Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Im not buying her book. Im not doing it.

Latest ERV readers comment about Rebbecca Culshaws devastating take-down of HIV/AIDS Dogma:

Culshaw claims that "endogenous retroviruses are primarily transmitted perinatally, from mother to child" ( p.45).


No way. No friggen way. There is no goddamn way she is serious.
Main Entry: en·dog·e·nous
Pronunciation: en-'dä-j&-n&s
Function: adjective
1 : growing or produced by growth from deep tissue <endogenous plant roots>
2 a : caused by factors inside the organism or system endogenous depression> < endogenous business cycles> b : produced or synthesized within the organism or system endogenous hormone>
- en·dog·e·nous·ly adverb

If ERVs were transmitted perinatally... THEY WOULD BE EXOGENOUS RETROVIRUSES.

Sure she could play the 'Gosh golly, Im not a scientist' card* with some of her other claims, but you just have to have a dictionary to call BS on that sentence! No WAY she can be serious!

For a more sciency answer to that-- Okay, so each ERV is present in every cell of your body. Every cell, with each ERV in the EXACT same location. And Culshaw says that this doesnt happen through germ lines getting infected with RVs (becoming ERVs). No, this happens when infants are infected perinatally with exogenous retroviruses resulting in an effect called endogenous retroviruses. Yeah, her explanation makes a lot more sense. *blink* I dont want to know how she thinks this deep, deep understanding of ERVs relates to HIV. I dont want to know.

*When backed into a corner over idiotic claims they make-- Deniers and Creationists like to revert from "Im smart! Listen to me! EVERYONE IS WRONG BUT MEEEEEE!!!" to "Look at that meanie scientist picking on someone who just wants to learn! Boo hoo hooooo!!!"


Anonymous said...

It sounds like Culshaw has formed some sort of a syncretic mish-mash of various mutually exclusive "rethinker" rethunks.

Some "rethinkers" assert that HIV is just an endogenous retrovirus. Apparently oxidative stress or the tooth fairy rearrange the DNA in ERVs to produce HIV DNA.

Duesberg on the other hand says that HIV is an exogenous retrovirus that is transmitted primarily perinatally from mother to child. Why the mothers of homosexual men and intravenous drud users should just happen to be several orders of magnitude more likely to be infected with HIV is left unexplained.

Culshaw seems to have fused these two mutually exclusive claims into her own rethunk.

The funniest (well it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic) example of this phenomenon that I have seen was Hank Barnes/D. David Steele the former owner of Barnesworld/YBYL who was arguing simultaneously that HIV was an endogenous retrovirus and that it couldn't possibly cause AIDS because proviral HIV DNA could only be found in 1 in 1000 T-cells in peripheral blood. He actually couldn't understand why there was any problem in simultaneously arguing these two points. But he was certain that all these scientists were much stupider than himself.

ERV said...

Culshaw seems to have fused these two mutually exclusive claims into her own rethunk.
Oh my god. THATS SO COOL!!! Holy crap if she werent being serious that would be right up there with "Creationist almost discovers the Sun" in hilarity!

Just to debunk both of those claims, for posterity:
1-- For reasons Ive stated over and over and over on this blog-- you activate an ERV, you get body wide cancer. That is what Im researching right now. You dont get an immunodeficiency. You get body wide cancer. Google "SCID gene therapy" and multiply that times the # of ERVs, times the # of cells in your body.

2--Some viruses are primarily spread mother-->child, at least in mice. MMTV. But that happens through breast feeding only. *shrug* Where is his data? How does he explain what you said, Chris?

And I got a brain cramp reading the Hank Barnes quote. Owww!! HOW??

Anonymous said...

Where is his data? How does he explain what you said, Chris?

Data? What data?

He points to "orthodox" literature showing that MTCT of HIV is about 50% effective.

However, he also makes the claim that the prevalence of HIV in the US has been a constant 1 million for the past two decades (in some articles centuries). A little bit of maths shows that for the prevalence to be constant then each HIV+ woman must on average give birth to 2 females that survive to child bearing age if the MTCT rate is 50%. Clearly HIV must spread by other means. The very CDC reports that he uses for his 1 million prevalence figure also show that the majority are in specific risk groups such as homosexual men and intravenous drug users.

Duesberg does argue that MTCT efficiency is really higher than the 50% that is obsevred. He argues that perinatally infected children may not display anitibodies intitially but these develop over time. His evidence for this is a survey of HIV seroprevalence in an African population that showed seroprevalence increasing with age. In fact there was a sudden jump at the age at which people became sexually active. Most people would therefore interpret this as evidence that HIV is sexually transmitted but apparently not Duesberg.

I just can't get a rational answer from reading his papers. His theory just doesn't make sense.

Anonymous said...

If you can stand the pain here is D. David Steele arguing in the same post that HIV is an endogenous retrovirus and that it can't cause AIDS because HIV DNA can only be found in a fraction of T-cells.

Slow motion train crash

As usual Steele never admits that he is in any way mistaken. Meanwhile the same nonsense apparently crops up in Culshaw's book.

I blame people like Harvey Bialy that encourage these people. Surely Bialy can recognise some of the crap.

It appears to be a symbiotic relationship. Without "authorities" like Duesberg and Bialy Culshaw would probably not have written her book. On the other hand Duesberg and Bialy would probably have given up long ago if they didn't have the loyal band of creduloids lavishing praise on them.

ERV said...

Oh dear, Chris...

Again, thanks for the info. I had no idea Deniers were screwing around with ERVs like this. I mean youd think theyd bother to Wiki 'ERV' before they tried, but I guess Professional Deniers have the same opinion of their creduloids as the Professional Creationists: "I can bullshit all I want because these people are too stupid to check up on me."

Anonymous said...

ERV you are the nexus of HIV and evolution "rethinking".

My only question is how do you fit into global warming "rethinking", 911 "rethinking" and moon landing "rethinking"?

ERV said...


Lets see, um, well my bro is a petroleum engineer- so maybe that would work for the global warming angle. Um, I had calculus canceled on 9/11, and those rethinkers do stupid things with angles and torques and such. Um, and I used to want to be an astronaut, but I wanted to go to Mars, not the Moon.

LOL I think if Im a nexus, its just of Deniers and Creationists!