HIV & AIDS: The Logic of Failure
Could the Logic of Failure explain the controversy at Dean’s World?. Dean has become a convert to the HIV does NOT cause AIDS side. Since I have read Duesberg’s paper and am halfway through the book, I haven’t come out and said that, though I’m leaning that way.
The reasons I’m most likely going to come out against the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis are various. One thing that I’m fixated on today is the following thought experiment:
Imagine that we did not know today that smoking caused cancer (or more accurately, increased the likelihood of the occurence of diseases known collectively as “cancer"). Now, imagine that you are a virologist who decides to tackle the disease of emphysema.
You would be constrained in your search for a cause by your area of expertise (virology) and would have limited understanding of other areas. You would also be subjected to the human tendency to see patterns where none existed. As a result you would see those wasting from emphysema, throat cancer, COPD, heart disease and other conditions as similar to other diseases proven to be caused by virii.
Now imagine that you studied the tissues of those suffering from the above named diseases. You would find hundreds - if not thousands - of various virii in your samples, and most likely one would be common to most (but not all) samples.
You would then be tempted to conclude that this common virus caused emphysema and the related cancers.
And stepping out of our thought experiment, you would be wrong.
I am a computer programmer by training who has moved into the area of analysis. One of the things I do is analyze how businesses do what they do and study their successes and their mistakes. In my work I have relied alot on Dietrich Dorner’s book, The Logic of Failure. In his book Dorner explains why smart people often are led to erroneous conclusions.
The people who support the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis are not stupid. And the fact remains, that those that don’t believe HIV causes AIDS are not stupid either. One of these two groups is right, and as I continue studying the controversy from my perspective as an analyst, the evidence is pointing me towards the latter group as being the one with the correct hypothesis.
Dorner’s book is a must read for anyone who thinks, since it will help you avoid the pitfalls that lead to erroneous conclusion and in some cases, disasters.
6 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://therazor.org/wp-trackback.php/324
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
If you have not seen these yet, I strongly suggest that you read it:
National Institutes of Health: The Evidence that HIV Causes AIDS
Skeptic Magazine calls HIV Denialism “A case study in Skepticism taken too far
Hopefully they will help influence your decision.
Comment by Brad — 2/8/2005 @ 1:48 pm
Thanks for the links.
Comment by Scott Kirwin — 2/8/2005 @ 1:55 pm
Scott,
This is so sad. Your example of the virologist concluding that cancer could be caused by a virus is so exteme as to be embarrassing. The truth is that it took some time before it was thought that AIDS was caused by a virus.
Between February and April of 1981, when the CDC in Atlanta became aware of something unusual going down in San Francisco and New York, the thought that it was a virus was only one theory. And the only reason this was even initially considered was that at the time the infected group fit into a specific demographic; namely they were all gay men in their thirties. However, since their symptoms did not fit the actions of a virus, several avenues were explored.
The two major symptoms were Kaposi’s Carcoma (a very rare skin cancer usually infecting elderly Jewish or Italian men) and Pneumocystitis Carinii (a very rare form of Pneumonia). Neither of these are caused by a virus or an STD. And the skin cancer, of course, is not transmittable person to person in anyway.
Besides exploring whether they were dealing with a virus or a bacteria, the CDC investigated locations where many of the infected frequented, primarily bathhouses in both New York and San Francisco. They were looking for other causes such as toxic agents be they man made chemicals or something found in nature. They were looking for some toxin that was either ingested or just something that their skin came in contact with; basically they were looking for “something in the water", literally and figuratively.
It was only after a thorough process of elimination, and mounting evidence that the ailment was transmitted through blood products did the CDC conclude they were dealing with a virus.
Their investigation was so thorough in fact, they were able to find an individual they referred to as Patient Zero; a Canadian flight attendent named Gaetan Dugas who had had sex with over 1000 of the infected men.
I could go on and on about when the virus (which would later be called HIV) first appeared in the Red Cross’s blood supply; when it moved from the homosexual community to the heterosexual community; how they could find it 80% of the time with a Hepatitis test before they developed the HIV test; how the Reagan administration (being more interested in stamping out Legionnaire’s Disease) drug its feet on educating the American public because they figured nobody was interested due to the fact it was a “gay disease"; how the gay community also drug it’s feet acknowledging a deadly disease within it’s midst; how the NIH battled the CDC and the French (who made the most research advances on identifying the disease); and on and on and on.
I’m sure the book you’re reading is interesting. You can pick up any book such as books on UFOs, conspiracy theories, whether or not we went to the moon, the events behind Kennedy’s assassination, the evidence for Jesus’s imminent return, and on and on. I’m sure they all present “logical thought out, well researched arguments". And when viewed isolated from the rest of reality, I’m sure they all appear to be The Truth.
The fact is, the Americans and the French concluded independent of each other that AIDS was caused by a virus, a retrovirus to be more specific. (And please don’t let your blind hatred of all things French cause you to put some “spin” on that).
I’m sure the world is full of people walking around HIV-positive that haven’t developed AIDS and never will. So what. There are people in the world that can boast they smoke two packs of cigarettes a day for 80 years and don’t have a trace of cancer or emphysema. In fact I used to work with a smoker who quoted me research that indicated smoking didn’t cause cancer. I’m sure there are also people “out there” who can drink a sixer everyday and never develop cirosis of the liver or even become alcoholics. Or people who can eat all the fatty foods they want and never develop heart disease or get high cholesterol. I, myself, can cover anything I eat in salt if I wanted to and never increase my blood pressure. In fact, 2 years ago I had a heart scare (turns out the problem was unrelated to my heart) and I had to get a Stress Echocardiogram. The test requires that my blood pressure needs to be raised to a specific level. The cardiologist was amazed that no matter how hard they pushed me they could barely raise my blood pressure. And they never got it as high as they wanted to.
They only thing these examples mean is that there will always be people that fall outside of the statistical margins.
I’ve known you for two decades, Scott. And I can say to you and all your readers, you are without a doubt one of the smartest people I know (a hell of lot smarter than me). I’m sure that when you’re done with your research on this topic you will conclude that HIV causes AIDS. Take care.
Jack Snyder
Comment by Jack Snyder — 2/8/2005 @ 5:32 pm
Jack
Gee, I’ve not become a born-again Christer or anything. My skepticism isn’t terminal, nor does it apply to any other conspiracy. For example, I am now more convinced than ever that Oswald acted alone. The magic bullet theory lost its magic when a show on the Discovery channel (of all things) showed that the trajectory of the bullet that passed through JFK and hit Connelly was straight - given that Connelly wasn’t seated in the right passenger seat, but in a “jump-seat” that placed him to the right of where the passenger normally sits.
I have read alot of the history of science, and most recently, the history of medicine (since Linda is less than 1.5 years away from becoming a physician). Studying the past you realize that theories are occasionally overturned or refined, and that objectivity can be compromised.
Duesberg is a smart man, as are the people who support the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. While he may be wrong, I would like to learn for myself why he is wrong instead of summarily rejecting his hypothesis.
So don’t worry. I haven’t gone nuts - yet. Mwuhahahaha!
Comment by Scott Kirwin — 2/9/2005 @ 10:10 am
Scott,
I’ll echo what Brad said…read those links. There are a few more links that should serve to convince you that HIV does cause AIDS.
I’m not trying to pimp my own blog…but these few posts give pretty good links:
http://themusctiger.com/blog/index.php?p=413
http://themusctiger.com/blog/index.php?p=400
http://themusctiger.com/blog/index.php?p=415
The science is out there. I actually have a copy of Duesberg’s book on the way…free of course (I couldn’t convince myself to buy it). I’ll skim it…but I’ve seen his arguments and they are dated. It was an interesting theory once…but not anymore.
At any rate, I encourage you to make up your own mind. But…um…just make sure you come to the right conclusion…lol
Comment by Jeremy — 2/10/2005 @ 11:07 am
Thanks for those links too.
One point: One of the articles has a lot of ad hominem attacks. While Duesberg’s book does too, it tends to weaken one’s arguments.
Comment by Scott Kirwin — 2/11/2005 @ 2:21 pm