopsis of the 45 hours? There are some highlights on the website as well.
Burglars not only deficated all over her house but also stole just about everything she owned while she was in KwaZulu-Natal for four months. Why don’t you take on Gene Semon on the Aetiology blog instead of this blog which lets be honest is entirely without talent so far. - Anita Allen. anita@theallens.co.za
August 28th, 2006 at 11:09 am
The title of this blog “Manto bashing has undermined important nutrition message” is both right and wrong. The importance of proper nutrition for healthy living is being undermined. But Tine van der Maas’ programme is not “nutrition” only. It is medicine - and that is what is being missed.
The basic programme which I outlined in my previous post provides a broadbased anti-fungal, anti-bacterial, anti-viral, anti-oxidant platform. IT detoxifies and re-astablishes cellular chemistry. Just do a search on botanical names of lemon, garlic, ginger and olive under PUBMED and you will be astonished at how many studies establish the pharmacology of these easily obtainable products.
Tine and her mother arrived at their full programme through trial and error over twenty years. From the start they wanted the programme to be low cost, obtainable in a reasonably well established veggie/garden patch or green grocer store; be sustainable, be effective. Their extensive research came up with relatively few ingredients which taken together would provide a basic “get-well, stay-well” programme. As I have said there are other elements besides the basic programme.
Now, please, if you-all want to discuss this further, I will happily participate provided we stick to the science and leave off the personal insults.
It is astonishing to me that South Africans cannot accept as a start that President Mbeki and his Health Minister may just through all the contact they have now had be on to what remains the most tragic mistake in medicine. It’s a fact that scientists are not agreed on HIV/AIDS science. As long as they are not in agreement lay people should at very least not jump to conclusions but try to understand what exactly it is that scientists do not agree. - Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
August 28th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
The news report I have on this, dated March 2005, says that Tine van der Maas made the documentary in 2004.
http://www.news24.com/News24/AnanziArticle/0,,2-7-659_1713547,00.html
So, it seems as if Anita Allen is claiming that all 400 of these patients treated in 2004 are still doing very well today. Anita claims the program works for everyone.
Anita also claims that Tine van der Maas’ treatment regimen is not just nutrition it is “real medicine” which would make it fall under the jurisdiction of the South African Medicines Control Council (MCC). The MCC would then require that there be some evidence that the treatment regimen actually works. Presumably the 400 pateints that she was treating and documenting in 2004-2005 were part of a real clinical trial then, with the proper controls and ethical reviews approved by the South African government.
As for my correspondence with Dr. Howard Urnovitz, I did not just “disconnect”. I wrote to him a few times asking for more information about his theories that human endogenous retroviruses, and not the exogenous lentiviruses known as HIV-1 and HIV-2 were the cause of AIDS. Dr. Urnovitz was not able to explain why the genetic sequences of HIV-1 M group viruses always show a clear epidemiological linkage in phylogenetic analyses, as would be expected if the virus was truly exogenoous, and as would not be expected if the sequences were derived from HERVs. Some examples are:
Leitner T, Escanilla D, Franzen C, Uhlen M, Albert J.
Accurate reconstruction of a known HIV-1 transmission history by phylogenetic tree analysis.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Oct 1;93(20):10864-9.
PMID: 8855273
Lemey P, Derdelinckx I, Rambaut A, Van Laethem K, Dumont S, Vermeulen S, Van Wijngaerden E, Vandamme AM.
Molecular footprint of drug-selective pressure in a human immunodeficiency virus transmission chain.
J Virol. 2005 Sep;79(18):11981-9.
PMID: 16140774
Pasquier C, Cayrou C, Blancher A, Tourne-Petheil C, Berrebi A, Tricoire J, Puel J, Izopet J. Molecular evidence for mother-to-child transmission of multiple variants by analysis of RNA and DNA sequences of human immunodeficiency virus type 1.
J Virol. 1998 Nov;72(11):8493-501.
PMID: 9765386
I will not “give up” on hoping that the truth is finally uncovered in the “AIDS debate” as most people would understand this discussion about whether or not HIV-1 M group viruses are truly the cause of most AIDS cases (HIV-1 N and O group viruses, and HIV-2 cause only a very small percent of cases). I have explored many false leads in this “debate” such as exploring whether HIV-1 O group virus sequences could possibly be derived from HERVs or other human DNA as Dr. Urnovitz once implied, but have not yet found anything to indicate that “AIDS science” is fraudulent. I am not alone, there are tens of thousands of AIDS researchers, and hundreds of thousands of AIDS patients and doctors who have studied this issue. Of course there are always a few people who are confused, and even fewer who will actually tell lies. But this does not truly indicate that the majority is creating a massive fraud.
August 28th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
OK. I read mot of what Gene Semon wrote at the Aetiology and Dean’s World blogs. It is clear that Gene is a bit confused about terms such as endogenous and endemic, but that is not surprising, many people do not understand them.
I don’t think a serious problem such as AIDS, and allegations of medical or sceintific fraud should be hashed out in blogs. These are very serious matters, and anyone is free to chime in with whatever information or disinformation they feel like, in a blog, without fear of paying a penalty for lying or repeating other people’s lies. If there is even a tiny shred of evidence that any type of fraud has been committed by any AIDS scientist, it should be brought up in courts of law. AIDS dissidents are free to tell as many lies as they like, they have nothing at stake, and there are almost no laws against telling lies about medical matters. The laws only apply to science and medicine, not to pseudoscience and alternative treatments. The South African Medicines Control Council, for example, oversees all “scientific” medical claims but has no jurisdiction over voodoo, chiropractic, shamanic, ayurvedic, homeopathic, or any other form of alternative medical claims. As such, all of AIDS science can be questioned in courts of law and other serious venues. but none of the alternative theories (AIDS does not exist, HIV deos not exist, HIV exists but is harmless., etc) can be seriously questioned because there are no rules or laws governing alternative theories. People are free to beleive that HIV was brought to earth by space aliens if they want to, and they can write books claiming so (see the work of Dr. Phillip Duke for example). It is only when they calim to have real scientific evidence for something that they begin to face rules and regulations about having data to back up those claims, etc.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:42 am
Dear Dr Foley - and all,
I wrote: “Tine van der Maas’ programme works for everyone who sticks to the treatments. That is the fact.” I stand by this statement nothing more and nothing less.
The district chosen in KwaZulu-Natal was not accidental. It falls under a specific traditional king who gave his total support. Traditional healers in the district were trained to carry on the programme and an associate of Tine’s who is resident in the district continues to train people in establishing their own vegetable gardens, basic nutrition and healthy lifestyles. He also continues to treat people and consult with Tine’s group which includes several MDs and PhDs. The 400 were just those who were formally on the programme and not the many hundreds more who attended workshops. It is not possible to say that all 400 are alive and well today nearly two years later. Just as in any doctor/clinic practice the people participate until they are well. Some return when they are ill again - but its always because they have not stuck to the programme and have fallen back on old unhealthy habits. Others are never seen or heard of again. Just like any clinic or medical practice anywhere.
I wrote: “Tine’s programme is medicine.” Nothing more and nothing less. I stand by this.
But her wellness programme is not synthetic drugs and is not subject to Medicines Control Council jurisdiction - yet. It is true that there are moves internationally to subject wellness products, vitamins and who knows eventually ingredients like lemons, garlic, olive oil and beetroot to the same controls as synthetic drugs - the iniquitous Codex Alimentarius Commission. For those that don’t know about this I suggest you come up to speed because South Africa is one of the leading nations opposing many of the directions currently being taken.
As to Dr Howard B Urnovitz’ work (refer: www.chronicillnet.org) - I wrote: “You [Dr Foley] disconnected.” I stand by this. By what Dr Foley now says he can easily prove me wrong by posting the entire correspondence with Dr Urnovitz which should reveal just who disconnected and who failed to do what.
Dr Urnovitz has never stated anywhere that “human endogenous retroviruses, and not the exogenous lentiviruses known as HIV-1 and HIV-2 were the cause of AIDS”. So with this false premise the rest of what Dr Foley has to say about what Dr Urnovitz allegedly says or did not say is irrelevant. Let him post the original set of emails for us all to judge.
In the meantime let me add two things: first, readers of this blog should know that Dr Foley works (or he did when I last checked) as a technician at the US Los Alamos Laboratories where the database of HIV ( and the Human Genome) are maintained. Unlike Dr Urnovitz, he does not work with viruses, cells, nucleic acids etc in a laboratory. His is a virtual world.
Secondly, Dr Foley’s contact with Dr Urnovitz was prompted by a column I wrote in February 2002 titled: Just who is flat-earthing? It is still available at http://www.redflagsdaily.com/allen/flat_earthing (along with much else I have written over the years).
The flat-earthing piece supplies realities of HIV and AIDS in South Africa as well as a basic introduction fully referenced to some of the most important research by Dr Urnovitz and colleagues including the study where he and Dr Luc Montagnier (often considered the discoverer of HIV) took apart the envelope (ENV) gene of Montagnier’s HIV-1 Group O and showed it was made up of reshuffled genetic material originating with the host patient - a farm worker. (ref: Urnovitz HB, Tuite JJ, Higashida JM, Murphy WH, “RNAs in the sera of Persian Gulf War veterans have segments homologous to chromosome 22q11.2”, Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology 6:3, May 1999, pg 330-335).
Which leads to the question: if the ENV gene of HIV (which defines the ability to bind to cells) is derived from the host how can HIV be classified as exogenous?
And another question: if the ENV gene is host-derived ie endogenous then how can tests based on the detection of antibodies to ENV proteins be interpreted as “HIV infection”?
And yet another question: if what are classified on Dr Foley’s databank as “antibodies to HIV” are derived from the host then how does one in all sanity embark on a course of developing vaccines which attempt to vaccinate a patient against his/her own genes?
As to Dr Foley’s second posting at 10.44 - I invited Dr Foley to take on a worthy debater, namely Gene Semon at the blog http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/06/wrong_again.php) Instead he admits to read ing it and now makes derogatory comments where Semon is not present to defend himself.
Dr Foley has raised the issue of fraud and should it be discussed on blgs in public. In South Africa freedom of expression is hugely encouraged - hate speech is not. So please let’s stick to the science. Talking of which - when it comes to Dr Urnovitz he is published in really prestigious specialist journals, masses of data, discussions, conclusions and all. Are you suggesting his and the historical school from which he comes is pseudoscience? Are you suggesting that his theories simply because they offer “alternate theories” are not subject to the rules, ethics and laws of science? If so it is a lie and defamatory - and extremely unscientific conduct on your part. - Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
August 29th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
I have not suggested that any person’s work was fraudulent, nor that such things should not be discussed in blogs. I only said that if anyone does suspect fraud in any work, they should not expect discussing it in blogs to bring about any real change or results. Many AIDS dissidents claim or imply that all of HIV research or all of virology is fraudulent.
Dr. Urnovitz did not take appart the HIV-1 O group virus isolate VAU envelope gene or protein and show that it was made up of reshuffled genetic material originating with the host patient (1). He used BLAST to show that many regions of the VAU env gene between 15 and 30 nucleotides long (acaaatttcttttta for example) are between 89% and 100% identical to nucelotide sequences in the human genome. This is not surprising, the human genome is some 3 billion bases of DNA, so almost any string of 20 to 30 bases can be found somewhere in the genome, especially if only 90% identity is considered a “match”. Dr. Urnovitz did not even imply in this paper, that the complete envelope gene of the VAU isolate couuld somehow be derived from the human genome. He did imply that when he testified to congress(2), but he did not specify what process could do this.
Anyone can test this by making up a random string of ACTG such as:
actacggatcgcgattcgt
and using the BLAST server at NCBI:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/Blast.cgi
to find a region of human DNA with similarity:
>gi|2570261|gb|AC002550.1|HUAC002550 GeoDownload subject sequence spanning the HSP Human Chromosome 16 BAC clone CIT987SK-A-101F10, complete sequence
Length=86156 bases 25430-25445 = ACTACGGATCGCGATT
The envelope gene of HIV-1 O group isolate VAU is certainly not derived from the human genome. The envelope of the VAU isolate is found with GenBank accession number X80020 and it is btween 80% and 94% identical to the envelope sequences of other HIV-1 O group virus isolates, with a nonsynonymous to synonymous mutation ratio showing that it is under selective pressure to maintain a functional envelope protein coding region. I stand by my statement that “HIV-1 O group virus sequences could possibly be derived from HERVs or other human DNA as Dr. Urnovitz once implied”.
I did not think my comments about Gene Semon being confused about the terms endogenous, endemic and exogenous was “derogatory”. It is very normal to be confused by those terms. I know many PhD biologists who do not know that the term “endogenous retrovirus” refers to proviral DNA present in germ line DNA (in sperm and egg), and not to endemic viruses such as primate T-cell leukemia viruses which have never been found in an endogenous state. HTLV-1, HTLV-II and various primate T-cell leukemia viruses are passed from mother to infant, but not through the egg. The provirus DNA is found only in T-cells of the hosts and not germ cells or any other cells.
I am not sure what Dr. Urnovitz’s theories really are, because he has never been very specific. He says things like “The homologies between HIV-1vau env sequences and
segments of 7q31 suggest the possibility that sequences of
the latter may have been implicated in the genetic evolution
of HIV-1vau.”(1) Which are sort of vague, really. Does he mean that he thinks that the HIV-1 O group isolate VAU may have picked up genetic material from the host cell, similar to the way that the Avian Leukosis virus group J has aquired a part of it’s envelope gene from the avian genome (3,4)? If so, he should state that, and show the evidence.
REFERENCES:
1:
Urnovitz HB, Sturge JC, Gottfried TD, Murphy WH.
Urine antibody tests: new insights into the dynamics of HIV-1 infection.
Clin Chem. 1999 Sep;45(9):1602-13.
PMID: 10471675
2:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/urnovitz.html
“This HIV-1 variant came to be known as HIV-1 Group O. Analyses of the viral genetic material suggest that the virus originated, in part, from genetic reshuffling of human chromosomal material. ”
see also:
http://home.att.net/~LIGWVets/urnovitz.htm
http://nyvic.org/nyvic/health/monkey.htm
http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0305c&L=co-cure&O=D&P=2642
“Frankly, I do not see a virus.
I see a unique and complete rearrangement of genomic
elements. For example, when I look at what is believed to be the
gene sequence coding for the spike protein of this coronavirus, I
see a complicated gene rearrangement of a region of human
chromosome 7. As I did in our studies of Gulf War Syndrome,
when I see gene rearrangements like this, I immediately search
for an associated catastrophic environmental event that could
have caused such genomic rearrangement.”
3:
Benson SJ, Ruis BL, Fadly AM, Conklin KF.
The unique envelope gene of the subgroup J avian leukosis virus derives from ev/J proviruses, a novel family of avian endogenous viruses.
J Virol. 1998 Dec;72(12):10157-64.
PMID: 9811756
4:
Smith LM, Toye AA, Howes K, Bumstead N, Payne LN, Venugopal K.
Novel endogenous retroviral sequences in the chicken genome closely related to HPRS-103 (subgroup J) avian leukosis virus.
J Gen Virol. 1999 Jan;80 ( Pt 1):261-8.
PMID: 9934710
August 29th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
I stand by my statement that “HIV-1 O group virus sequences could possibly be derived from HERVs or other human DNA as Dr. Urnovitz once implied”.
was a mis-statement.
I should have said:
I stand by my statement that it is not possible that the “HIV-1 O group virus sequences could possibly be derived from HERVs or other human DNA as Dr. Urnovitz once implied”.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Dr Foley’s clumsy post should not have passed moderation. He can stand by his previous statements, that is his right. But he should apply mind to matter and give us all a serious critique in words lay people can understand of Dr Howard B Urnovitz et al research because I for one will not take his word on this matter. Where’s the data? Just one reference for the seminal research establishing HIV causes AIDS would do it. If it exists I have not been able to find it - and nor has Dr Urnovitz and many others. It’s a fact the role of HIV in AIDS is not agreed among scientists. (Please DR Foley no long lists on this which I can’t access, just one or two, which for you proves cause).
The fact is that we have in Dr Urnovitz a serious challenge not only to HIV and AIDS but much more. His research reflects an approach which is rarely reflected in the popular media but is in fact hugely supported by many researchers. To date no scientist has publicly dealt with this challenge, which includes several testimonies to the US Congress, one of them in conjunction with Dr Luc Montagnier.(refer: www.house.gov/reform/ns/hearings/subfolder/urnovitztest.htm) The committee dealing with the issue was titled: Sub committee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations. This intrigues me, and more so that the same sub committee is now titled: National security, Emerging Threats and International Relations. South African should note that President Bill Clinton declared HIV/AIDS a national security issue four days before President Mbeki opened the first meeting of his Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel in May 2000. It highlights the fact that like it or not HIV and AIDS is part of all that is kept secret from us poor voting sods least it upset us too much.
Dr Foley is indeed employed at one of the most Top Secret facilities - no less than New Mexico’s Los Alamos, which saw its origins in the Manhatten Project that delivered Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lest we forget South Africa supplied most of the urnaium needed for this project courtesy of Jan Smuts’ government, so the ties that bind are of long and strong.
I have long ago speculated that Dr Foley’s is a spoiler role, or to use the good old Apartheid term - a disinformation specialist. Ask yourself - why did he bother to post his original post? It had nothing to do with science. It was unmitigated name-calling from beginning to end aimed at defaming as many people as possible who have voiced alternate theories on HIV and AIDS. But DR Urnovitz who poses the greatest threat to HIV orthodoxy, was not mentioned. Nor was I the most vocal supporter among journalists of the incorporation of his theories in current science.
As to the role of reshuffled human genes in disease-health processes, I remain extremely intrigued by Dr Urnovitz’ theory (because that is what it is) that the human genome is not static but dynamic and fluid, ever changing. For an excellent discussion for lay people on this refer: Dynamic Genome: a six part mini-series www.i-sis.org.uk)
Dr Urnovitz has shown (convincingly I contend) that signature segments of the HIV1 Group O, known as VAU, env gene has homologies with 14 different chromosomes. At least two prestigious journals thought his research on this was worth publishing. One I have given in a previous post the other is: Urnovitz, H.B, Sturge, J. C, Gottfried, T. D and Murphy, WH. Urine Antibody Tests: New Insights into the Dynamics of HIV-1 Infection. Clinical Chemistry. 45:9 1602-1613. 1999. Table 6 of this paper presents the data.
This paper formed the basis of an invitation to Dr Urnovitz to present his ideas of genetic rearrangement at a prestigious Oak Ridge conference - so not all scientists are as dismissive or categorical as Dr Foley. Dr Urnovitz was also invited to present the Novy Lecture, the keynote address, on his ideas on the dynamic genome at the Centennial Celebrations of the University of Michigan Ann Arbour on May 13 2003.
The fact is that in the genomics field - there is huge cause for concern that a disproportional amount of resources are being spent of on structural genes or exons and hardly any resources on the regulatory genes or introns. The Human Genome Project used computer programs which specifically deleted introns - that is the database that Dr Foley relies on.
Dr Urnovitz is not alone in sounding a warning on the dangers of reaching conclusions based on incomplete data - effectively reductionist science. I refer to the writing of Professor Steven Rose, of the Open University, Sussex, President Mbeki’s alma mater, especially his book “The Chemistry of Life”, first published in 1966 and not in its fourth edition (Penguin Books 1999).
There is no doubt in my mind after extensive investigation of introns being very important to solving the AIDS puzzle. It implies that AIDS is a metabolic disease and not an infectious one. That’s why Tine van der Maas’ wellness programme works and good nutrition is fundamental to preventing people who have tested HIV positive from developing full blown AIDS. - Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
August 30th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Anita writes:
“I have long ago speculated that Dr Foley’s is a spoiler role, or to use the good old Apartheid term - a disinformation specialist. Ask yourself - why did he bother to post his original post? It had nothing to do with science. It was unmitigated name-calling from beginning to end aimed at defaming as many people as possible who have voiced alternate theories on HIV and AIDS.”
That is very ironic, suspecting that I am the “disinformation specialist” and that Dr. Urnovitz is “the greatest threat to HIV orthodoxy”.
Anita Allen has claimed to have been instrumental, or at leat involved, in the Forum for Debating AIDS South Afirca, and the Presidential AIDS Adivory Panel. Were there any rules set up, for either of these organizations, which would have provided penalties for telling lies or spreading “disinformation”? It was crtainly very clear, long before South Africa invited “dissidents” to debate with AIDS scientists and doctors, that one of the two sides had to be telling lies or half-truths that amount to lies. For example, the “orthodoxy” has published dozens of papers with data showing exactly how accurate and specific the various ELISA and western blot HIV test kits are under various conditions in various countries, while some dissidents claim that all HIV tests are worthless or worse. Clearly, both of these sides cannot be correct. Given that, it seems as if it would have been prudent to ask that both sides in any “debate” be required to “tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING but the whole truth” during the debate or panel meeting or whatever, and to face some severe penalties for not doing so.
Anita Allen is free to state that she “suspects” I may be a disinformation specialist, without any fear of being taken to court in a libel or slander type of lawsuit. Likewise, it is my understanding that any alternative medicine practitioner is free to make claims about their treatments without any legal consequences. A witch doctor can claim to cure AIDS for example. But anyone who claims to fall under the “conventional” or “western medicine” umbrella has many rules, regulations, ethical review boards, and other institutions such as the USA FDA or the South African MCC to deal with.
Anita may have “no doubt” that introns are important is “solving the AIDS puzzle”, but I have serious doubts that she can articulate even what she thinks “the AIDS puzzle” is, let alone how introns are involved in solving it.
Dr. Urnovitz’s paper implied “homologies” (homology is shared common ancestry) between human DNA and HIV-1 O group isolate VAU DNA. However the paper showed no evidence of “homology”, it only showed insignificant DNA similarities. DNA sequence smilarity can sometimes imply or even prove homology, but in this case, it most certainly does not. The HIV-1 O group VAU isolate is more similar to other HIV-1 O group isolates than it is to anything in human DNA.
Anita is free to believe that the human genome is “fluid” if she wishes, but there is no scientific evidence to support her beleifs. Human DNA has not been recombining with Chimpanzee DNA for at least the last 5 million years, and more likely the last common ancestor was 8 to 15 million years ago. Despite this, the human and chimpanzee genomes are still largely parallel and not completely reorganized as the “fluid genome” theories would indicate. Only very small regions of vertebrate genomes are re-organized during development. One example is the V-D-J recombination used to generate B-cell antibody diversity.
As to why I bothered to make my first post: I did so because this entrire web site is about South African media reporting accurately and truthfully on HIV/AIDS issues, and this particular blog entry is about “Manto bashing” undermining an important nutrition message. So I thought it was relevant to point out that the recent World AIDS Conference in Toronto Canada had held a session specifically devoted to the issue of accurately reporting on HIV/AIDS and not getting sidetracked by by the dissidents who variously claim that HIV does not exist, that HIV exists but is harmless etc. Nobody, as far as I know, has ever claimed that adequate nutrition was not improtant to nearly ALL human health issues. The reason that South Africa has been described as “the laughing stock of the world” with regard to HIV/AIDS is not over nutrition, but over listening to too many lies about the validity of HIV research.
Anita wants just one or two papers which “prove” that HIV-1 M group viruses are the cause of more than 90% of the world’s AIDS cases. I predict that if I give her reviews that is easily accessible, such as:
http://www.globalchange.com/ttaa/ttaa%202.htm
http://www.hivmedicine.com/
http://www.aegis.org/topics/mdelaney.html
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nm/journal/v9/n7/full/nm0703-839.html
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=KB
or
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm
she will complain that these are not “scientific enough” or something like that. While if I give her a list of 10 or 12 papers that mut all be read together to begin to understand the many different areas of science (epidemiology, virology, molecular phylogenetics, immunology, etc) that ALL converge on the solid conclusion that HIV-1 is the major cause of AIDS with HIV-2 contributing only a very small percentage of cases, she will complain about that too:
Keele BF, Van Heuverswyn F, Li Y, Bailes E, Takehisa J, Santiago ML, Bibollet-Ruche F, Chen Y, Wain LV, Liegeois F, Loul S, Ngole EM, Bienvenue Y, Delaporte E, Brookfield JF, Sharp PM, Shaw GM, Peeters M, Hahn BH.
Chimpanzee reservoirs of pandemic and nonpandemic HIV-1.
Science. 2006 Jul 28;313(5786):523-6. Epub 2006 May 25.
PMID: 16728595
McCutchan FE.
Global epidemiology of HIV.
J Med Virol. 2006;78 Suppl 1:S7-S12.
PMID: 16622870
Schechter MT, Boyko WJ, Douglas B, Willoughby B, McLeod A, Maynard M, Craib KJ, O’Shaughnessy M.
The Vancouver Lymphadenopathy-AIDS Study: 6. HIV seroconversion in a cohort of homosexual men.
CMAJ. 1986 Dec 15;135(12):1355-60.
PMID: 3022904
Clumeck N, Sonnet J, Taelman H, Mascart-Lemone F, De Bruyere M, Vandeperre P, Dasnoy J, Marcelis L, Lamy M, Jonas C, et al.
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in African patients.
N Engl J Med. 1984 Feb 23;310(8):492-7.
PMID: 6229701
Dowdle WR.
The epidemiology of AIDS.
Public Health Rep. 1983 Jul-Aug;98(4):308-12.
PMID: 6310667
Peterman TA, Drotman DP, Curran JW.
Epidemiology of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).
Epidemiol Rev. 1985;7:1-21.
PMID: 3902491
August 31st, 2006 at 1:59 am
Dr Foley was asked to supply one or two references to seminal RESEARCH which for him proves HIV causes AIDS.
He gives instead references to entire websites allegedly containing reviews. If he would just post one or two references to the requested published research mentioned in any of these reviews we could proceed.
As far as I know, he has never managed to do this not on any blogs he has participated in, nor voluminous emails or any research where he has been a co-author. Nor has anyone else, as far as I know. Nor were such references supplied during the South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel meetings, discussions, nor in its Interim Report which was compiled by the Chief Moderator of the panel process Dr Khotso Mokhele, president of South Africa’s National Research Foundation. The report, in fact, contained not one reference of any kind to published research.
I would, however, like to suggest that in the interests of keeping it simple Dr Foley should stick to only one of his references: www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhim.htm
This has frequently been given as the definitive proof that HIV causes AIDS. It has just as frequently been analysed and found seriously wanting in proof. One of the problems is that it keeps on being updated with more references. The last being in November 2003. If Dr Foley would please choose from the dozens of references one or two which provide the overwhelming and exhaustive evidence that HIV causes AIDS and in addition post the full text published paper(s) or a complete link to open access locations we could proceed.
Dr Foley, thank you for giving up some of your presumably extremely valuable time doing really vital research to solve this worldwide challenge. A humble request: let’s stick to the science (aetiology, that is, as opposed to epidemiology etc including mud raking) for now. I hope this does not offend you, but as a journalist I have to read the original data in the original published papers, and not interpretations. At the risk of being repetitive - please could you ensure you post full text versions or the complete open access link. If there is something you feel moved to highlight in interpretive comments to guide those of us you doubt can articulate what the AIDS puzzle is, please keep it brief and to the point. I know it is a lot to ask that you return to basics, but for the majority in darkest Africa English is anything from a second to eleventh language choice, and very few here have heard of you before or read anything you have written on numerous webboards and blogs over the years.
I have truly been diligent in trying to keep track of where HIV/AIDS guru’s share their wisdom, so I may have missed where you posted the one or two references to definitive published research papers that for you provide the data establishing overwhelming and exhaustive evidence for the HIV cause of AIDS.
I did come come across an item of information that intrigues me - did you know that both Brian Foley and Chris Noble are listed as victims in 9/11? - Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
September 1st, 2006 at 12:17 pm
It should be a 15 minute cut and paste job for Dr Foley to post references to the seminal research that supplies “overwhelming and unambiguous evidence” (quote from Durban Declaration) that HIV causes AIDS. While we-all wait, I would like to return to his categorical statements on the subject of the fluid versus the static genome (in humans or any other organism) because it is a key to understanding where virology went off the rails following a road more taken, but a dead end nevertheless.
Journalists caught in the dilemma of reporting on these issues must beware of being seduced into regarding reigning consensus-science paradigms as cast in stone. In science, there are always alternate views - and contrary to what Dr Foley has said - there is always research because alternate paradigms have at their heart fundamentally different approaches, to say nothing of motivations and informing world view philosophies. But you have to look for it. It won’t fall into your lap.
Yesterday’s general journal Science (of the American Academy of Sciences) published a research paper that supports the theory of a dynamic, fluid genome ever changing in response to stress, be environmental, infectious, radiation, malnutrition etc. Literally adapt or die. Read the article. Ask yourself: is it possible that in the ability of an organism to re-arranged its chromosomes we are seeing a Lamarckian response to environmental stressors and not chance, random mutations as proposed by ultra-Darwinists like Dawkins?
Is it possible that to paraphrase Einstein, God does not play dice with
genomes - they reshuffle in discernable order? Just because all those
introns are ill-understood and some call them “junk” doesn’t mean they are
there just for fun or because somewhere in the genome there is an enzyme
chipmunk with a penchant for hoarding incomprehensible nucleotides! (Dr Foley please do not participate in this before you have posted the relevant references to overwhelming, unambiguous evidence for the HIV cause of AIDS). - Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
Link: http://www.the-scientist.com/news/daily/24573/
Climate change drives genetic changes
Rising temperatures cause worldwide genetic changes in Drosophila subobscura
By Charles Q Choi
Global warming is driving worldwide genetic changes in a fly species, scientists reported online August 31 in Science.
These findings reinforce recent studies suggesting that climate change is rapidly leading to genetic impacts “in widespread organisms,” Ary Hoffmann at the University of Melbourne in Australia, who did not participate in this study, told The Scientist.
Raymond Huey at the University of Washington in Seattle, along with his colleagues in Spain and Virginia, analyzed Drosophila subobscura, a fruit fly native to Europe. The species was accidentally introduced to Chile in the 1970s and the West Coast of the United States in the 1980s, probably via cargo ships.
The researchers investigated chromosomal inversions, where chromosomal segments flip themselves backward. The first chromosomal inversion samples in D. subobscura were collected in Europe more than 40 years ago. After the fly spread to other continents, geneticists began sampling chromosomal inversion data in South America in 1981 and in North America in 1985.
Past research discovered chromosomal inversions in the fly that were common at low latitudes, where climates are warmer, but uncommon in the lower temperatures of high latitudes, suggesting chromosomal inversions help flies adjust to changes in climate.
To see if global climate warming had any impact on genetics, Huey and his colleagues compared the existing decades of genetic data, gathered over an average of 24 years, with temperature records for the same time periods. In 22 of 26 fly populations examined across three continents, climate warmed over the intervals. Among those 22 populations that experienced warming, the frequency of chromosomal changes characteristic of low latitudes and warmer climates increased in all but one population.
“What is most surprising is that small shifts in average temperature, about ½ degrees C, which seems trivial on a temperature scale, are obviously not trivial to the flies,” Huey told The Scientist. “They are immersed in this warmer environment, such that the effect of climate warming is likely compounding over their life span.”
Inversions involve large segments of chromosomes and thus many genes, which “makes it hard to determine which particular traits, or groups of co-adapted traits, might be under selection. Trying to figure that out is a goal for the future,” Huey said.
Past studies of genetic changes in response to global warming only looked at populations of a species that were distributed over a single continent, at most, Huey said. “Here you have a single species, each interacting with their environments with the same genome over several continents, to help show how global a response this is,” William Bradshaw at the University of Oregon in Eugene, not a coauthor, told The Scientist.
These genetic shifts appeared rapid, detectable even for samples from an area taken less than 20 years apart. Future research should investigate the different rates and extents to which species are evolving in response to climate change, Christina Holzapfel at the University of Oregon in Eugene, who did not participate in this study, told The Scientist.
While these and other findings suggest small species with big populations and high reproductive rates can keep up with climate change, many other species might not. Researchers in the Netherlands show birds like the Great Tit are changing, but perhaps not fast enough, “and large organisms might not keep up at all,” Holzapfel said. “The organisms most likely to keep up aren’t necessarily those we’d like to, like mosquitoes and pathogens,” Bradshaw added. The resulting collapse of populations “is the real specter of climate change,” Huey said.
Charles Q. Choi
cchoi@the-scientist.com
Links within this article
J. Balanya et al. “Global genetic change tracks global climate warming in Drosophila subobscura.” Science, published online ahead of print August 31, 2006.
http://www.sciencemag.org
L. Pray. “Adapting to climate change.” The Scientist, September 22, 2003.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/14103/
Ary Hoffmann
http://www.genetics.unimelb.edu.au/person/academics/ah.html
Raymond Huey
http://faculty.washington.edu/hueyrb/
E. Sole, “Long-term changes in the chromosomal inversion polymorphism of Drosophila subobscura. I. Mediterranean populations from southwestern Europe,” Evolution Int J Org Evolution, April 2002.
PM_ID: 12038540
William Bradshaw and Christina Holzapfel
http://www.uoregon.edu/~mosquito/
Research on Great Tits with regards to climate change
http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/ppages/mvisser/#rp
September 1st, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Anita Allen INSISTS that I give her just ONE reference so here is my best shot(1).
Anita Allen claims to be the person who convinced the South African government that there was some sort of “scientific” doubt about HIV being the cause of AIDS(2).
Anita is now apparently attempting to convince the world that she is delusional enough to truly believe all that she has been telling the government, for example by claiming to see Brian Foley and Chris Noble on the 9/11 victims lists, when in fact they are not there(3), and claiming that some recent Science paper shows evidence of a “fluid genome”, when if fact it does not. The recent Science paper(5), uses the very STABILITY of the chromosomal inversions in Drosophila, to infer alterations in allelic frequencies in populations over time. Nowhere in the paper is there any implication that one orientation of the flip/flopped region of the chromosome is inverting to the other orientation. The authors exact wording is:
“…
In no example to date, however, it is clear whether the observed
shifts at given sites reflect local selection, a progressive
invasion of genotypes from low-latitudes, or both (11).
…”
They are talking about shifts in allelic frequencies in flies found at different geographica sites. They are NOT talking about shifts of genetic material at a site or sites in the genome.
It is perfectly reasonable for Anita Allen to be confused about genetics and virology, as she has apparently never taken the time to learn about them for credible sources. It is not, in my opinion, reasonable for her to claim that her ignorance is in fact genius to the point where she should be advising the South African government on how to bet deal with the AIDS pandemic.
REFERENCES:
1:
HIV and the Pathogenesis of AIDS (Paperback)
by Jay A. Levy
Paperback: 588 pages
Publisher: ASM Press; 2nd edition (January 15, 1998)
ISBN: 1555811221
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1555811221/ref=sib_dp_top_toc/104-7139048-7855912?ie=UTF8&p=S009#reader-link
2:
http://www.purewatergazette.net/farber.htm
3:
http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/victims_list.htm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/main.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/rescue.victims.html
http://www.simonjones.co.uk/meanwhile/articles/2002/911victims.html
September 2nd, 2006 at 1:38 am
From: “J. Balanya”
Organization: Universitat de Barcelona
Reply-To: “J. Balanya”
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:06:23 +0200
To: “Brian T. Foley”
Subject: Re: Chromosomal inversion in Drosophila are rather stable, aren’t they?
Dear Dr. Foley,
You understood correctly our paper in Science: what we detect is a change in frequency of inversions that existed previously, not that inversion A reverts to inversion B or viceversa. In fact, the probability of two independent inversions being formed with exactly the same breakage points is so low that we consider that each type of inversion has formed only once in the history of the species, and subsequently all the inversions of the same type are descendant of a single initial inversion. The data obtained so far seems to corroborate this hypothesis, in spite that it has been argued that transposable elements could form inversions with the same breakpoints. This does not mean, of course, that the genetic content of all the inversions of the same type has to be identical, as it can change through time either by mutation, gene conversion or rare recombination events.
I am aware of the politics in South Africa about HIV/AIDS. As you say in your message, it is a very sad story that has costed (and probably will still cost) thousands of lives, and a sad example of how damaging misinformation can be.
Kind regards,
J. Balanya
Department of Genetics. e-mail: jbalanya@ub.edu
Institute of Biology. Phone: +34 934 035 305 / +34 934 035 801
University of Barcelona. Fax: +34 934 034 420
September 2nd, 2006 at 8:31 am
Naughty, naughty, Dr Foley. A fluid versus a dynamic genome is indeed an interesting discussion but it is a redherring at this stage.
Just post which references in the NIAID factsheet provide “overwhelming, unambiguous and exhaustive EDIDENCE” that HIV causes AIDS and let’s be done with this. Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
September 3rd, 2006 at 7:33 am
Let me get this straight: You lead us astray with a “red herring” misrepresentation of a paper recently published in Science, claiming that it supports some notion of a “fluid genome”, and I am “naughty” for pointing out that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about? Is that right?
There are dozens of references in the NIAID fact sheet at:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm
Each of them is just one representative research paper of the dozens or more research papers that provide adequate evidence that the particular “myth” the are referencing, is indeed a myth.
If you are familiar with Richard Dawkins, you might have heard of his ideas about “memes”. He tends to refer to ANY thoughts as “viruses of the mind”. He does not, as far as I know, ever discuss issues such as “truth” or rational vs irrational thoughts. I, have not yet ever really written anything about this topic, either, but I think about it constantly. I would think it important, in the study of human social evolution, to make some various categories of memes, and find some that are more analogous to butterflies than “viruses” of the mind. Not all viruses are parasitic or hramful to their hosts. Quite a few can be beneficial under at least some environmental conditions, but we most often think of the pathogenic ones, like smallpox or Ebola Zaire or SARS.
Some human “memes” or ideas do cause massive human suffering. Others have the power to cure many types of problems. Truth is not always pleasant or beneficial, and lies are not always harmful. But by and large, in the long run, lies tend to do more damage than good, and truth quite often wins out in benefits to mankind even when they are unpleasant truths.
Journalists are often believed to be ethically bound to tracking down the truth, digging into a subject matter deeper than the average person could, and reporting back on the results of that digging. Likewise most people have an understanding that science has some sort of ethics and rules to follow, which are aimed at preventing fraud. In my experience, most journalists are very committed and do a good job of either learning the details of the subject matter needed to understand the story they are covering, or somehow finding very trustworthy sources to help them interpret the story. Likewise, nearly all of the true scientists I have met in my life have been dedicated to exploring the unknown with the most mind-boggling attention to detail. Most of the intriguing scientific discoveries of the past 150 years could not have been made by sloppy trial and error messing aroung in the garage. It took a lot of real careful work to map a Drosophila chromosome or a maize chromosome, back in the 1950s to 1980s before modern techniques were developed.
Anita Allen claims to be a journalist. She certainly has explored on side of the many-sided AIDS topic. I have explored several sides, it is my job, and also has become my passion. I have had discussions with dozens of “AIDS dissidents” of various types (some claim HIV does not exist, some claim it exists but is harmless, some claim AIDS is caused bt AZT, some claim AIDS is coused by “lifestyle”, some claim AIDS does not exist, some claim HIV was created as biowarfare, some claim HIV was a vaccine accident, some claim HIV was brought to earth by space aliens, some claim HIV is an endogenous human retrovirus), and I have a great deal of sympathy for those who are HIV-seropositive and just wish to cling to the idea that they will never get sick. I have sympathy for people who don’t want to believe that anything in nature could be as ugly as 9.7kb genome that hijacks it’s host’s immune system, fights dirty, hits below the belt. I don’t have sympathy for people who benefit from telling lies that cause human suffering of any type.
I am just a technitian at a set of HIV databases. I don’t have the cure for AIDS. I don’t have the words that can convince Anita that she has been lied to by some dissident groups and mislead by others. If I could spend 80 hours a week at it, I could probably make a small dent in exposing some of the lies about AIDS that are told on the hundreds of blogs and newsgroups that discuss AIDS. I once thought it would be more efficient to write directly to the liars, but most of them made Anita Allen seem like a willing and eager student in comparison.
There is no such thing as “scientific debate” really. Science is about experiments, data, and theories that explain the data. If Anita says “The virus has never been isolated.” and I say “In fact dozens of infectious molecular clones of HIV-1 have been generated, and that is as good as “isolation” gets for retroviruses. One of us has to be lying. Someone has to go check on some data, and how that data was gathered, in order to determine who is right. Journalism is much the same way, although in recent years it has become mroe fashionable to just find the story and then find two groups who have exactly opposite opinions on the story and report on both opinions equally. If there is a report on the devastation that global warming is going to wreak on ocean costal areas, they will find someone who either owns property in Northern Canada or is selling coal and oil, who claims to have scientific evidence that the earth is actually cooling. Controversy is tittilating news, and “fair and balanced” reporting can include reporting the truth and the lie with equal emphasis.
There are HUGE news stories to be told about AIDS in South Africa. There are orphanages that are doing very good work to take care of children left behind, and more need to be built. There are brave people fighting this problem in many different ways. There are, as for any problem, a few obstructionists preventing good solutions. As long as it is legal to tell lies about medical matters, there will be people telling lies. It is of course illegal to not have a VERY complete record of all sorts of data when developing a real drug. But as far as I know, because Tine and Nelly van der Maas’s “treatment” is alternative, she and everyone else are not breaking any law to claim it “works for everyone” or “cures AIDS”, even if it actually does not do much more than any normal well-ballanced diet does.
Diet is important, but the lives and deaths of Nozipho Bhengu, Michael Callen and tens of thousands of other very health-food and healthy lifestyle oriented HIV-seropositive people, show that diet alone cannot “cure”. Neither can many “snake oils” that have been sold. No single antiretrovirual is effective in the long run, but certain combinations of them, known as “highly active antiretroviral therapy” or HAART, are proven to benefit the majority of people who take them. Still, even the best HAART regimens are not a “cure” only a treatment. Prevention of infection should be the main focus, but we have a moral obligation to do EVERYTHING in our power to also help those for whom prevention efforts have failed.
HIV is also not the only problem out there. It deserves more news because of how fast it is growing, but we also have to pay attention to poverty, education, human rights, and other issues. Tuberculosis and other infectious dieseases are also not to be forgotten. I hope that one or two jounalists will someday read this blog and attempt to do some really important reporting on HIV and AIDS. I hope Anita Allen will some day read a biology textbook, and then do a little research to find out if it is mostly right, or not.
September 3rd, 2006 at 12:40 pm
First, a passing comment on Dr Brian Foley’s posts - you see what journalists have to cope with from so-called scientists - gratuitous insults, circumambulations - anything to intimidate the journalist and play on whatever insecurities (s)he may have, while pretending to answer the question. Had this been a real life situation, I would have had to wait the time it took for him to say all this before being able to point out he has not answered my question.
Secondly I am extremely reluctant to comment on anything else Dr Foley has posted because it will lead to never-ending posts from him while he ignores the request to provide the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that HIV causes AIDS. But as to the fluid genome, which he says is my personal myth - just Google “Fluid genome” - 2,4 million hits. Some myth, I would say, and a tragedy that Dr Foley seems to unaware of it. It just shows what can happen in a virtual world where the virtual whiz kids surf only their own virtual wave.
Now back to the subject of this blog - Dr Foley was asked to give references to the seminal published research which for him establishes that HIV causes AIDS. He gives a whole book. I haven’t read Jay Levy’s book, but I am familiar with his research and contribution. If Dr Foley would just select the seminal references in Levy’s book which for him provide overwhelming and unambiguous evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and post the relevant papers or a link to an open access, we could proceed. This is not a frivolous request. Trying to find a reference so that one can read it can be entirely fruitless. But Dr Foley should be prepared to help us here in darkest Africa which bares the overwhelming burden of AIDS and assist in any way he can, don’t you think, so it can’t be too much to ask. It may be that a specific virus has a causal role in AIDS, but all one asks for is the seminal research establishing that HIV has been isolated, its proteins identified, its full length genome characterised, its introduction into lab animals causes AIDS, and its recovery intact and unaltered has been achieved.
Dr Foley gave the NIAID fact sheet as his seminal reference. www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhim.htm
Fine. All I now ask is that he select the references from the NIAID fact sheet that provide the overwhelming and incontrovertible and unambiguous evidence. I will predict he will never do it. He will continue to post voluminous redherrings aimed at only one thing - discrediting me. Why kill the messenger when you can kill the message I say?. Or as I own Madiba has said: “I have never played the man, I play the ball.”
It’s a two or three-line post from him: two or three references, that’s all that is needed for clarity and simplicity.
A short diversion by way of explanation as to my own involvement in these issues - In 1999 I thought HIV was like syphilis - sexually transmitted and invariable fatal because drugs offered palliative care only (like hypertension) and a vaccine was unlikely even though researchers claimed to have identified HIV-specific proteins. Then I read Dr Kary Mullis’ book “Dancing in the Mind Field”. The overall theme of the book is how science as it is practiced in the US impedes progress period. Not least because of the dominance of US on things scientific and its hold on dictating funding directions.
Two chapters of Mullis’ book deal with HIV.
Dr Mullis is the inventor of the technology known as polymerase chain reaction for which he received the 1993 Nobel prize for chemistry. Since PCR is the heart of microbiology and HIV research depends on it, I found his story startling. He was commissioned to draw up protocols for the American Red Cross on procedures to screen blood donations for HIV. He wanted to start with the statement “HIV causes AIDS”, and wanted a reference to this proposition. To his amazement he couldn’t find any. He details his search for these elusive references and arrives at the conclusion that there aren’t any. I phoned Dr Mullis in 1999 and spoke to him and he stood by his conclusion, which he does to today. He is not alone in not being able to find these seminal references.
Of course, there may be scientists who can provide these references, and therefore that the critics of the premise are indeed deluded. But none of these critics have been able to find them. And Dr Foley specifically has never managed to provide them.
Dr Foley and I have personally corresponded over the years. I have been copied on many emails where others have been in contact with Dr Foley. I have kept copies of all if them without exception. Both Prof Sam Mhlongo (a member of President Mbeki’s Aids Advisory panel) and I provided all the references for Foley to apply to be a member of the Presidential Aids Advisory Panel. Prof Mhlongo was even prepared to recommend his inclusion. He did not avail himself of the offers. But his views were incorporated in the panel when Elliott Small, then president of the now defunct and short lived Forum for Debating AIDS, submitted screeds of stuff he had via contact with Dr Foley both one-on-one and through his postings and research. Dr Foley has popped up on numerous blogs and webboards, notable the BMJ, where a debate between some critics of the HIV cause and proponents went on for more than two years, in an extremely supportive gesture by the BMJ editor. It went nowhere in terms of supplying the seminal references to HIV causes AIDS.
Indeed, these kinds of blogs can have no effect on government policies, but they do serve some purpose for those that follow them in educating such followers as there are, into the arguments. There are not two sides as Dr Foley states. In fact the term “sides” is not applicable to scientific discourse. Dr Foley’s particular problem with me is that I am not on anyone’s “side”. Though sometimes classified as a dissident, by among others the Democratic Allaince in South Africa, which has called for my banning and isolation from discourse as well as employment, so-called dissidents such as the Rethinking AIDS Group (www.rethinkingaids.com) which includes both Prof Peter Duesberg www.duesberg.com and the Perth Group www.theperthgroup.com both members of Mbeki’s panel) do not recognize me as a dissident.
All I have endeavoured to do is to try to understand what exactly is the science as established through published research. That distinguishes “claims” from data. What does the data say, irrespective of what is claimed, or hypothesized, by who ever it might be along the continuum that is science.
In that connection - and lastly, to assist Dr Foley I have broken down the references in the latest Feb 2003 NIAID factsheet as pasted below. The factsheet states:
BEGIN QUOTE FROM FACT SHEET
“HIV fulfills Koch’s postulates as the cause of AIDS.
Among many criteria used over the years to prove the link between putative pathogenic (disease-causing) agents and disease, perhaps the most-cited are Koch’s postulates, developed in the late 19th century. Koch’s postulates have been variously interpreted by many scientists, and modifications have been suggested to accommodate new technologies, particularly with regard to viruses (Harden. Pubbl Stn Zool Napoli [II] 1992;14:249; O’Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613). However, the basic tenets remain the same, and for more than a century Koch’s postulates, as listed below, have served as the litmus test for determining the cause of any epidemic disease:
1. Epidemiological association: the suspected cause must be strongly associated with the disease.
2. Isolation: the suspected pathogen can be isolated - and propagated - outside the host.
3. Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host.
With regard to postulate #1, numerous studies from around the world show that virtually all AIDS patients are HIV-seropositive; that is they carry antibodies that indicate HIV infection. With regard to postulate #2, modern culture techniques have allowed the isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all HIV-seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease. In addition, the polymerase chain (PCR) and other sophisticated molecular techniques have enabled researchers to document the presence of HIV genes in virtually all patients with AIDS, as well as in individuals in earlier stages of HIV disease. ”
END QUOTE FROM FACT SHEET
The first thing to note is that this definition of Koch’s postulates is not the same as Koch originally outlined. For example, Postulate 1 of Fact Sheet - is not contained in Koch’s postulates for good reason: Epidemiology can only provide an association or correlation - but correlation does not prove causation.
So Dr Foley would have to select references that for him provide the evidence that HIV has been isolated and then propagated in pure form (sans contaminants) of the laboratory procedure (postulate 2 of the fact sheet) and then postulate 3 introduced in vivo to lab animals which succumb to disease (AIDS) and then the said pathogen is recovered from the lab animal and shown to be the same entity that was introduced in the first place.
Please, Dr Foley just choose from the list which of the studies prove your case so we can be done with this. It should have taken two posts - your references, my remarks on your choice. End of this blog unless others have questions for either of us. - Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
1. AIDS definition:
CDC. MMWR 1992;41(RR-17):1; CDC. MMWR 1994;43(RR-12):1). WHO. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 1994;69:273.
2. AIDS statistics
UNAIDS. AIDS epidemic update: December 2000; CDC. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; CDC. MMWR 1999;48[RR13]:1.
3. Proposals for modifications to Koch’s postulates:
Harden. Pubbl Stn Zool Napoli [II] 1992;14:249; O’Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613
4. Koch’s postulates fulfilled:
O’Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O’Brien, 1997; Ciesielski et al. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:886.
5. HIV seroconversion in blood transfusion cases:
CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; AIDS Knowledge Base, 1999; van den Berg et al. Acta Paediatr 1994;83:17.
6. Koch’s postulates fulfilled in animal models experimentally infected with HIV:
O’Neil et al. J Infect Dis 2000;182:1051; Aldrovandi et al. Nature 1993;363:732; Liska et al. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1999;15:445; Locher et al. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;22:523; Hirsch et al. Virus Res 1994;32:183; Joag et al. J Virol 1996;70:3189.
7. HIV positivity precedes AIDS (single cause):
CDC. MMWR 1981;30:250; CDC. MMWR 1981;30:305; Jaffe et al. Ann Intern Med 1985;103:210; U.S. Census Bureau; UNAIDS; NIAID, 1995; Schechter et al. Lancet 1993;341:658.
8. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) and disseminated infection with the Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) associated with testing HIV positive in developed countries:
Safai. Ann NY Acad Sci 1984;437:373; Le Clair. Am Rev Respir Dis 1969;99:542; Masur. JAMA 1982;248:3013).
9. TB, diarrheal diseases and wasting syndromes common among HIV-positive indivuduals in developing countries:
UNAIDS, 2000; Harries et al. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 1997;1:346; Floyd et al. JAMA 1999;282:1087.
10. Death rates higher in HIV positive than seronegative individuals:
Nunn et al BMJ 1997;315:767; Sewankambo et al. AIDS 2000;14:2391); (Boerma et al. AIDS 1998;12(suppl 1):S3); Borgdorff et al. Genitourin Med 1995;71:212; Taha et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999;18:689; Spira et al. Pediatrics 1999;14:e56; (Leroy et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1995;9:415 Ackah et al. Lancet 1995; 345:607;Thea et al. NEJM 1993;329:1696; Madhi et al. Clin Infect Dis 2000;31:170; Kilmarx et al Lancet 2000; 356:770; Darby et al. (Nature 1995;377:79; Goedert. Lancet 1995;346:1425).
11. AIDS transmission via sexual activity and contact with infected blood:
Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16).
12. Risk of developing AIDS associated with levels of HIV RNA:
Mellors et al. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:946); Palumbo et al. JAMA 1998;279:756; Taha et al. AIDS 2000;14:453). Pantaleo et al. NEJM 1995;332:209; Cao et al. NEJM 1995;332:201; Barker et al. Blood 1998;92:3105).
13. Effect of HAART:
Hammer et al. NEJM 1997;337:725; Cameron et al. Lancet 1998;351:543); CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; Palella et al. NEJM 1998;338:853; Mocroft et al. Lancet 1998;352:1725; Mocroft et al. Lancet 2000;356:291; Vittinghoff et al. J Infect Dis 1999;179:717; Detels et al. JAMA 1998;280:1497; de Martino et al. JAMA 2000;284:190; CASCADE Collaboration. Lancet 2000;355:1158; Hogg et al. CMAJ 1999;160:659; Schwarcz et al. Am J Epidemiol 2000;152:178; Kaplan et al. Clin Infect Dis 2000;30:S5; McNaghten et al. AIDS 1999;13:1687;).Mocroft et al. Lancet 2000;356:291); Montaner et al. AIDS 1998;12:F23; Palumbo et al. JAMA 1998;279:756; O’Brien et al. NEJM 1996;334:426; Katzenstein et al. NEJM 1996;335:1091; Marschner et al. J Infect Dis 1998;177:40; Hammer et al. NEJM 1997;337:725; Cameron et al. Lancet 1998;351:543; Ledergerber et al. Lancet 1999;353:863).
14. Correlation between AIDS and antibodies to HIV:
Smith et al. N Engl J Med 1993;328:373); U.S. Census Bureau; UNAIDS, 2000; WHO. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 1999;74:1; Behets et al. Lancet 1996;347:831.
15. Low CD4+ T-cell count and HIV seropositivity:
Vermund et al. NEJM 1993;328:442; NIAID, 1995.
16. Children of HIV positive mothers:
CDC. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; UNAIDS. AIDS epidemic update: June 2000).
17. HIV positive and HIV negative mother’s drug use effect on child:
(European Collaborative Study. Lancet 1991;337:253; European Collaborative Study. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1997;16:1151; Abrams et al. Pediatrics 1995;96:451; European Collaborative Study. Lancet 1991;337:253; Abrams et al. Pediatrics 1995;96:451).
18. HIV-positive and negative twins and the devlopment of AIDS:
Goedert. Acta Paediatr Supp 1997;421:56; Park et al. J Clin Microbiol 1987;25:1119; Menez-Bautista et al. Am J Dis Child 1986;140:678; Thomas et al. Pediatrics 1990;86:774; Young et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1990;9:454; Barlow and Mok. Arch Dis Child 1993;68:507; Guerrero Vazquez et al. An Esp Pediatr 1993;39:445).
19. Blood transfusion-acquired AIDS:
NIAID, 1995.
20. HIV genetic structure and morphology:
Haase. Nature 1986;322:130).
21. HIV causes the death and dysfunction of CD4+ T lymphocytes in vitro and in vivo:
NIAID, 1995; Pantaleo et al. NEJM 1993;328:327.
22. HIV tests specificity:
WHO, 1998; Sloand et al. JAMA 1991;266:2861; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16; Busch et al. NEJM 1991;325:1; Silvester et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1995;8:411; Urassa et al. J Clin Virol 1999;14:25; Nkengasong et al. AIDS 1999;13:109; Samdal et al. Clin Diagn Virol 1996;7:55.
23. Diseases associated with AIDS in Africa:
UNAIDS, 2000; Ackah et al. Lancet 1995; 345:607; Taha et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999;18:689).
24. Pathogenesis of HIV disease established, even though important details remain to be elucidated.
Evans. Yale J Biol Med 1982;55:193.
25. Access to antiretrovirals and quality of life:
UNAIDS, 2000; NIAID 1995; Figure 1; CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; Palella et al. NEJM 1998;338:853; Mocroft et al. Lancet 1998;352:1725; Mocroft et al. Lancet 2000;356:291; Vittinghoff et al. J Infect Dis 1999;179:717; Detels et al. JAMA 1998;280:1497; de Martino et al. JAMA 2000;284:190; CASCADE Collaboration. Lancet 2000;355:1158; Hogg et al. CMAJ 1999;160:659; Schwarcz et al. Am J Epidemiol 2000;152:178; Kaplan et al. Clin Infect Dis 2000;30:S5; McNaghten et al. AIDS 1999;13:1687).
26. Recreational drug use/ multiple sexual partners and AIDS:
NIAID, 1995a; NIAID, 1995b; Schechter et al. Lancet 1993;341:658; Vermund et al. NEJM 1993;328:442); Des Jarlais et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1993;6:820).
27. HIV positive/ HIV negative and blood transfusions:
Donegan et al. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:733; Cohen. Science 1994;266:1645;
28. Clotting factor and AIDS in hemophiliacs:
Hasset et al. Blood 993;82:1351; Aledort et al. NEJM 1993;328:1128; Sabin et al. BMJ 1996;312:207; Gjerset et al., Blood 1994;84:1666; Goedert et al. NEJM 1989;321:1141.).
29. Gender distribution of AIDS:
U.S. Census Bureau, 1999; UNAIDS, 2000;
30. Antibody response to HIV:
NIAID, 1995; Levy. Microbiol Rev 1993;57:183.
31. Viraemia (Number of CD4+ T cells infected by HIV):
Richman J Clin Invest 2000;105:565).
32. Progression to AIDS among HIV positive individuals:
Alcabes et al. Epidemiol Rev 1993;15:303); Evans. Yale J Biol Med 1982;55:193; Levy. Microbiol Rev 1993;57:183; Fauci. Nature 1996;384:529).
33. Progression to AIDS among HIV negative individuals:
NIAID, 1995; UNAIDS, 2000.
34. HIV weakens immune system:
USPHS/IDSA, 2001; IAID Focus On the HIV-AIDS Connection web page.
September 3rd, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Anita, just because you refuse to understand that the evidence that HIV-1 M group viruses cause the vast majority of AIDS cases on earth (more than 90%), does not mean that the evidence is not conclusive. It is not my job, nor anyone elses, to jump trhrough your hoop of providing just exactly the right evidence to satisfy your personal needs. I’m just a technician at a lab who has offered to help you find some information, it is up to you then whether or not you wish to attempt to understand that information.
While you insist on me providing a SINGLE paper that “proves” something, at the same time you expect us to take your word for it, that Tine’s cure works for everyone. You expect us to take your word for it, that the scientitsts who claim there is “scientific doubt” about this topic are not basing their doubt on lies and/or half-truths.
As for nutrition working for everyone, do you have some theory then about Nozipho Bhengu, Michael Callen and tens of thousands of other very health-food and healthy lifestyle oriented HIV-seropositive people who have died of AIDS? And if so, do you have any evidence to back up your theory?
Which of the tens of dozens of “dissident” positions do you think is most likely to be accurate? Does HIV-1 exist? Is it harmless? There is no “single” paper that can cover all of the evidence that HIV-1 M group subtype C viruses are killing people in South Africa, while HIV-1 M group subtype B viruses are killing people in the USA and Europe. There are many lines of evidence that ALL point to these conclusions, and it is necessary to consider at least 2 or three of the lines before we can get from the “possibility that HIV might cause AIDS” to anything close to the “proof” that it does so.
Do you have handy SINGLE papers that “proves” that Plasmodium falciparum causes malaria? Do you have a SINGLE paper that “proves” that rabies virus causes rabies? If you can show me the exact type of paper you are searching for as acceptable evidence, then maybe I can help you.
September 3rd, 2006 at 8:57 pm
There you have it, folks, from no less than Dr Brian Foley:
there is no single (or two or three or even four), that provide unambigous and overwhelming edidence for HIV as a cause of AIDS. The NIAID Fact sheet titled “Evidence for HIV causes AIDS” does not contain such references. Thank you Dr Foley for your honesty.
That’s the end of this blog - at least as far as my participation is concerned because my total involvement in this issue has been to find those seminal references. That’s all I have ever been interested in - determining the quality of the science supporting the proposition. If anyone thinks they might have such or they wish to pursue this one-on-one please email me direct. - Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
September 4th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Bye. I guess we’ll never have any clue what Anita and Kary Mullis and others think is the evidence that all of science is a complete fraud today, such that not even a textbook on HIV and the pathogenesis fo AIDS provides any solid evidence that HIV might in fact be the cause of AIDS.
Anita claims all HIV sceience is fraudulent, but can’t provide any real evidence to back that claim up. She just says “I think the introns might be important”. There is no “single paper” that describes the overwhelming evidence that ANY pathogen exists or causes a specific disease, really. The SARS virus was identified as the cause of a deadly mini-epidemic in a very short period of time, but there were at least a dozen papers published about the epidemiology (spread by air as opposed to sexual contact, etc) before the serology began to point toward a certain virus family.
I am very surprised that Anita admits that she has seen most of my correspondence with Elliot Small. I provided Elliot with very good reasons why the evidence that HIV-1 M group viruses is “overwhelming and unambiguous”, and why such overwhelling evidence won’t fit in a single research paper or even in a textbook. Jay Levy’s textbook is just a short summary explanation of the research that has been done on HIV and its’s role in AIDS.
It is perfectly fine with me, if Anita Allen choses to have faith that all biomedical science is fraudulent, and/or that alternative medicines can cure AIDS or cancer. It is NOT even close to fine with me, if she influences a government or attempts to influence a government, to go off-track on its plans to deal with its AIDS epidemic. The South African government has based its plans to treat HIV-seropositive people with low CD4 count etc. based on the assumptiuon that HIV is the cause of AIDS. South Africa has many first-rate HIV researchers who have cloned and sequenced hundreds of cmplete genomes of HIV-1 M group subtype C viruses circulating in the South African population. Many vaccines are being designed and drug resistance mutations known to hamper the effectiveness of antiretroviral drugs are beign carefully monitored among the treated population.
The South Africa government is reported to currently be planning to clarify its message to the general public about how best to combat this epidemic. If Anita or anyone else would genuinely like to know why an infectious molecular clone of a virus is much more valuable to a virus researcher than an electron micrograph of a virus (or mixture of 3 virus types, as was the case with the preparation that the Perth group claims was “pure”), I will be happy to explain that. Science in the USA is not entrirely fraudelent, there are dozens of South African HIV researchers who can vouch for the research that has been done in the USA, China, Cuba, Brazil, Estonia, Sweden etc…
September 5th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Postscript: Words on words
Journalists are above all wordsmiths. Words must be chosen for accuracy and clarity. In deciding to quote or publish someone’s articles, or letters or whatever, or whether to seriously entertain someone’s arguments these are the guiding principles along with fairness and balance. In this regard, my comments IN CAPS on Dr Brian Foley’s latest note follow.
This is the format I will maintain as long as Dr Foley keeps posting because it is what I would have sent to him had he been a reporter and I the news editor or chief sub editor assessing it’s value. Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
Dr Foley writes: September 4th, 2006 at 11.53pm:
Bye. I guess we’ll never have any clue what Anita and Kary Mullis and others think is the evidence WHAT EXACTLY IS FOLEY’S PROBLEM - ALLEN HAS ASKED FOR SEMINAL REFERENCES ON THE NIAID FACTSHEET THAT FULFIL THE NIAID POSTULATES 2 AND 3. WHY IS FOLEY HAVING DIFFICULTY CHOOSING THEM that all FOLEY’S QUALIFIER NEVER USED BY ALLEN OR MULLLIS of science is a complete fraud EXAGGERATION - FOLEY IS THE ONLY ONE WHO RAISED THE WORD FRAUD today, such that not even a textbook LEVY’S BOOK IS A BOOK NOT A TEXTBOOK - FOR AN ALTERNATE BOOK REFER PETER H DUESBERG “INVENTING THE AIDS VIRUS’ PUBLISHER: REGNERY 1996. REFER PARTICULARLY HIS APPENDIXIES (ALSO AVAILABLE AT www.DUESBERG.COM) WHICH ARE FULL TEXT COPIES OF ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL “PROCEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES” WHICH STARTING IN 1987 FORMED DUESBERG’S OPENING ARGUMENTS FOR THE PROBLEMS IN BOTH AIDS AND CANCER RESEARCH DIRECTIONS on HIV and the pathogenesis fo AIDS provides any solid evidence that HIV might in fact be the cause of AIDS. THE NIAID FACT SHEET SAID FULFILLING KOCH’S POSTULATES IS THE LITMUS TEST FOR ESTABLISHING THE CAUSE OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE. FOLEY WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO ONE PAPER, HE HAD TO JUST CHOOSE REFERENCES IN THE FACTSHEET WHICH FOR HIM FULFILLED KOCH’S POSTULATES AS STATED IN THE FACT SHEET AS POSTULATE 2 AND 3. HE FAILED TO DO SO. BUT MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY DR FOLEY NOW SEEMS TO BE SAYING SUCH DATA DOES NOT EXIST. THIS IS A HUGE STORY. ONE NEEDS VERIFICATION FROM OTHER RESEARCHERS WHO ARE MORE THAN TECHNICIANS. SINCE TAC HAS AN ALLIANCE WITH DR ROBERT GALLO AND DR JOHN MOORE MAYBE FOLEY SHOULD APPROACH THEM AND SEE IF THEY AGREE WITH HIM.
Anita claims all HIV sceience is fraudulent ALLEN DID NOT MAKE THIS CLAIM. THIS IS FOLEY’S REDHERRING, but can’t provide any real evidence to back that claim up. She just says “I think the introns might be important” THE EXACT QUOTE IS: “THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND AFTER EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION OF INTRONS BEING VERY IMPORTANT TO SOLVING THE AIDS PUZZLE. IT IMPLIES THAT AIDS IS A METABOLIC DISEASE AND NOT AN INFECTIOUS ONE. THAT IS WHY TINE VAN DER MAAS’ WELLNESS PROGRAMME WORKS AND GOOD NUTRITION IS FUNDAMENTAL TO PREVENTING PEOPLE WHO HAVE TESTED HIV POSITIVE FROM DEVELOPING FULL BLOWN AIDS.”
There is no “single paper” ALLEN DID NOT ASK FOR A SINGLE REFERENCE SHE ASKED FOR THE SEMINAL REFERENCES WHICH FULFILLED KOCH’S POSTULATES 2 AND 3 IN FACT SHEET. that describes NOT DESCRIBES - PROVIDES THE DATA the overwhelming evidence that ANY pathogen exists or causes a specific disease, really. - IF THIS STATEMENT BY FOLEY IS TRUE THEN IT IMPLIES THAT VIROLOGY IN TOTO IS A HOUSE OF CARDS. THAT WOULD BE THE TRUE HORROR REVEALED BY CRITICS OF HIV SCIENCE. FOLEY NEEDS TO EXPLAIN THIS BECAUSE THIS IS POTENTIALLY A FAR BIGGER STORY THAN HIV - IT COULD MEAN THAT HE HAS THE INFORMATION THAT NO VIRUS HAS YET BEEN ISOLATED ACCORDING TO KOCHS POSTULATES 2 AND 3 OF THE NIAID FACT SHEET AS THE LITMUS TEST FOR ESTABLISHING THE CAUSE OF AN INFECTIOUS DISEASE. IF TRUE IT IMPLIES THE WORD “VIRUS’ MEANING POISON, IS A MISNOMER. FOLEY MUST ELABORATE ON THIS. THIS IS A HUGE STORY, IF FOLEY IS CORRECT. The SARS virus was identified BUT WAS IT ISOLATED ACCORDING TO KOCK’S POSTULATES 2 AND 3 OF NIAID FACTSHEET - THE ANSWER APPEARS TO BE NO IF FOLEY’S PREVIOUS STATEMENT IS TRUE as the cause of a deadly mini-epidemic in a very short period of time, but there were at least a dozen papers published about the epidemiology EPIDEMIOLOGY CANT PROVE CAUSATION ONLY ASSOCIATION OR CORRELATION. OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT THE PERFECT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF CONDOMS DISTRIBUTED IN SOUTH AFRICA AND RISING INCIDENCE OF PEOPLE TESTING HIV POSITIVE IN THE COUNTRY MEANS CONDOMS SOMEHOW CAUSE HIV INFECTION IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SO MANY PEOPLE ARE EITHER ALLERGIC TO LATEX OR CONDOMS LEND A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY? (spread by air as opposed to sexual contact, etc) before the serology began to point toward a certain virus family.
I am very surprised that Anita admits that she has seen most ALLEN SAID SHE HAD THE ENTIRE CORRESPONCE NOT JUST WITH SMALL BUT MANY OTHER CORRESPONDENCES SO PRESUMABLY ALL OF THIS IS NOT NEW. IT WAS HASHED OUT IN PRESIDENT MBEKI’S PANEL AND AN INDEPENDENT SOUTH AFRICAN ADMINISTRATOR DR KHOTSO MOKHELE WHO HAS A DOCTORATE IN MICROBIOLOGY FROM HARVARD, COMPILED A REPORT ON HIS SUMMARY OF PROCEDINGS http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/reports/aids/aidspanel.htm WEREN’T EXPERIMENTS ANNOUNCED THAT WOULD SETTLE THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL? WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE? of my correspondence with Elliot Small. I provided Elliot with very good reasons why the evidence that HIV-1 M group viruses is “overwhelming and unambiguous”, and why such overwhelling evidence won’t fit in a single research paper or even in a textbook. Jay Levy’s textbook is just a short summary explanation of the research that has been done on HIV and its’s role in AIDS. NO ONE CONTESTS THE VOLUMINOUS RESEARCH IN HIV/AIDS. BUT SOMEWHERE SOME RESEARCHER MUST HAVE SURELY FULFILLED KOCH’S POSTULATES AS LAID OUT IN THE NIAID FACTSHEET AS THE LITMUS TEST FOR ESTABLISHING CAUSE OF AN INFECTIOUS DISEASE. THIS IS A MUST FROM FOLEY, NO OTHER REMARKS ARE NEEDED IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH ONCE AND FOR ALL THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT ALL OF IT HASN’T BEEN A MONUMENTAL MISUSE OF TAXPAYER’S MONEY - IN THE US SOMETHING APPROACHING $200 BILLION TO DATE. IN SOUTH AFRICA APPROACHING R5BN PER ANNUM MORE THAN IS SPENT ON ALL OTHER DISEASES.
It is perfectly fine with me, if Anita Allen choses to have faith FAITH? THIS IS FOLEY’S WORD IT APPLIES TO RELIGION NOT SCIENCE. that all biomedical science is fraudulent, and/or that alternative medicines can cure AIDS or cancer. It is NOT even close to fine with me, if she influences a government or attempts to influence a government, to go off-track IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED ON THIS BLOG WHAT IS OR IS NOT OFF-TRACK. WITHOUT THOSE SEMINAL REFERENCES THE JURY HAS TO REMAIN IF NOT OBJECTIVE THEN AT LEAST SCEPTICAL on its plans to deal with its AIDS epidemic. IT SEEMS THAT FOLEY IS MOVING INTO BEING IN VIOLATION OF SOUTH AFRICA’S CONSTITUTION BY DEMANDING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FOR HIMSELF AND NOT FOR ANYONE OPPOSING HIS VIEWS. The South African government has based its plans to treat HIV-seropositive people with low CD4 count etc. based on the assumptiuon OXFORD DICTIONARY: ASSUMPTION - A THING THAT IS ASSUMED AS TRUE. ASSUME: ACCEPT AS TRUE WITHOUT PROOF. NOTE THAT THE SOUTH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT HIV AND AIDS COMPREHENISVE PLAN STARTS WITH THE STATEMENT THAT “POLICY IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF AN INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED PREMISE THAT HIV CAUSES AIDS”. THIS 2003 DOCUMENT IS THE FIRST TIME THAT A SA GOVERNMENT POLICY DOCUMENT EXPLICITY STATES THIS FOUNDATION TO POLICY. IT IS A QUALIFIER TO ALL PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS. IS IT ACTUALLY POSSIBLE THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS BEING DONE AND SPENT IS BASED ON NOTHING MORE THAN AN ASSUMPTION that HIV is the cause of AIDS. South Africa has many first-rate HIV researchers who have cloned and sequenced hundreds of cmplete genomes of HIV-1 M group subtype C viruses circulating in the South African population. THE CLONING AND SEQUENCING ARGUMENT RESTS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT WHAT IS BEING CLONED HAS BEEN ESTABLSHED AS HIV AND ONLY HIV. FOLEY SHOULD POST REFERENCES TO THE RESEARCH WHICH ACHIEVED THIS - AND THE FULL TEXT OR OPEN ACCESS LINK. Many vaccines are being designed YES, BUT NONE HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE THOUGH FOLEY CLAIMS HIV SPECIFIC PROTEINS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. IN 1984 WHEN THE THEN SECRETARY OF HEALTH IN THE US ANNOUNCED AT A PRESS CONFERENCE THAT THE CAUSE OF AIDS HAD BEEN FOUND SHE SAID A VACCINE WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN TWO YEARS. IF HIV SPECIFIC PROTEINS HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED (A NECESSARY PART OF ISOLATION AS PER KOCH’S POSTULATES) THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM IN DEVELOPING A VACCINE. and drug resistance mutations WHAT IS A DRUG RESISTANT MUTATION OF HIV AND HOW DOES IT DIFFER FROM ORDINARY HIV? DATA, PLEASE THAT ESTABLISHES MUTATIONS AS OPPOSED TO GENETIC REARRANGEMENTS IN RESPONSE TO TOXIC ASSAULTS INLCUDING ARV TOXINS AND CELL STRESS - AND SEMINAL RESEARCH FULL TEXTS OR LINKS TO OPEN ACCESS known to hamper the effectiveness of antiretroviral drugs are beign carefully monitored among the treated population. WHAT IS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HAART? WHERE IS THE DATA? WHERE IS THE DATA ON THE 137000 PEOPLE ON ARVS IN SOUTH AFRICA? HOW MANY HAVE DIED? HOW MANY ADVERSE REACTIONS HAVE OCCURRED AND WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN? IT HAS BEEN DONE IN EUROPE AND AMERICA WHERE IS SOUTH AFRICA’S REFER: “HIV TREATMENT RESPONSE AND PROGNOSIS IN EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA IN THE FIRST DECADE OF HIGHLY ACTIVE ANTIRETROVIRAL THERAPY”. THE LANCET VOL 368. 5 AUGUST 2006. THIS COLLABORATIVE STUDY OF MORE THAN 22,000 PEOPLE ON HAART CONCLUDED “THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN EARLY IMMUNOLOGICAL RESPONSE AS MEASURED BY CD4-LYMPHOCYTE COUNT, NO REDUCTION IN ALL-CAUSE MORTALITY AND A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN COMBINED AIDS/AIDS RELATED DEATH RISK”
The South Africa government is reported to currently be planning to clarify its message to the general public about how best to combat this epidemic. If Anita or anyone else would genuinely like to know why an infectious molecular clone THESE ARE JUST WORDS UNTIL FOLEY SUPPLIES THE REFERENCE TO RESEARCH AND PREFERABLY THE FULL TEXT OR OPEN ACCESS LINK of a virus is much more valuable to a virus researcher than an electron micrograph of a virus (or mixture of 3 virus types, as was the case with the preparation that the Perth group claims was “pure” NEED REFERENCE TO WHERE PERTH GROUP STATED THIS IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE ACCURACY OF THIS STATEMENT WHICH COULD BE MONUMENTALLY IMPORTANT IN THE WHOLE HIV DEBATE. THERE HAVE BEEN FEW CLAIMED EMS OF HIV. IF THE ISOLATE USED IN THESE EMS WERE CONTAMINATED BY 3 VIRUSES AS FOLEY CLAIMS, WHILE RESEARCHERS CLAIMED IT WAS A ‘PURE’ ISOLATE THIS IS MONUMENTALLY IMPORTANT), I will be happy to explain that. GOOD. THEN FOLEY CAN DO SO AND HOPEFULLY THE PERTH GROUP CAN BE INTICED INTO RESPONDING Science in the USA is not entrirely fraudelent, there are dozens of South African HIV researchers who can vouch for the research that has been done in the USA, China, Cuba, Brazil, Estonia, Sweden etc. DOES FOLEY MEAN TAKE SA RESEARCHERS WORD FOR IT? THAT WILL NOT DO. NO NEWSPAPER SHOULD RISK THE LITIGATION THAT COULD FOLLOW IF SOMEHOW HIV SCIENCE IS OFF TRACK. TO SETTLE THIS QUESTION FOLEY MUST SUPPLY REFERENCES TO THE SEMINAL RESEARCH WHERE HIV HAS BEEN SHOWN TO FULFIL KOCH’S POSTUATES AS LAID OUT IN THE NIAID FACT SHEET POSTULATE 1 AND 2. THERE’S PLENTY OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUFF - WHICH THE NIAID FACT SHEET STATES IS KOCH’S POSTULATE NUMBER 1, BUT IS INFACT AN ADDITION BY THE NIAID AND NOT AS KOCH ORIGINALLY STATED IT. NEVERTHELESS THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONLY THE NIAID POSTULATE 1 NEED BE FULFILLED. WHAT WE NEED TO SETTLE THIS IS NO FURTHER OBFUSCATION JUST THE SEMINAL REFERENCES FULFILLING NIAID FACT SHEET POSTULATES 2 AND 3.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
DOES FOLEY MEAN TAKE SA RESEARCHERS WORD FOR IT?
No. I mean that if you think there might be something wrong with the research cited in Jay Levy’s textbook, or any other source of information on HIV and AIDS, then you have the option of going to visit a local lab, where you can independently verify the results using your own tests. I don’t necessarily expect Anita Allen to do this herself, but AIDS a very serious issue, and Anita Claims to have been the instigator of the South African Presidental AIDS Advisory Panel. That panel mostly just talked, a little research was planned, but after the very first experiment was done it went no further.
THAT WILL NOT DO. NO NEWSPAPER SHOULD RISK THE LITIGATION THAT COULD FOLLOW IF SOMEHOW HIV SCIENCE IS OFF TRACK.
Every newspaper should be committed to finding out whether or not the science of HIV epidemiology and pathology is true or not.
TO SETTLE THIS QUESTION FOLEY MUST SUPPLY REFERENCES TO THE SEMINAL RESEARCH WHERE HIV HAS BEEN SHOWN TO FULFIL KOCH’S POSTUATES AS LAID OUT IN THE NIAID FACT SHEET POSTULATE 1 AND 2.
No. HIV and AIDS are too important for any one person such as FOLEY or ALLEN to present the final analysis. One of the most important reasons to check dozens of publications intead of just one, is that the results should be consistent, and many diofferent lines of evidence and reasoning all lead toward the same set of conclusions.
THERE’S PLENTY OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUFF - WHICH THE NIAID FACT SHEET STATES IS KOCH’S POSTULATE NUMBER 1, BUT IS INFACT AN ADDITION BY THE NIAID AND NOT AS KOCH ORIGINALLY STATED IT. NEVERTHELESS THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONLY THE NIAID POSTULATE 1 NEED BE FULFILLED.
I’ll take a closer look at that if you wish. Koch’s postulates were not written for viruses, but bacteria. Some aspects of viruses, such as host species specificity, which can either hinder or aid in detecting and classifying the cause of a given viral outbreak, in comparion to detecting and classifying bacterial pathogens.
WHAT WE NEED TO SETTLE THIS IS NO FURTHER OBFUSCATION JUST THE SEMINAL REFERENCES FULFILLING NIAID FACT SHEET POSTULATES 2 AND 3.
I am not trying to “obfuscate”. You were the one who brought up Dr. Howard Urnovitz’s publications and said “the fluid versus the static genome (in humans or any other
organism) because it is a key to understanding where virology went off the
rails following a road more taken, but a dead end nevertheless.”
Without mentioning that virology has in fact rid the world of smallpox, and nearly controlled polio. This is not what I would call a dead end.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7105
Definition of Koch’s postulates
Koch’s postulates: In 1890 the German physician and bacteriologist Robert Koch set out his celebrated criteria for judging whether a given bacteria is the cause of a given disease. Koch’s criteria brought some much-needed scientific clarity to what was then a very confused field.
Koch’s postulates are as follows:
* The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease.
Koch was speaking of “outbreaks” in the case of water-borne or food-borne mini-epidemics, such as Typhoid fever, Cholera, or food poisonings. In many cases, the same exact symptoms (such as diarrhea and fever) can be caused by dozens of different pathogens. In fact then one could in theory identify two different epidemics coincident in the same city (say food poisoning among 100 people at a wedding reception, and “stomach flu” from bad well water in a neieghborhood), by finding that there were two different pathogenic bacteria found.
There are a few things, such as taking anti-rejection drugs after having an organ transplant, that can result in the type of hypersensitivity to opportunistic infections that is characteristic of AIDS patients. But the numbers of human deaths from those other causes has remained relatively contant over time, while AIDS cases have increased exponentially, with epidemic doublting times varying from one host population to another. The doubling times among populations is not a function of nationality, for example an inner city IV drug user population can spread the infection faster than a rural IV drug user populatiuon in the same country.
* The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure culture.
Dozens of infectious molecular clones of HIV-1 have been tested in many ways.
* The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.
Juompan L, Zhou J, Montefiori DC, Novembre FJ.
Resistance to neutralizing antibody and expanded coreceptor usage are associated with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 isolates derived from chimpanzees with pathogenic infections.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2001 Dec 10;17(18):1705-14.
PMID: 11788022
We do have dozens of different simian immunodeficiency viruses, feline immunodeficiency viruses and other lentiviruses for which the susceptible hosts develop AIDS symptoms in varying amounts of time. For HIV-1, chimpanzees are the only susceptible host, and it takes many years for them to get sick. For many reasons, most researchrs who need to test pathology after a deliberate injection of virus, use a host other than chimpanzees. It is not ethical to inject humans with HIV-1 isolates, and even injecting non-human primates requires serious ethical review.
There are of course many humans infected with HIV, and tens of thousands of them have been involved in scientific studies, where records were actually kept. A few have even been infected from the same source, such as a single unit of HIV-infected blood, so the rate of disease progression in different people with the same virus has been compared to rates of disease progression among similar people (even a few identical twins) infected with different virus strains.
ten Haaft P, Verschoor EJ, Verstrepen B, Niphuis H, Dubbes R, Koornstra W, Bogers W, Rosenwirth B, Heeney JL.
Readily acquired secondary infections of human and simian immunodeficiency viruses following single intravenous exposure in non-human primates.
J Gen Virol. 2004 Dec;85(Pt 12):3735-45.
PMID: 15557247
Sawyer SL, Emerman M, Malik HS.
Ancient adaptive evolution of the primate antiviral DNA-editing enzyme APOBEC3G.
PLoS Biol. 2004 Sep;2(9):E275. Epub 2004 Jul 20.
PMID: 15269786
Hirsch VM.
What can natural infection of African monkeys with simian immunodeficiency virus tell us about the pathogenesis of AIDS?
AIDS Rev. 2004 Jan-Mar;6(1):40-53.
PMID: 15168740
Rutjens E, Balla-Jhagjhoorsingh S, Verschoor E, Bogers W, Koopman G, Heeney J. Related Articles, Links
Lentivirus infections and mechanisms of disease resistance in chimpanzees.
Front Biosci. 2003 Sep 1;8:d1134-45. Review.
PMID: 12957818
* The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected host.
Mwaengo DM, Novembre FJ.
Molecular cloning and characterization of viruses isolated from chimpanzees with pathogenic human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infections.
J Virol. 1998 Nov;72(11):8976-87.
PMID: 9765443
However, Koch’s postulates have their limitations and so may not always be the last word. They may not hold if:
* The particular bacteria (such as the one that causes leprosy) cannot be “grown in pure culture” in the laboratory.
Not a problem for HIV-1, once the specific cell types needed for culture were identified. HIV-1 does not grow on fibroblasts, it requires CD4+ T-cells carrying the CCR5 coreceptor.
* There is no animal model of infection with that particular bacteria.
This depends on what you decide is “particular”. The primate lentivurses in general provide many different “animal models”, but HIV-1 M group viruses only cause disease in humans and chimpanzees (we have not tested gorillas or orangutans, as far as I know).
A harmless bacteria may cause disease if:
* It has acquired extra virulence factors making it pathogenic.
Many strains of HIV-1 have lost virulence. We have no real solid evidence of any non-pathogenic strain of HIV-1 regaining its virulence in humans.
Kondo M, Shima T, Nishizawa M, Sudo K, Iwamuro S, Okabe T, Takebe Y, Imai M. Identification of attenuated variants of HIV-1 circulating recombinant form 01_AE that are associated with slow disease progression due to gross genetic alterations in the nef/long terminal repeat sequences.
J Infect Dis. 2005 Jul 1;192(1):56-61. Epub 2005 May 25.
PMID: 15942894
Oelrichs R, Tsykin A, Rhodes D, Solomon A, Ellett A, McPhee D, Deacon N.
Genomic sequence of HIV type 1 from four members of the Sydney Blood Bank Cohort of long-term nonprogressors.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1998 Jun 10;14(9):811-4.
PMID: 9643382
* It gains access to deep tissues via trauma, surgery, an IV line, etc.
Not needed for HIV-1. It is equally pathogenic for all routes of entry. There is no evidence that IV drug users have a more or less rapid rate of disease progression than heterosexually infected people.
* It infects an immunocompromised patient.
Yes, most of the “AIDS defining” illnesses, such as PCP pneumonia, are this type.
* Not all people infected by a bacteria may develop disease-subclinical infection is usually more common than clinically obvious infection.
The “latent period” in between seroconversion and severe immune deficiency, is what Koch would call “subclinical”.
Despite such limitations, Koch’s postulates are still a useful benchmark in judging whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship between a bacteria (or any other type of microorganism) and a clinical disease.
Yes. Indeed.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
“FOLEY NOW SEEMS TO BE SAYING SUCH DATA DOES NOT EXIST. THIS IS A HUGE STORY. ONE NEEDS VERIFICATION FROM OTHER RESEARCHERS WHO ARE MORE THAN TECHNICIANS.”
I never said the data does not exist. I only said that it was contained in more than one paper. You can read the “Durban declaration” if you want to find that I am not alone in this.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
IF THIS STATEMENT BY FOLEY IS TRUE THEN IT IMPLIES THAT VIROLOGY IN TOTO IS A HOUSE OF CARDS. THAT WOULD BE THE TRUE HORROR REVEALED BY CRITICS OF HIV SCIENCE. FOLEY NEEDS TO EXPLAIN THIS BECAUSE THIS IS POTENTIALLY A FAR BIGGER STORY THAN HIV - IT COULD MEAN THAT HE HAS THE INFORMATION THAT NO VIRUS HAS YET BEEN ISOLATED
Don’t be ridiculous. It could also mean that the moon is made of cheese. Foley has no “special powers” for determining anything about virology.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
WEREN’T EXPERIMENTS ANNOUNCED THAT WOULD SETTLE THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL? WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE?
Indeed. What did happen??? I am dying to know the full story behind that.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
FAITH? THIS IS FOLEY’S WORD IT APPLIES TO RELIGION NOT SCIENCE.
Exactly!!!! Now you understand! There is no “evidence” that HIV-1 M group viruses are not the cause of the AIDS pandemic. Anita simply has faith that Kary Mullis and Peter Duesberg are somehow a lot smarter than 99.9% of virologists, epidemiologists, and the doctors who treat AIDS casees every day. There are indeed many very clever arguments about some doubt about HIV eing the cause, but none of them is backed up with any real data.