A Few Good Doctors

First, we have, of course, Dr. Harvey Bialy, writing up a storm, with his prescient insight for those Libertarian folks at Lew Rockwell.

Next, we have Dr. Giraldo and Dr. de Harven, clubbing the snot out of Robert "Scientific Misconduct" Gallo and his obsequious minions, for their ridiculous unpublishable, unreadable, "pseudo-rebuttal" to the recent famous Harper's Piece.

Last, we have the interesting case of Dr. Mark Biernbaum, who has surfaced on a few threads at Dean's World and elsewhere --- talking sense in a conscientious, sober and responsible way.

Hmm. We hope to hear more from the esteemed Dr. Biernbaum and welcome his unique insights on this emotionally-charged subject.

Comments

[John]

Just stumbled over here all bleary-eyed... (yawn)...

OK, this is very interesting. I'll read all the Biernbaum stuff manana. Who is he exactly?

[Hank Barnes]

JB,

Bleary-eyed? A nice old Bloody Mary will take care of that!

I'm not sure who Biernbaum is -- except, he is a Phd (in some field), and HIV+, who apparently read the Harper's piece, and had some laudatory things to say about Duesberg, noting how many of his HIV+ colleagues died from taking the drugs.

[John]

"JB,

Bleary-eyed? A nice old Bloody Mary will take care of that!"

Dude... when I'm in Vegas I might do that at around midnight to keep me rolling. But back here in L.A., I just stumble off to bed!

Mark said doing a google search would show who he is...

I found this -

Mark Biernbaum. PhD, Developmental Psychology Director, Institute for Self and Interpersonal Studies, Rochester, NY

On this page: http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.htm

So he's not in viral research or anything, but that doesn't invalidate his major point - how does the casual agent (whether HIV, drugs, whatever) actually destroy T-cells?

[Mark Biernbaum]

Hi to everyone. It's interesting to be a mystery. I hate too say to much about myself because I think the speculation is rather exciting.

I have to add to the last comment, concerning causal mechanism. Let me put this material out there -- from something I working on with my brother, who is an epidemiologist and doctor.

The absence of a causal mechanism in AIDS research

Start with the phenomenology of AIDS:
A steady decline in the T4 Lymphocytes, causing a failure in cell-mediated immunity, increasing the patient’s susceptibility to opportunistic infection while unable to fight it.

Humean indices of causation are not adequate – they are all correlational, as is much of AIDS science. They identify causes and they identify effects – correlations, but they have been unable to identify the causal mechanism(s) that link these causes to their effects.

There are 3 possible avenues for causal mechanism here:
1. T4 Lymphocytes are directly destroyed; they are produced as normal, but are destroyed post-production. The causal mechanism that must be shown here is the actual destruction of a T4 Lymphocyte.
2. T4 Lymphocytes are produced, but they are defective, and die. Over time, the production percentage of the defective cells increases, and thus, the overall number of non-defective T4 lymphocytes gets lower and lower. The causal mechanism that must be shown here is more complex. First, defective cells would have to be identified before they died, then, one would have to explain the exact mechanism by which such defective cells are produced (i.e., problems in the thymus glad –what exactly are they?).
3. There is a suppression, growing greater over time, in actual T4 Lymphocyte production. The causal mechanism implied here would have to demonstrate first, a longitudinal lowering in production of these cells, and then, the exact mechanism that accounts for this gradual suppression (i.e., damage, disease, malfunction of the thymus gland).

The HIV=AIDS hypothesis naturally favors #1,but has repeatedly failed to prove it. They now tilt towards #2 ("suicide cells") but it is still all theory. In reality of course, all three mechanisms could could be operative in AIDS. Toxic hypotheses (Duesberg, oxidative stress) might favor all 3 possible mechanisms. Nutritional deficiency hypotheses would likely favor #3. The theory you subscribe to will inevitably influence which of the potential causal mechanisms you examine.

In addition, it is highly likely that AIDS is "multicausal," as are things like lung cancer. There are multiple potential causes in lung cancer, including smoking, genetics, exposure to evironmental toxins, etc. The fact that the current AIDS establishment won't acknowledge their inability in 20 years to find the causal mechanism kind of disgusts me. The fact that many of the dissident theories refuse to attept to elucidate a causal mechanism also kind of digusts me.

That's enough from me for now, probably. Thanks for reading.

Mark

[John]

Thanks, on behalf of Hank, for coming by Mark! I'm sure he would greet you properly if he were around. He tends to be a busier boy on other peoples blogs than his own at times!

Let me play devils advocate a bit. Hank and I have dealt with a lot of folks who would say things like - well, in MANY diseases we don't know the exact processes that are involved, but we can still show that it happens, that it is more than simple correalation and we have treatments that have proven to extend people's lives. What do you say to that?

[Mark Biernbaum]

Hi John. You ask a good question, and I think that in those cases, we tend to do the best we can with the existing correlational evidence. If we were to do that in the case of AIDS, then we would recognize at least 4 causes of AIDS: genetics (of the host), HIV, drug use/abuse, nutritional deficiencies-oxidative stress. Researchers in all four of these areas have demonstrated what I consider good correlational evidence. And there are probably more causes. But this is all just Biernbaum rambling on -- what does it mean?

Well, it means that the AIDS establishment has to embrace multicausality, and the treatment implications it has. For example, if drug use/abuse-toxins are a prominent factor, then behavioral medicine must definitely be involved in treating AIDS. Genetic therapies could potentially be involved. Infectious Disease would remain involved, but it would not control the entire arena, as it does now, and it would have to produce, with big Pharma, much better, more targeted medications than are available now.

So -- that was off the cuff. I'll post it without reading it. I'm celebrating a bit. Just got my latest issue of Harper's. The Letters section is devoted entirely to Farber's article. It's another must-read, I guess! Good to be here.

Mark

[John]

If anyone has a link to the letters section of Harpers, please post it. Thanks for your answers.

[Hank Barnes]

Mark,

Hey, thanks for dropping by!

I stumbled across some of your comments on POZ (I think) and Dean's World.

You are always welcome here -- free from any rancor.

We actually believe (and practice) the free exchange of ideas here.

Our view is that, tragically, the Gov't panicked in the mid-80's, by prescribing life-time doses of AZT, a failed cancer chemotherapy drug from 1964, to AIDS patients.

AZT was the SOLE drug from 1987-1996 to treat AIDS.

Since AZT admittedly kills white blood cells, we think it was a disaster to treat a condition characterized by immune deficiency, with a drug that causes immune deficiency.

We think this was a hideous tragic mistake -- and we expect a moral accounting by the folks responsible.

We also respect Dr. Duesberg for his stellar work in the field of cancer and virology over the past 4 decades.

The "We" I am using consists of, well, me -- and a few loyal friends:)

Will talk more substance to you, later.

Respectfully,

Hank

[John]

"The "We" I am using consists of, well, me -- and a few loyal friends:)"

We call him "King Hank", thus...

[John]

Hank, can you contact me via email? My email address is up on my blog. I have something to share with you that I'll probably be blogging about, but I'd rather run it past you first. Thanks.