| Chris Noble 2005-10-24, 12:55 am |
|
Fondoo wrote:
> What Duesberg does not mention is that this molecular clone was
> cytopathic.
>
> Add it to T-cells and they are infected and die
>
> And they used controls!
>
> Thank you Chris,
> Could you tell me Duesberg's reason for not believing the cytopathic evidence was not valid?
I have no idea. I have not found an explanation of why Duesberg does
not mention the cytopathic effects.
Duesberg does frequently mention the immortal cell lines that are used
to culture HIV. Duesberg and others frequently cite this as evidence
that HIV is not cytopathic. However, Gallo and his coworkers spent a
great deal of time finding an immortal cell line and tweaking the
conditions so that it could support HIV replication without killing
*ALL* of the cells. There are many cell lines which cannot be used for
culturing HIV for extended periods because it kills the cells. If you
put HIV in ordinary donor T-cells it kills them.
> Or am I to believe Duesberg just ignores proofs
> because he enjoys being the underdog? I mean no disrespect but I feel you
> are leaving something out and you sharing it would save me allot of time
> looking it up.
There is nothing that I can find in the paper that would suggest a
plausible reason for accepting this paper as evidence for the existence
of HIV but at the same time not accepting it as direct evidence for the
cytopathic properties.
> My guess would be since he supports the papers evidence of HIV he has
> reason not to support the cytopathic evidence and not that he just chooses
> to ignore it.
My kindest guess would be that it was carelessness. Duesberg might have
read the paper at one stage and acknowledged the evidence for the
existence of HIV.
Sometime later Duesberg is exasperated by the claims by some dissidents
that HIV does not exist. Duesberg thinks that this is a stupid claim
and that it will sidetrack his own aims. He responds to the Continuum
challenge to try to resolve the issue. He then looks up these
referneces but does not read them fully again.
My only problem with this guess is that Duesberg does the same thing
several times. He cites papers and accepts part of its conclusions when
it suits him but ignores other conclusions. In some cases he ignores
the original data but accepts the conclusions that were derived from
the data.
You could try emailing him and asking him.
Duesberg appears to have more time for his supporters than for his
critics. He is more likely to give you an answer than myself.
http://www.duesberg.com/contact.html
Chris Noble
|