Montygram
Wed, Sep-28-05, 06:49
Most scientists believe that there is a retrovirus, "HIV,"
that causes more than a dozen old diseases that now get
classified as "AIDS."
You can go to www.aliveandwell.org and read their material,
which is designed for non-scientists, but the Perth Group of
scientists has written the best material on "AIDS," so I'll
just suggesst you read that material if you are interested in
the subject.
The following is from a web site whose authors "believe" in
the "HIV causes AIDS" claim. What this one passage reveals,
however, is how assumptions lead to "experts" just going along
with them. Because the AIDS industry has so much money pumped
into it, they actually do some experiments now and then, and
in this case, the data failed to support the "HIV causes AIDS"
claim. Of course, this does not seem to bother many of today's
"scientists," but at least it demonstrates what an on point
experiment is. The claim predicts that certain protein
fragments will be found in "AIDS dementia" patients' brains,
but it is not.
I have pointed out that the claim that DHA is lacking in the
brains of elderly people with dementia is not backed by any on
point evidence. In the case of dementia in elderly people
(below) the brains of elderly people with and without dementia
should be studied to see if there is a difference in DHA
content. Until then, what we have are predictions based on
assumptions, none of which have been tested with experiments
that follow the scientific method. I keep pointing out that
the studies that "experts" cite to support the "essential
fatty acid" either do not address the underlying mechanims
involved, fail to use proper controls, or a flawed in a number
of other ways I've articulated more than once on this
newsgroup. Science has become more of a
pscyho-social phenomenon in many ways these days, espeically
in medicine/biology/nutrition, mainly because of special
interests and the ease with which "studies" can be
"massaged" to obtain an interpretation one desires.
Sometimes, the results contradict the claims made by the
researchers who are generating those same results. I am here
to prevent nebulous claims from going unchallenged - that is
what I was trained to do in grad school. I am willing to put
my own money up when I think I am correct, but nobody is
interested in taking me up on these offers. I know all the
tricks employed - they will not be able to play the usual
shell games with me, and they know they will just lose their
money and look foolish.
Here is the passage in question:
"Early studies investigating toxic activities of HIV proteins
focused on gp120. In experimental systems, gp120 can act
synergistically with glutamate (4) to elicit excitotoxicity
mediated by NO (5). However, evidence from human postmortem
studies to support this experimentally-derived hypothesis has
not been forthcoming. Numerous investigators have failed to
observe gp120 in the brains of HIV infected patients."
Source: www.aidscience.org/neuroaids/
zones/articles/1999/10/Nitricoxide/index.asp
that causes more than a dozen old diseases that now get
classified as "AIDS."
You can go to www.aliveandwell.org and read their material,
which is designed for non-scientists, but the Perth Group of
scientists has written the best material on "AIDS," so I'll
just suggesst you read that material if you are interested in
the subject.
The following is from a web site whose authors "believe" in
the "HIV causes AIDS" claim. What this one passage reveals,
however, is how assumptions lead to "experts" just going along
with them. Because the AIDS industry has so much money pumped
into it, they actually do some experiments now and then, and
in this case, the data failed to support the "HIV causes AIDS"
claim. Of course, this does not seem to bother many of today's
"scientists," but at least it demonstrates what an on point
experiment is. The claim predicts that certain protein
fragments will be found in "AIDS dementia" patients' brains,
but it is not.
I have pointed out that the claim that DHA is lacking in the
brains of elderly people with dementia is not backed by any on
point evidence. In the case of dementia in elderly people
(below) the brains of elderly people with and without dementia
should be studied to see if there is a difference in DHA
content. Until then, what we have are predictions based on
assumptions, none of which have been tested with experiments
that follow the scientific method. I keep pointing out that
the studies that "experts" cite to support the "essential
fatty acid" either do not address the underlying mechanims
involved, fail to use proper controls, or a flawed in a number
of other ways I've articulated more than once on this
newsgroup. Science has become more of a
pscyho-social phenomenon in many ways these days, espeically
in medicine/biology/nutrition, mainly because of special
interests and the ease with which "studies" can be
"massaged" to obtain an interpretation one desires.
Sometimes, the results contradict the claims made by the
researchers who are generating those same results. I am here
to prevent nebulous claims from going unchallenged - that is
what I was trained to do in grad school. I am willing to put
my own money up when I think I am correct, but nobody is
interested in taking me up on these offers. I know all the
tricks employed - they will not be able to play the usual
shell games with me, and they know they will just lose their
money and look foolish.
Here is the passage in question:
"Early studies investigating toxic activities of HIV proteins
focused on gp120. In experimental systems, gp120 can act
synergistically with glutamate (4) to elicit excitotoxicity
mediated by NO (5). However, evidence from human postmortem
studies to support this experimentally-derived hypothesis has
not been forthcoming. Numerous investigators have failed to
observe gp120 in the brains of HIV infected patients."
Source: www.aidscience.org/neuroaids/
zones/articles/1999/10/Nitricoxide/index.asp