Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Ionis Pharmaceuticals (IONS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Bogdanoff who wrote (2344)	11/6/1998 1:37:00 AM
From: jackie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4676

David, His name is Peter Duesberg. He is one of the leading authorities on retroviruses. His book is entitled Inventing The AIDS Virus. He makes a very compelling argument against the HIV hypothesis, showing evidence for his own explanation, drugs. It is interesting to see the Nobel prize for Medicine was given on the basis of a new role played by nitric oxide in human metabolism. Interesting because Dr. Duesberg thinks it is amyl nitrites, used by some illegally as a means of maintaining an erection. It is this characteristic of nitric oxide taken advantage of by Viagra. See Message 6295428 for another take on the nitric oxide story. The few scientists calling for a reevaluation of the HIV hypothesis include the inventor of the polymerase chain reaction. For tons of stuff on this controversy, go to altavista.com Here is one quote from one of the sources listed: Despite enormous efforts, over 100.000 papers and over $22 billion spent by the US taxpayers alone, the HIV-AIDS hypothesis has failed to produce any public health benefits, no vaccine, no effective drug, no prevention, no cure, not a single life saved. Is the science system to be blamed? Has science failed to reveal the truth about AIDS? In AIDS; Virus or Drug Induced? Two dozen scientists, scholars and journalists have investigated the status quo of AIDS research. Most of them have questioned the HIV-AIDS hypothesis before, but have since been censored, and sociologically excluded from AIDS research, politics and journalism. Here they are united for the first time to put on trial the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. There are those who acquit HIV entirely. Others who make a case for HIV as a necessary, but not a sufficient cause of AIDS. And one medical scientist who, together with the huge AIDS literature, defends the hypothesis that HIV is sufficient to cause AIDS. The book convincingly reveals that the scientific method could very well find a solution to AIDS, but only if ideas can be exchanged freely and if the HIV monopoly can be broken. AIDS; Virus or Drug Induced? Illustrates that the solution to AIDS could be as close as one of several, very testable and very affordable alternatives to the unproductive HIV-AIDS hypothesis. There is no way I could do the book justice. It should be read by every serious student of medicine. Because of his renegade views on the subject, Dr. Duesberg has been labeled pariah in the scientific community. It is disgraceful the way we treat talented scientists who don't toe the line. Dr. Linus Pauling was mocked and ridiculed because of his views on vitamin C. He has largely been vindicated. How about Dr. Kilmer McCully, who discovered the real culprit in the cause of heart disease? He found the answer back in the late sixties and lost his tenure as professor of medicine at Harvard for his troubles. His book, The Homocysteine Revolution is a good read. Why can't we tolerate different opinions in the one area, science, where it is necessary for such variations to make any sort of advance? Jack