RCMac,
Deeply appreciate your comments. And your reference to 'Deadly Feasts' demonstrates to me there are others out here who are thinking about a lot of the real puzzles confronting science. I loved that book. I don't think anyone could read the opening discussion with its graphic description of cannibalism without being moved one way or the other.
Agree fully with your conclusions regarding prions. There is just enough to the prion model, the idea of a protein conveying enough information for its own replication via some sort of crystallization process within the cell, to give me serious pause in my thinking on the processes of life. I still have not bought into the prion model. I'm am too convinced of the traditional model which divides all the molecules of life into those possessing information (the DNAs and RNAs etc.) and those which are the chemical expressions of said information (the proteins). However, I will not shut my thinking off from the very radical notion that some of the latter may be able to replicate themselves through some backdoor harness of the chemical machinery of the cells. After all, viruses take over some of the same machinery, admittedly through a more traditional route with either DNA or RNA. But their's is still a weird way of replicating themselves.
One thing I have learned with my studies of science and history is how even really bright, accomplished, proven elders in science can just wind up in the silliest positions.
I had always heard about the famous comment made by Einstein when he tried to do away with the notion of quantum unpredictability by declaring "God does not play with dice."
It was not until this summer while reading the wonderful book "The Making Of The Atomic Bomb" that the full context of this statement was brought home for me. What was really said by Einstein was in a letter he wrote to Neils Bohr, "quantum mechanics demands serious attention.But an inner voice tells me that this is not the true Jacob. The theory accomplishes a lot, but it does not bring us close to the secrets of the Old One. In any case, I am convinced that He does not play dice." Later on, in these heated debates with folks like Max Planck, Marie Curie, Hendrick Lorentz, Max Born, Paul Ehrenfest, Erwin Schrodinger, Wolfgang Pauli, and Werner Heisenberg, Einstein started repeating the God not playing dice routine. Bohr's final refutation was a beauty, God does not throw dice? And what insight did Einstein enjoy into the gambling habits of the deity? "Nor is it our business to prescribe to God how He should run the world."
I would have loved to have been at those little dinner parties.
Louis Pasteur and Justus von Liebig had a little to do regarding the vital force notion proposed by Pasteur. Pasteur maintained, incorrectly, that fermentation was due to the living state of yeast, not its possession of a chemical capable of fermentation independent of any living thing. Pasteur's position could be summed up with "No fermentation without life." Of course, he was wrong. There were a lot of reasons for this stubborness on his part, but it all boils down to the simple fact he was human and didn't want to own up to a mistake.
So, does Peter Duesberg fall into this category of cranky old former leading scientist past his prime?
First of all, let's address the non arguments. Someone said he doesn't sound good when he talks. Well, neither does Stephen Hawkins.
Second, having lots of scientists on your side doesn't prove you right. Science is not some sort of democracy; the opinions expressed by its practitioners are just that, opinions. Until, of course, there is experimental support for those opinions. At which point, we can only say, the opinions have not been disproven. Not the same as to say, they are true. Big difference.
If anyone disagrees with these first two observations, then I guess we should start seeing our scientists hiring PR agents, hair stylists, and pollsters before they say anything.
Peter Duesberg says the HIV/AIDS hypothesis does not satisfy Koch's first rule. I say, show me the peer reviewed article demonstrating the HIV to AIDS connection and we'll go from there. I'm going to be a real stinker about this.
As to the explanation of the drop in AIDS cases with the seeming correlation in the use of anti AIDS cocktails:
Maybe the AIDS rates are dropping because the real cause of AIDS, use of poppers or unsafe sex or blood transfusions or whatever, is also dropping.
Maybe all the of the people susceptible to AIDS are already dead.
Maybe the real cause of AIDS is self limiting, and it just coincidentally decided to leave about the time we started doing something about it.
Maybe it's all a case of a super hysterically induced placebo effect, the result of a generation trained to respond to television advertising.
To claim the AIDS epidemic was stopped by killing an innocent bystander virus, HIV, would be like taking credit for stopping the Black Plague in the 14th century because the prayers of the priests were of a higher quality than before.
No one has to explain the drop in AIDS deaths before earning the right to ask for proof of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. I'm just insisting on proof HIV causes AIDS. This is precisely the kind of trouble we get into when we don't make sure of our assumptions before starting our crusades.
Someone might be thinking, what does all of this have to do with Isis? For starters, if HIV is not the cause of AIDS, I wouldn't want to see our resources expended in developing therapies to kill harmless viruses. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to spend our research money on diseases where we really can stop the cause, such as Crohn's disease, or arthritis, or breast cancer?
Also, if it turns out Peter Duesberg is correct, what will the public think of medical research in particular and science in general? Maybe we could let them know late Friday evening, just before a big holiday. No one reads the papers then anyway.
I knew this whole question of Duesberg vs Gallo would cause a big stir. Sorry about the inconvenience. I'd just as soon let the drama unfold.
I could be wrong about all this. I've certainly put out some boo boos before.
Anyway, I've got a fox to watch for. It's been coming down the street now for some time, every evening, and I don't want to miss it.
Jack
|
