I recall the absurdity of bloggers talking about error bars, etc and defending Peter with the simple response: it’s his expert judgement you idiots. The horizontal/flat-line curve is the most educated guess and even supported by more recent statements of John Coffin and Paul Ewald.

It remains as the Master Gambit, all by itself.

And it was so much fun sharpshooting the Double D, Nick Bennett, who made a few astonishing errors.

With a 50-50 chance of getting it right, he informed the blogosphere that hep c was a negative strand RNA virus. And thus began my failed attempts to convince the world that HIV “really is” a HERV …

*Dr. Bialy, whose opening gambit (and why it is a gambit will appear forthwith) includes a pair of graphs meant to get discussion going. One graph shows the constant presence of HIV in the American population from 1985 until 2000, the other the precipitous rise and fall of AIDS over the same period among the same people. The two images are incompatible. They spell the impossibility of the AIDS hypothesis.*

*The clarity with which they do so provokes a flurry of blogger response. There must be something wrong with the graphs. Post after post appears, attempting to unmask or correct them, demonstrating in several quite contradictory ways how the graphs were ignorantly, amateurishly, or viciously constructed. But the sense of the graphs taken as a question, (rather than as an argument) pervades the discussion. If HIV infection is constant (in whatever sense) while AIDS rises and falls (whatever the details) can HIV possibly cause AIDS? (…) what comes to light is a welter of contradictory assertions regarding the state of our information about HIV and AIDS—not at all limited to the information captured or occulted by the graphs—so that, as the discussion advances, the graphs become somewhat irrelevant, and the state of our knowledge gets rather clear; that is to say, it grows clear that our knowledge is anything but clear, regarding almost every aspect of the illness. (…) As for the graphs themselves, one might perhaps see that it comes to this: the data that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has published (and on the basis of which the graphs were produced may have been shoddily compiled; it may comprise 3 methodologically unsound extrapolations; it may be inaccurate, inconsistent, and/or based on mere guestimates. But the data is nevertheless the basis on which the CDC currently confirms the HIV hypothesis. The graphs may fail to represent the truth of the HIV/AIDS situation, but they were cobbled up from the CDC data, so the question is this: Is it possible to maintain the HIV hypothesis if the graphs and the data from which they are constructed are credited? The answer is clearly no. Therefore, the effort that is expended by the AIDS defenders at the beginning of the blog and sporadically throughout it to impugn the graphs by revealing just how uncertain and unclear the data behind them is to impugn the hypothesis itself! (Hence the gambit).* (My bold highlights)

This was before dissidents began taking Trojan horses, gambits or themselves too seriously. But the seed was already sown, since Duesberg used what Stein rightly interprets as merely a gambit, a question rather than an argument, to prove that HIV is a harmless, vertically transmitted passenger virus.

Notwithstanding his disbelief in HIV, Prof. Bauer is essentially a Duesbergian. His epidemiological “proofs” that (take your pick) AIDS is not caused by HIV, the false-positive rate / rate of elite controllers is around 50%, the HIV tests do not detect a sexually transmitted agent are all gambits on the order of the notorious Flat Line Prevalence curve, some as elegant, some not, but none surpass the simple beauty of Bialy/Duesberg’s original Master Gambit.

It is thus by inclination rather than accident that amateur epidemiologist Bauer signed amateur epidemiologist Duesberg’s Medical Hypotheses paper claiming to not only disprove the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, but to prove the competing Passenger Virus hypothesis, based on what both knew was fundamentally flawed epidemiology.

]]>If one wants to go into a courtroom and pretend mathematical guessing can be the foundation of anything forensic, I say good luck.

However, after reading through this once, I have to admire Professor Bauer’s ingenuity in appearing to be an hiv expert right out of the mold of our good friend Professor Moore.

Here’s the thing. I can play HIV expert too.

So Point 5, safety issues, is a subject dear to my heart given my past career.

Thus, I can give my expert opinion that a professional risk analyst would find “didactic anatomical dissection” incoherent. This attempt to distinguish the truly positive from false positive patients (‘HIV antibodies but no active infection as measured by the viral load tests’) founders on the made-up fact of true positives.

But let’s assume for sake of argument that a true positive is one with detectable proviruses AND RNA viral load AND antibody reactivity with the big three proteins gag pol and env.

These essential data points can only be determined by epidemiological surveillance, not mathematical modeling. What needs to be analyzed, based on these accurate measurements of the “truly positive” and differential diagnosis of “long term” NPs in a large cohort of patients, is the timing of those who get AIDS, sorting out the short term from the long-term statistically.

Of course this proposal should forever remain in the realm of a Gedanken experiment. It’s only offered to substantiate a plea to Ruggiero and Bauer and their Trojan Horse approach: you can’t bullshit a bullshitter.

]]>