1 I agree with you Rusty. It IS causal. ABSOLUTELY. I was just being more than fair since the Harvey crew over at Dean's world have slammed me for this in the past. Repeatedly. I'm willing to grant their thought experiment in that case. My take is that HIV is responsible for the vast majority of AIDS, but some (v. few) cases have other origins. Just to clarify. Thanks for the link

2 Questioning isn't generally seen as being "duped" but if that's the way you see it, okie dokie.

3 Another explanation I've heard for the apparent difference in transmission patterns in sub-Saharan Africa is a practice called “dry sex”.

4 Admitting I lack the expertise to offer a valuable opinion makes me a wuss? Feh. I've been called worse by people I actually know

5 i challenge dean and all of the scientists he cited to take a blood transfusion from someone with hiv but not aids. if they won't then they should publicly retract the posting.

6 RUSTY: Now you went and did it. Welcome to the racist club. You told the truth therefore you are a racist in the eyes of the liberals. It's really not so bad once you get used to it. In fact, your fan club will grow.

7 My God is someone saying South Africa in worse now that it is run by blacks? Couldn't be. The whites were responsible for all the crimes. Rhodesia and South Africa are surly better places to live now that the white people are no longer in charge. This is crazy. Sounds racist to me. Love it.

8 I'm a wuss for tossing my husband a link without rendering an opinion? I wonder what I am for accepting his sperm and bearing his child... Pushover, I guess.

9 Dr. Shackleford, I wanted to thank you for your link. I actually want to stand by my "agnostic" comment over on MUSC Tiger, but that may not be quite right since I believe there really may be something to what Dean and his Scientists are saying. Now as for you discussion on Africa, well all I gotta say is talk to Kim about that, who I support fully in his rant about his homeland. (That's Kim du Toit if you are not familiar) PS: LOL Rosemary, You go girl!

10 Man, are people STUPID or what? When I can get myself under control; I'll then reply.

11 Dean presents one piece of evidence that MAY have the explanation that you propose, and I am officially agnostic on the subject, but your dismissive reaction is probably arrogant, unless you are a research biologist, epidemiologist, or have other expertise specifically related to the topic. Some bright, well-credentialed people have raised questions, and while they well be dead wrong, slapping any insurgent hypothesis down because established science "told you so," if you aren't familiar with the intricacies of the challenge ... well, it's dangerous ground. In addition, most people tend to think of states of disease in two-dimensional terms, have it or not, is this or isn't, when in fact many "diseases" are either subjectively defines places on a genetic spectrum or painfully multifactorial. Just a thought.

12 Bill, Just because a guy has a 'Ph.D.' next to his name doesn't make him bright nor does it make his research of any quality. The only place this theory is taken seriously is in Africa, for the stated reasons above. I am no friend to Orthodoxy, but neither should we question Orthodoxy simply because it is Orthodoxy. The report as published by Dean is flimsy at best and fraudulent at worst. I went to Dean's site expecting this major revelation (as promised) and got THAT? The argument, as published, would get an F in a basic stats class and is a classic example of bad inference from data. And of course you're right about disease definition, but that it's still a pretty pathetic argument put forth by the guy Dean cites. Greyrooster--No, but sub-Saharan societies generally are ill equipped to deal with AIDS and are in denial. QOAE-LOL CInomed, John, Donna-the argument was so poor I can't help but wonder how any one could remain agnostic.

13 "Just because a guy has a 'Ph.D.' next to his name doesn't make him bright nor does it make his research of any quality." I completely agree, Rusty. I've run into some pretty dumb (both ignorant and unitelligent) PhDs in my time (uh, no offense, Dr.). I've also seen really poor research based on either: 1) A faulty knowledge or gross error in the statisical analysis. (as it looks like in this case) or 2) Continual maschinations of data until a statisical correlation (or non-correlation) is spit out. (I blame SAS and their software for this that allows complex analysis to be done by people who have no business doing this type of analysis OR a correlation in search of a theory). It's the number 2 point that is scarier in that it's the opposite of classic scientific experiment (i.e. developing a hypothesis, deciding upon a test method to prove this hypothesis and THEN doing the analysis of the data)

14 PHD doesn't stand for common sense. Some have it some don't. Some are dedicated academic professionals. Some are hiding in academia because they can't hack it in a competitive enviroment. Only they know the truth. That is, until they open their mouths.

15 RUSTY: And why is that? heh, heh, heh. Spot light on Rusty. Off subject but Greyrooster's first grandson comes home from hospital in morning. Greyrooster's idiot son has chosen to stay in Iraq. Apparently, to be assigned to another unit. I think he's done his share. If I could get my hands on him, one of us would get an asswhipping. Bet on him.

16 Without reading the links yet, I did see you Grey Rooster calling Rusty a racist because he was talking about FACTS in Africa and that's exactly what they were - FACTS. Africa has the highest rate of HIV+ and AIDS cases in the world and there are lots of people trying to educate and raise money for the people of Africa to stop the spread of the disease. That does not make Rusty a racist. If you paid attention to news and other reports, you'd know already that what he is stating are facts. What makes me sick is how any man could rape a child must less an infant iet just boggles my mind. And they sure as shit do not use condoms or any other type of protection. Being Hiv-positive, you need to tell everyone you've ever been with so that they can be tested. Some become ill with full blown AIDS because their immune system cannot handle it. And it has to be one of the worst ways to die. You can be HIV positive and never get sick butif you don't protect your partner,he or she could contract HIV+ and get full blown AIDS. It all depends on your body. One thing you don't want to do is pass it on because people react differently to it depending upon their own immune systems. You can also have HIV+ for a long time and never get sick but you can get others sick without protection. They have meds now for early and quick diagnoses of HIV+ virus and itis working for most people. By the time most people get tested, it's way too late. Once you go into full blown AIDS, make our your will, do a power of attorney and a living will. Anyone,despite what their immune dysfuction is - cannot donate blood nor can they be organd donors. I found that out after 9/11 and as disappointed as I was then to know that, I realized I certainly did not want to pass my illness onto other peopl as I have my own sons. There are way too many immune disorders in this country. There was also a point that when the Portuguese from southern MA would fly home. When they returned, they were tested and found there are different forms of HIV and AIDS. Back in 1975 in Readers Digest Magazine,there wasan article on an epidemic regarding AIDS but most people never bothered to read it so it was another ten years before it really become known. If you have no signs of the illness despite being HIV+, consider yourself lucky but you still need to be tested and treated and protected,especially protecting your partner. As to this article, there may be less people coming down with full blown AIDS even though they have HIV+ results. Intervention makes the difference here. So the person who wrote that article is an asshat; what is going to save you from this horrible death is knowledge and if you test positive, don't fool around with it by passing it along. The speading of HIV does indeed cause AIDS but with early help and intervention, some will never get sick and to me that's a good start. Just don't donate blood or your organs. Grey Rooster, be proud of your son for staying in Iraq; many are returning for their third tour of duty there, so he must feel it's worth it. We'll keep him in our prayers and thoughts. Cindy

17 CINDY: Read my post again. And think this time. Does a person have to put LOL after everything to place some subtle humor?

18 I don't know Grey Rooster, still sounds like you're angry with him for staying in Iraq. Cindy

19 To continue on the topic of downward revision of HIV infection in Africa: Estimates on HIV called too high New data cut rates for many nations (BOSTON GLOBE) By John Donnelly, Globe Staff | June 20, 2004 http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/06/20/estimates_on_hiv_called_too_high/ Study cuts Kenya HIV estimates (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3379707.stm

20 People need to stop approaching this as if it has been proven that HIV causes AIDS. It has never been proven. HIV has never even been isolated in a lab. The test for HIV is also very inaccurate. I have a friend who tested positive, and then got a letter a few weeks later saying that the test was just wrong. Lots of people get AIDS symptoms without being HIV positive. HIV doesn't always mean AIDS, and AIDS doesn't always mean HIV. That's enough to make me seriously question the HIV/AIDS connection.

21 Was referring to Racist comment. Get it? Get it? Get it? My point is that if one tells the truth and the truth happens to be a bad comment about any other race than white. You are automatically banded a racist. Please note that Rusty has not answered my (and why is that question). Nor do I expect him to. I wish to be the only racist on this blog. Ha, Ha.

22 ED: Speech was nice. Do you have a point or solution? I also stood up at the 37% figure. But why is problem placed on whites. Do blacks begging for money count any better? Could the 37% figure have originally came from blacks begging for money? Exaggeration just a white thing huh! The fear is not youth gangs. It's fear of having to support them later. The same old story. Support us, protect us, feed us, save us from ourselves, and by the way, we hate you white bastards.

23 Gotta love the conservative mind. Bludgeon it with facts and reality for long enough, and it slips into its favorite defense mechanism: "Do you have a point?" coupled with a healthy dose of "Must be racism, and we all know racism is bad *wink wink nudge nudge*" Puh-leeze.

24 I think it is highly unreasonable to argue that HIV does not cause AIDS. It is so unreasonable that it doesn't even warrant discussion. To the above poster who seems to argue that reports of higher incidence of AIDS in Africa are part of some "white" conspiracy, please try to get a grip on reality. Knowing definitively how many people have AIDS would require a thorough and well-funded study and a population willing to cooperate with researchers. Neither of these conditions exists. Whether it is 37% or 15% shouldn't really matter. Either way AIDS is an epidemic that threatens the future of many of these countries. I don't buy your population estimate argument at all. You cite figures from 1980 and 2004. I think if you examine the figures more closely you would find very high population growth until the mid-90s when a large number of people started dying from AIDS and then much slower or even stagnent population growth since then. An incidence of 37% HIV and a growing population at present are not at odds with each other as we know that the disease is usually present for several years before if untreated it results in death. So, I'm afraid to say it is not conservatives that need to be bludgeoned with facts, it is you my friend. You also seem to deny that cultural attitudes about sex in this part of sub-Saharan Africa may have something to do with the growth and difficulty in containing the epidemic in that part of the world and then cite that "The problem is that none of these ideas are supported by actual sociological or sexual research." What is you basis for this claim? I think you assume this to be the case but you're actually quite wrong. Many sociologist and anthropolgoists have chronicled the fact that promiscuity and a diminished respect for women's sexual rights (i.e. the need for their consent) are present in many African communities (although the opposite is true in others). The practice of migrant workers and truckers spreading the disease to their families after having sex with prostitutes is also widely established as a primary cause of the spread of the disease in Africa. When I was in South Africa I was told that it was estimated that something like 75% of truck drivers were HIV positive. This isn't by chance. There is a lifestyle that supports these rates of transmission and it isn't one of monogomy or absistance. While drugs and money will be indispensible in the fight against AIDS in this part of Africa, a critical piece in figthting the epidemic also must be education and reform of the population and their attitudes about sex. There is no denying that AIDS feasts on promiscuity and activities such as prostitution. There is also no denying that cultural prejudices against wearing condoms and against restraining sexual appetites also fuels the epedimic. While is may offend you liberal sensibilities to hear such reason that contradicts your cultural relevatists, anti- anything that smacks of Christian morality (i.e. monogamy and abstinance), progress in reducing the spread of AIDS must address people's sexual practices. The campaign to educate people in this country about AIDS did suceed in doing some of this in the late 80s and early 90s as people rationally saw the connection between promiscuity, wearing condoms, contracting HIV and dying. Comprehension of such a clear logical connection would help in Africa. This must be done in a way that is sensitive to the stigma that attaches to women especially from this connection (i.e. they or their partner were promiscuous) especially since many times women are at the mercy of their partners.... Blaming it on the white man doesn't only fail to accomplish anything useful, it deflects attention from the real issues at hand. Futhermore, it is an intellectually indefensible position.

25 To manofreason, it is not a question of a 'white' conspiracy, or even a question of blacks 'begging for money' as one above post put it. The point that was being made by Ed, I believe, is that there are far too many inconsistencies in the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, and that is all it is - a hypothesis, and far too many inconsistencies in the 'African AIDS Epidemic' story which has been perpetuated by the media. As far as I am concerned, all statistical data regarding AIDS in Africa is massively inaccurate at best. I would like to know how such data is compiled and whether or not it is independently verified by any third party. Just because data comes from a supposedly reliable source such as the WHO/UN or a nation's government, does not make it true. Regarding the 37% infection rate in Botswana for example, I find it highly improbable first of all that this figure could be calculated anyway in a country as sparsely populated as Botswana is. And secondly, I wonder as Ed points out, how Botswana, along with other African countries alledgedly hard hit by AIDS could manage to grow at such high population growth rates if people are supposedly dying in such large numbers from AIDS. And if, as you point out, they are only infected by HIV and not necessarily dying, then that calls into question the whole theory that HIV=AIDS=death. On the subject of a 'white' conspiracy, I do not believe in such things as conspiracy theories, but I will say that the Western nations tend to be extremely one-sided in their view of most things African. Little or no attempt is made in the Western media to report posiive news from Africa, whilst wars, disease and AIDS tend to be 'hot' news. Being black or white has nothing to do with it. Black and white people exist in the West, and black and white people coexist in Africa also. It is very interesting to me though, that the African countries which tend to shun the West, or at least are not afraid to publicly stand up or speak out against them seem to be those with the highest HIV infection rates, whilst the inverse seems to be true for those countries in favour with the West. Botswana and Zimbabwe have both, in different ways, shunned the West in recent times and are rewarded with high HIV infection rates, whilst countries such as Uganda and Kenya, who have in recent times received praise and support from Western countries for economic and democratic reforms, have seen their HIV rates declining On the question of promiscuity and 'diminished respect for women's sexual rights' as you put it, there is no way one can make a quantitative judgment over whether one culture is more promiscuous than the next. One may appear to be more promiscuous, but that does not necessarily make it the case. I think it is disrespectful in the extreme to imply that AIDS has spread in Africa because of promiscuity whereas it has not in other parts of the world. You mention truck drivers, but it is very naive to think that African truck drivers are more or less promiscuous than truck drivers in other parts of the world. By the nature of the work, where ever they are in the world, truck drivers may feel the need to... how shall I put this... ammeliorate their loneliness. As regarding education, as someone born in Africa, and who has regularly visited there over the past 20 or so years, I can assure you with my hand on my heart, that the average African is far more informed about AIDS and its alledged causes than the average European. Huge roadside billboards advertising condoms and safe-sex are commonplace in Africa. There are numerous educational programmes on the subject of safe-sex both on television and radio. These are things which I have not witnessed living in Europe. The last advert on television regarding such things I can remember seeing on British TV was perhaps around 1990 or thereabouts. I do not wish to pour scorn upon anyone, but the idea that AIDS is the scourge of Africa is not my own opinion having visited there many times, and being culturally involved with the people. Yes, people are dying, but of what we don't know. To take an example, one member of my family recently died in a rural part of Africa from where my family hail. It is not known what she died of. The explanation I was given was 'malaria', but I can tell you that malaria is used often in the sense that 'flu' is used in the West, or at least in Britain. People when they get ill say they have the flu, but that does not necessarily mean they have the influenza virus. There are countless cases like these where people die of tropical illnesses and have no official diagnosis of what they died from. In a land where poverty is rife and doctors charge such high fees, there is little incentive to visit a doctor in your illness. The idea that cheap and reliable HIV testing is available and done in Africa is laughable. Therefore, causes of death are very often a matter for speculation. This is from my own personal experience. To say that so many are dying because they have been infected with HIV and developed AIDS is an easy answer. No argument is so unreasonable as not to warrant a discussion, as you suggest at the top of your post. It has never been proven that HIV causes AIDS conclusively, regardless of the media's attention to this philosophy, and it is therefore sad in my mind that Africa has been tarnished with this brush of being the victim of an 'epidemic'. All science needs to be challenged, and there have always been alternative ideas as to the origin of AIDS, yet they have not always been treated fairly, just as Africa has not been treated fairly over this subject. Africa, anyway is a land of over a thousand different cultures and attitudes to life, to women and to sex. Even within one country, there are different communities with different cultures and opinions. It is easy for the Western media to oversimplify the situation so that Westerners can 'understand' the situation, but oversimplification it is. To me, your position of saying 'blame the white man' is intellectually indefensible is oversimplistic and patronising to Africans. It is neither the white man nor the black man's fault that so many die from disease in Africa, it is however, the Western community (which includes blacks) who have decided (without reason in many minds) that Africa is suffering from an epidemic which in their own countries only afflicts those at the bottom rungs of society - homosexual men and intravenous drug users.