4 ms·

By 1983 it was known that the HIV virus affected T-cells, and the hypothesis that destruction of T-cells causes the observed immunodeficiency isn't such a long

By 1983 it was known that the HIV virus affected T-cells, and the hypothesis that destruction of T-cells causes the observed immunodeficiency isn't such a long stretch.

lisper 6y ago
Yes, I specifically said it was a plausible hypothesis. But the fact that there were people with HIV infections who had no apparent ill effects for years still left room for reasonable doubt for quite a while (like well into the late 90s) particularly since one of the alternative hypotheses was that the treatments then being given for HIV were actually killing people. (Side note: I actually wrote a screen play based on this premise: http://www.flownet.com/ron/control.pdf http://www.flownet.com/ron/control.pdf, though that's a bit of a spoiler alert.)
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  Mullis subscribed to the theory that AIDS is caused by infection with too many viruses at any given time. You go to the gay sauna, have sex with dozens of people, and the sheer multitude of infectious agents is what causes breakdown of the immune system. That doesn't square up with how we know the immune system works, not then, not now. one of the alternative hypotheses was that the treatments then being given for HIV were actually killing people That's plain bonkers. AZT was a miracle drug.
  - lisper 6y ago
    > That's plain bonkers. That hypothesis was advanced and defended by Peter Duesberg, a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. In retrospect we can tell that Duesberg was obviously wrong, but to simply dismiss it as "plain bonkers" is being far too facile.
    - HarryHirsch 6y ago
      You'd like to know how Duesberg came up with his hypothesis because the results from early clinical trials speak for themselves. T-cell count went up in the treatment group, amelioration of symptoms, progression to more severe disease delayed. Of course the virus evolved to defeat the medication, and the disease came back, that's why we nowadays use combination therapy. You'd really like to know why, despite the obvious successes of combination therapy, Duisberg continued to advance his theory, by 2000 it was totally disproved.
      - lisper 6y ago
        > You'd like to know how Duesberg came up with his hypothesis He wrote a book about it: https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-AIDS-Virus-Peter-Duesberg/dp/0895264706 https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-AIDS-Virus-Peter-Duesberg/d... Yes, it's an interesting question why Duesberg never admitted he was wrong. But that's a separate question.

By 1983 it was known that the HIV virus affected T-cells, and the hypothesis that destruction of T-cells causes the observed immunodeficiency isn't such a long stretch.

lisper 6y ago

Yes, I specifically said it was a plausible hypothesis. But the fact that there were people with HIV infections who had no apparent ill effects for years still left room for reasonable doubt for quite a while (like well into the late 90s) particularly since one of the alternative hypotheses was that the treatments then being given for HIV were actually killing people. (Side note: I actually wrote a screen play based on this premise: http://www.flownet.com/ron/control.pdf http://www.flownet.com/ron/control.pdf, though that's a bit of a spoiler alert.)

HarryHirsch 6y ago
Mullis subscribed to the theory that AIDS is caused by infection with too many viruses at any given time. You go to the gay sauna, have sex with dozens of people, and the sheer multitude of infectious agents is what causes breakdown of the immune system. That doesn't square up with how we know the immune system works, not then, not now. one of the alternative hypotheses was that the treatments then being given for HIV were actually killing people That's plain bonkers. AZT was a miracle drug.
- lisper 6y ago
  > That's plain bonkers. That hypothesis was advanced and defended by Peter Duesberg, a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. In retrospect we can tell that Duesberg was obviously wrong, but to simply dismiss it as "plain bonkers" is being far too facile.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    You'd like to know how Duesberg came up with his hypothesis because the results from early clinical trials speak for themselves. T-cell count went up in the treatment group, amelioration of symptoms, progression to more severe disease delayed. Of course the virus evolved to defeat the medication, and the disease came back, that's why we nowadays use combination therapy. You'd really like to know why, despite the obvious successes of combination therapy, Duisberg continued to advance his theory, by 2000 it was totally disproved.
    - lisper 6y ago
      > You'd like to know how Duesberg came up with his hypothesis He wrote a book about it: https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-AIDS-Virus-Peter-Duesberg/dp/0895264706 https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-AIDS-Virus-Peter-Duesberg/d... Yes, it's an interesting question why Duesberg never admitted he was wrong. But that's a separate question.