Christopher J Noble,
Send response to journal:
The Perth Group write:
There is no mention of KSHV/HHV-8 in our website. There is
a very good reason for it. Despite its name, Kaposi's
Sarcoma Herpes Virus (KSHV), nowhere in the scientific
literature is there any evidence which proves that
KSHV/HHV-8 causes KS.
There is no evidence in the scientific literature that "proves" that poppers or semen separately or synergistically cause KS. This does not stop the Perth Group from espousing this theory. The use of the word "prove" is questionable as it depends largely on what the Perth Group choose to define as "proof". It leaves the Perth Group an option to declare "but that isn't proof". It is telling that the Perth Group avoid the word when it comes to their own claims and yet demand "proof" from everyone else. I don't suppose the Perth Group want to "prove" their own theories.
Popper use in a sub-population of gay men is correlated with KS. So is HHV-8. The Perth Group argue that correlation does not mean causation. This piece of wisdom applies equally well to their own hypothesis. The connection with HHV-8 is stronger and is also present in all types of KS.
There is a bit more than just the correlation of HHV-8 with KS. There is temporal relation showing HHV-8 seroconversion before development of KS. There are also animal models for HHV-8 and KS. Etiology and pathogenesis of Kaposi's sarcoma., Injection of human herpesvirus-8 in human skin engrafted on SCID mice induces Kaposi's sarcoma-like lesions.
The evidence linking HHV-8 and KS is much stronger than that for poppers. That the Perth Group completely ignore all papers that mention HHV-8 is an indication of their dogmatism. They continually misrepresent the current literature and fail to even mention hundreds of papers. There is no way that anyone reading their "articles" can get a meaningful understanding of the field. This is demonstrated extremely well when Perth Group acolytes such as Alexander Russell voice their opinions on the subject. In short they are completely ignorant about the subject but nevertheless have very strong opinions formulated on the basis of Perth Group and Duesberg writings.
This lack of objectivity is exactly why your paper was rejected for publication. You do not base your views on the available literature. You may cite tens or even hundreds of papers but these are hand picked to support or at least apppear to support your hypotheses. You ignore vast quantities of papers that contradict your views. Even the papers that you do cite often fail to support your views. You pick out small quotes or observations that conform with your views and ignore other parts of the same paper that contradict your hypotheses.
The referees from various journals have made this very clear to you. I suggested that this view, that you do not base your papers objectively on the available literature, is unanimous (obviously other denialists disagree). Rather than taking on this criticism you respond with an extraordinary excuse for never mentioning HHV-8 in your "reviews" of KS.
The Perth Group write: Once Valerie Beral and her colleagues concluded that HIV plays no role in the development of KS...
Yet another misrepresentation.
The Perth Group write: If "Anyone there" does "a search at pubmed with the terms "HIV tat KS", will realise that although the "HIV" experts spared no effort to prove that the "HIV tat" is causally related to KS, no such proof exists. Even if a "Tat protein" is proven to cause KS, before one claims a causal role of "HIV" evidence must exist which shows that the "Tat protein" is a constituent of "HIV". This in turn requires prior proof for the existence of "HIV".
This is another Perth Group switcheroo. The Perth Group initially claimed:At present it is generally accepted that HIV plays no role either directly or indirectly, in the causation of KS
Here the Perth Group were claiming to speak for the whole scientific community. This claim is blatantly false. HIV is generally accepted to play a role in KS firstly by causing immunesuppression and secondly by the interaction of HIV tat with HHV-8. Attentive readers will note that the Perth Group have not attempted to support their initial assertion but have once again attempted to avoid the issue by demanding "proof" for the existence of HIV. One has to wonder why so many of the Perth Group arguments involve the misrepresentation of other scientists.
The Perth Group write: Since: (a) there is no evidence that "HIV" is causally related to KS; (b) according to the "HIV" experts the cause of AIDS is "HIV";
why is KS still an AIDS indicator disease ?
The arrogance of the Perth Group never fails to amaze me. How can the Perth Group possibly claim that there is no evidence that HIV is causally related to KS? No evidence? There unquestionably is evidence that HIV is causally related to KS. The Perth Group could truthfully argue that the evidence is not sufficient to convince them. However, this demonstrates the Perth Groups dogmatism rather than lack of evidence.
As the first premise is completely false I will leave it as an exercise for the Perth Group to answer their last question.
Competing interests: None declared