The boredom of debating deniers

John and Jason [edited; and Ed] quote from a John Derbyshire article discussing the wearying business of aruging with creationists:

Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. So they make the first argument again. This is why most biologists just can’t be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isn’t actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It’s boring.

It would be less boring if they’d come up with a new argument once in a while, but they never do. I’ve been engaging with Creationists for a couple of years now, and I have yet to hear an argument younger than I am. (I am not young.) All Creationist arguments have been whacked down a thousand times, but they keep popping up again.

Hmmm…sound like anyone else you know?

Comments

  1. #1 Kristjan Wager
    July 14, 2006

    No, no don’t tell me…. got it on the tip of my tongue….
    Something to do with a paper….

  2. #2 William the Coroner
    July 14, 2006

    Yeah. Deniers (of whatever stripe, evolution, HIV, immunizations, flouride, animal rights. A fanatic is one who won’t change his mind or the subject.

    Interesting though, how deniers can be “alternative” and “anti-establishment” (be it the medical establishment, or Big Pharma, or Science) and get rebellion credits but perfect safety, unlike people who were, for example, anti Khmer Rouge, huh?

  3. #3 Dave S.
    July 14, 2006

    I think it’s even more depressing than that, since often they do not actually make arguments at all, but merely assertions which they never get around to supporting. And yeah, I think anyone who’s debated them sees the same old pattern where the same assertions (or arguments) simply get repeated time and again, round and round. This is true of “denialists” of all stripes, be they AIDS denialists, evolution denialists, or anti global-warming activists.

    Sometimes the arguments against them become so persuasive and their position so untenable that even they have to capitulate on them. But usually this takes the form of either quietly dropping some argument (like the moon dust or Paluxy man-tracks arguments), or more likely in modifying it so as to avoid the glaringly obvious errors but still to maintain the argument itself. Evolution deniers for example dropped ‘biblical creationism’ for ‘scientific creationism’, and then dropped ‘scientific creationism’ for ‘intelligent design’, and now are in the process of dropping ‘intelligent design’ in favour of ‘critical analysis’ language. The label changes, but the arguments remain the same throughout. Another example: the mercury militia seem to be in the process abandoning mercury in thimerosal as the cause of autism (as the evidence against that hypothesis continues to pile up) and switching to mercury in the environment. Of course these changes are usually accompanied by vehement denials that the position really has changed and that they have been totally consistent all along.

    It’s a frustrating job to be sure wading through such crap, but one that has to be done.

  4. #4 Dale
    July 14, 2006

    I like the Whack-A-Mole analogy. I think that what enables them to do it so endlessly is that they , or at least many of them, see no distinction between emotional rhetoric and rational argument.

  5. #5 MartinM
    July 14, 2006

    I think it’s even more depressing than that, since often they do not actually make arguments at all, but merely assertions which they never get around to supporting

    Now, let’s be fair. They usually also manage insults, barely-coherent rants, and cries of persecution.

  6. #6 Dave S.
    July 14, 2006

    Thanks MartinM. I stand corrected!

  7. #7 biosparite
    July 14, 2006

    Reminds me of the open house at the Fla. Museum of Natural History in April 2005. A lady approached an exhibit of Eocene fossils and asked the owner how old they were. He replied, “About 40 million years.” The lady replied, “I’ll pray for you.” How can you meaningfully respond to a preachy godbag?

  8. #8 Marine Geologist
    July 14, 2006

    Martin and Dave,

    You also forgot just flat-assed lying!

  9. #9 Guitar Eddie
    July 14, 2006

    The thing that’s always puzzled me about deniers, particularly HIV deniers, is what the pay is off for them. What do they get out of denying that HIV causes AIDS regardless of the evidence supporting it? It’s not as if they are trying to maintain a religious belief inorder to be a functional person.

  10. #10 DragonScholar
    July 14, 2006

    Guitar Eddie,

    The ones I encountered suggested that somehow the gay lifestyle caused it, that it compromised the immune system, etc. It seemed to be an excuse for homophobia in what I saw.

    I’m sure there’s others with different, sad, motivations.

  11. #11 Eric
    July 14, 2006

    It is massively exhausting, is it not?

    My personal favorite is the “righteous rightness” of someone who is proclaiming that because they’re ‘counter culture’ and aren’t buying into the establishment, that they must be right. That one always puzzled me.

  12. #12 pat
    July 14, 2006

    It is sad when adults, especially one’s with inquisitive minds such as SCIENTISTS, fail to see through their own non-sense. What exactly IS a denialist? what are they “denying” and what is it that y’all are denying yourselves (ever thought of that one?) When did denialists become a “species”? I say no to ID, therefore I am a DENIALIST. You all deny something too, whether it is HIV?AIDS, ID, EVOLUTION etc… Ok , now that we have established that we are all denying something can we move past this denial non-sense and get something informative on this blog? something that will advance general knowledge? It is just so frustrating watching intelligent creatures barking wildly like a dumb dog barks at his shadow or chases after parked cars.

  13. #13 Miguelito
    July 14, 2006

    Denialism is denial of a fact despite the massive pile of evidence (hence, why AIDs, evolution, and holocaust denialists can all be lumped in the same category).

    Denialism is also associated with regurgitation of the same old incorrect arguments even after being shown repeatedly why they are wrong.

    And I don’t think the whack-a-mole analogy is good enough. It’s not nearly annoying enough.

  14. #14 Tara C. Smith
    July 14, 2006

    Ok , now that we have established that we are all denying something can we move past this denial non-sense and get something informative on this blog? something that will advance general knowledge?

    I make 3-4 posts/day. Fridays are generally lighter fare, hence this post, but surely you’ve not missed everything else this week?

  15. #15 Dr. Steve
    July 14, 2006

    ” I have yet to hear an argument younger than I am. (I am not young.) ”

    If it’s lighter fare you’re after then please defend this assertion in light of that small, out of focus pic in the corner that makes you look 18 1/2.

  16. #16 etbnc
    July 14, 2006

    Guitar Eddie asked: “The thing that’s always puzzled me about deniers, particularly HIV deniers, is what the pay is off for them. What do they get out of denying that HIV causes AIDS regardless of the evidence supporting it?”

    Thank you, Eddie. I think you’ve framed the problem in a way that might lead to solutions.

    It seems to me there’s a whole branch of science that explores the question, “Why do people do what they do?” I started my career as an engineer, applying mathematical tools, but I’m starting to view psychology as a toolkit as fundamental as arithmetic.

    Homophobia seems like a viable hypothesis. I suspect there are others. Perhaps we should consult some psychologists. I don’t think we can simply dump, er, delegate the problem to them, however. Just as we apply arithmetic to solve problems in many fields, perhaps we would make progress by applying psychology to solve problems in many fields…?

    And now back to the venting and catharsis already in progress….

  17. #17 etbnc
    July 14, 2006

    Sorry, Prof. Smith, I was composing a serious comment while you were posting a disclaimer. And though you may have been lighthearted when you posted, it seems to me that you and Mr. Van Halen (is that lighter?) have exposed a key issue that deserves more attention from the science community.

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch….

  18. #18 Tara C. Smith
    July 14, 2006

    If it’s lighter fare you’re after then please defend this assertion in light of that small, out of focus pic in the corner that makes you look 18 1/2.

    That’s a quote from the Derbyshire article, not anything I wrote.

    And, sadly, I’m 28 in that pic. I still get carded buying drinks.

  19. #19 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    First a quote from Tolstoy:

    “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest intensity, can seldom accept even the simplist and most obvious truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, proudly taught to others, and which they have woven thread by thread into the fabric of their lives”.

    The above quote from Tolstoy, shows us clearly that a “denialist” is incapable of seeing himself (or herself) as such. A “denialist” will simply shout out that anyone whom disagrees with their belief is the real denialist.

    As far as HIV “denialists” goes, those whom are incapable and unwilling to admit to any problems whatsoever, in the debate of causality, in light of thoroughly peer reviewed opposition, and shout out at others that “if you don’t agree with me, you are a “DENIALIST”, are the ones to be looked upon with skepticism. This means you Tara, and you Miquelito, and Chris Noble, and Ivan, and many others posting their obvious refusal to even investigate what any opposing evidence may show. You listen without hearing, as the concept of your possibly being mistaken is a major threat to your ego. For the ego to be found “wrong” is equivalent to egoic death.

    For anyone that does not believe that lifestyles can be dangerous to ones health, try a visit to some of the gay parties in San Francisco or New York. Watch as 150 men, the majority high on crystal and many sniffing poppers, and doing a multitude of other drugs, are fucking and sucking each other indiscriminately. Watch carefully as some are having a partner shove their entire hand and fist up their ass to their elbows. Watch as they pull out their arm and hand, see the blood and obvious anal bleeding. Then watch as they take their shit and blood covered hands and after playing with themselves and then have someone suck their unwashed dick. All the while high as a kite, and without caution as to how many organisms they are transferring in this third world like cholera infested behavior. Watch as one man gets tied down on a wheel surrounded by other men, which is then spun, and whomever is by his head gets sucked, and whomever is on the opposing end fucks him in the ass. And watch as they do this high as a kite for hours. Nothing like a mouthful of shit covered dick to keep your immune system safe. There is nothing “homophobic” about pointing this out. It is simply a fact in many gay scenes that has played out over and over. Don’t believe me, I will be glad to show you.

    For anyone to possibly think that these behaviors, are safe and healthy, and non threatening to ones health, even without HIV, one would have to be an idiot.

    You people know nothing of some of the gay scenes, and you know nothing of how many gays have been caught up in the trap of drug and sex addiction. It is more than likely due in a large part to societal homophobia being internalized that would drive some (not the majority) to such self destructive behaviors.

    Tara, I read over and over again, where you do not answer any question that threaten your pre-existing belief that HIV alone will cause death. I do not expect or want a response from you. Are you stupid enough to believe that drug addiction is healthy for ones immune system? Are you stupid enough to believe that a drug addict will remain healthy as long as they use a condom and don’t share needles? Are you stupid enough to believe that sex addiction is healthy for ones immune system? Are you stupid enough to believe that feces is healthy to have in your mouth? Are you stupid enough to believe that repeated high doses of antibiotics to fight off the ensuing infections of Syphillis, Gonorhhea, Chlamidia, fungal, and bacterial infections are healthy for your immune system? Are you stupid enough to believe that AZT or Chemotherapy, or any of the Anti-HIV drugs is healthy for an immune system? Are you stupid enough to believe that the stress from getting an HIV diagnosis is healthy for the immune system? Are you stupid enough to believe that internalised self loathing is healthy for an immune system? How much do you suppose an immune system can take before it collapses? Please don’t answer me, I am bright enough to figure it all out for myself. My humble opinion: YOU are an idiot. You are a denialist. You are you.

  20. #20 Dave S.
    July 14, 2006

    We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that in addition to those groups that have specific agenda, and because of that agenda hold one scientifically untenable position or another (e.g. Creationists), there are also superimposed on these the garden variety cranks and crackpots who believe for their own reasons. There are still those out there who deny the Earth is spherical or that the Sun is the center of the solar system. There are those that deny the reality of atoms or the laws of thermodynamics or relativity. There are still those out there who insist on the reality of the luminiferous aether, ancient astronauts, “alternative” medical therapies or cold fusion.

    That’s why the practice of science is the way it is…to separate the real from the woo.

  21. #21 Tara C. Smith
    July 14, 2006

    Michael, can you possibly pack anymore strawmen into one post? Please cite me where I’ve ever denied that “lifestyles can be dangerous to ones health.” Or that the behaviors you describe are “safe and healthy, and non threatening to ones health.” Or that “drug addiction is healthy for the immune system,” or that an addict “will remain healthy as long as they use a condom and don’t share needles.” etc. etc. etc. I’ve never said, nor suggested, any of it. You can throw insults and vent your spleen, but nothing in your comment even comes close to my position on HIV.

  22. #22 Stephen Uitti
    July 14, 2006

    My current strategy for Creationists is to argue from a theological standpoint, as a Christian. To some extent, Creationism is an attack on science, and this might look like an attack on Creationism. But Creationism also very poor theology. Counter arguments include Last Thursdayism, translation study of ancient Greek and Hebrew, interpretation of what moral and other lessons seemed to be intended in the stories, the impact of verifiable facts on faith (such as Pi being 3), and how these very stupid ideas are pushed by people who appear so smart, and what incentives smart people might have to lie.

    If that fails, i ask if they’d give up anti-biotics.

  23. #23 Chuck the Lucky
    July 14, 2006

    I heard a suggestion once that computer science folk should use their skills to develop a chat bot that could be programmed to argue with idiots. While artificial intelligence is not very good at general intelligence they tend to do well at specifically well defined subjects like taking travel reservations. You could turn it loose every time a creationist enters a discussion and everyone else would be free to start more informative threads while the creationist and anyone who is new to the debate watched as every old canard they brought up was verbally drop kicked. Sort of a “Talk Origins” bot.

    Somebody ought to get on that. And one for Holocaust denial and other exhausting arguments while they are at it.

  24. #24 pat
    July 14, 2006

    I merely make a post on this thread because it addresses something that I’m seeing alot of lately , namely the debating of imagined nothingness. I truely commend you Tara on your blog and have no doubt that you are acting on all matters with the best of intentions and to the best of your knowledge. There is indeed very informative material on this site, so no I haven’t missed it. But I was a bit dissappointed by this thread. I hold you and others in general to much higher standards than I see here.

    “Denialism is denial of a fact despite the massive pile of evidence (hence, why AIDs, evolution, and holocaust denialists can all be lumped in the same category)”

    Miguelito, you may lump all you like together but you do so at the peril of confusing yourself. Please share with me an opinion you hold which puts you in a minority (surely you have one, compulsive populism is unique to politicians) Then we can establish that you are in denial of some “overwhealming fact” and then we’ll all happilly watch you lump yourself in with the holocaust-denialists! What you hold to be a fact may be fiction to others. So if you fail to convince anyone with your “facts” , does it mean they are in denial of the “facts” or have you simply failed to sway them in their opinion? Whatever happened to “respectfully agree to disagree”? Why the venom? I don’t agree with creationists and about 5 billion other types on this planet but I will gladly refrain from flaming them merely because they hold something else to be true. I hold myself to the same standards I hold you.
    Respectfully, Pat

  25. #25 Dr. Steve
    July 14, 2006

    Micael-

    Are you stupid enough to deny that skydiving is dangerous? Yet it is clear that people who died skydiving did not die of AIDS becuase they obviously died of massive trauma.
    People who die of drug addictions die of many things – delerium tremens, cocaine-induced heart attacks and strokes, infections of the skin and blood from using dirty needle or clean needles through dirty skin, etc.

    Promiscuous people die sometimes due to (non-HIV)STDs or, with some of the things you described – punctured or torn viscera.

    What drug addicts and promicuous people don’t die of and never died of before the 1970s was critically compromised humoral immune cell function, T4 counts of zero, Kaposi sarcma, cryptococcal meningitis, pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, etc. All the meth, poppers, blood and excrement in the world does not explain that.

  26. #26 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Hello Tara, and I thank you for your response. Perhaps my post is making uncalled for assumptions. If you would be so kind as to clarify, what exactly is your position on HIV. Is HIV the sole cause of AIDS in your opinion? Do other behaviors cause immune system failure as well?

  27. #27 Richard Jefferys
    July 14, 2006

    You’re talking immunology, Michael, yet there are only 13 people that might even vaguely qualify as immunologists on the Rethinking list (~0.5% of the total). Several received some training but never became working immunologists, several are dead, at least two conducted HIV research, which leaves maybe three or four that may actually be working immunologists (whose current opinions are probably worth verifying, given that Joe Sonnabend is still on the list).

    Do you not perhaps think that working immunologists might have a better idea of what can cause “immune system failure” than you do? Malnutrition is not new, yet it’s never been associated with the catastrophic loss of cellular immunity that occurs as a result of HIV infection. Same goes for recreational drug use and wild sex parties (gay or straight).

  28. #28 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Dr. Steve. My dear, I think you may be mistaken. Crystal meth did not begin, nor did popper use begin, nor did gay men come out of the closets in droves until just beginning in the late 1970′s early 1980′s. Starting in the early 80′s, thousands were flat out rejected by their families for being gay, and told “you are not my son”, “do not ever call or come here again”. I don’t know any that survived this emotional assault alone. Nor were gay men whom did die before this, even put under the intensive microscopic analysis to find critically compromised humoral immune cell function, T4 counts of zero, cryptococcal meningitis, pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, etc. Popper use did not come into fashion until the early 1980′s, strangely at the same time KS appeared. Benzene was in most of the lubes and arms of those shoving their fist up someones ass. As a matter of fact, many things changed in the 1980′s. Until the internet and personal computers came along, doctors and scientists were not even able to compare what went on in one city to another. Suddenly, some doctors could see that there were similarities around the country with gay illnesses. Gays started to come out of the closet in droves. The first Gay pride parade I went to in 1981 had 150 people attend. It grew exponentially and today the same parade is attended by 150,000. Crystal meth use came into use in 1981 and by 1985, all of my gay friends were either strung out on it, or affected by those who were. The amount of drug use, antibiotic use, shots for Hep B, and many other possibly contributing factors did not appear on the scene until beginning in the early to mid 80′s. I was in some of those bath houses in the mid 70′s and they were quite tame compared to what the openly gay sex scene evolved into over the next 10 years. My dear, there are so many things that changed in such a brief period of time. And then, we certainly have to question how many people died from AZT, which was the only treatment that was even available from 1986 to 1995. This is also the period of the vast majority of American HIV/AIDS deaths. Please love, I lost my lover to AZT. He was healthy when diagnosed as HIV, after coming down with TB from a jaunt to Mexico, but he scared himself to death within 8 months by taking 1500 milligrams a day of AZT. Is this too difficult to understand? I am sure it would be if you are one of the docs that prescribed it. Are you? Do you think it was a good idea to give healthy men 1200 to 1800 mg per day of AZT? The death rates did not come down until doctors began to cut back the AZT to a mere 600mg per day. Now the leading cause of death is liver failure. Doctor, liver failure is not the result of a virus, now is it? How many more are now disfigured by the protease inhibitors? Back in the 50′s and 60′s and 70′s when some of these hard living people (of which there were few of at that time) died, we did not put them under a scope, we simply pointed to the event and said “that is what happens to junkies”. It is obvious from your post that you are not familiar with the realities of gay social and sexual lifestyles over the last 30 years. Please consider the reality that many things changed from the 50′s to the 60′s to the 70′s to the 80′s to the 90′s to today. And many changes are yet to come.

  29. #29 Tara C. Smith
    July 14, 2006

    First,

    Until the internet and personal computers came along, doctors and scientists were not even able to compare what went on in one city to another.

    Huh?!

    Second,

    If you would be so kind as to clarify, what exactly is your position on HIV. Is HIV the sole cause of AIDS in your opinion?

    Currently, yes–the evidence points to HIV as the sole cause of AIDS. However, I–and most other scientists–certainly haven’t ruled out an as-yet-unidentified cofactor in the disease. For instance, there’s some evidence (controversial, I might add) that a second virus prolongs survial in HIV+ men. It could be that another virus or other agent conversely speeds the progression. These are active areas of research, by the very scientists so villified by some posting on this thread.

    Do other behaviors cause immune system failure as well?

    “Immune system failure” is a very broad term. But of course, a number of things can result in damage to the immune system. AIDS, however, results from a very specific type of “immune system failure,” that the drugs and behaviors you list have not been shown to cause.

  30. #30 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Dear Richard Jefferys. How nice to hear from you again. The last time I heard from you was on the Barnesworld blog, under the posting “An Unconventional AIDS Patient”, where you simply disappeared after being asked:

    Richard, do you believe it was a good idea to give HIV positives 1200 to 1800 mg per day of AZT.

    Until you answer that question Richard, and a simple yes or no would suffice, my opinion of you remains as follows:

    Dear Richard Jefferys, as he makes his living by promoting AIDS drugs, reminds me of the gay version of a Jewish Guard at Auschwitz. “Go on in and take a shower my friends, it’s really quite lovely in there”.

    As much as he has now read of the dissident side, it is unfortunate that even though he is at this point well aware that he has been duped, his ego can not allow him to admit it. That my friends, is called “Self Preservational Denial to protect ones self from Shame and Guilt”. I can’t say I really blame him. After all, how many people listened to him and are now dead and departed. How many listened to him and are now disfigured with lypodystrophy. How many needed liver transplants.

    Thank you Richard, you are certainly my hero! I guess if my hands were as dirty as yours are, it would be difficult for me to admit to my own culpability as well. Maybe you could simply say, “Gee fellas, Oy was just bloomin kiddin about takin all the bloody medicayshuns. Oy didn’t think you were actually gonta listen to a bloke loyk me”.

    For all of those interested, a lovely picture and history of our dear Auschwitz guard type of friend, Richard Jefferys can be found at the following link:

    http://www.champnetwork.org/index.php?name=RichardJ-11.15.04

    Personally, I think it is criminal that Glaxo/burroughs/welcome/smith/kline and anyone involved with selling AZT has not been held responsible for the obvious AZT related deaths. I think it is criminal that the current makers of HAART and ARV treatments are not forced to pay for every side effect and/or death due to the use of these drugs. As Mr. Jefferys makes his living from the manufacture or sale of any of these drugs, then I think he is also completely accountable to all whom have died from and have any side effects whatsoever from the use of these drugs.

  31. #31 Richard Jefferys
    July 14, 2006

    Michael II, my take on the history of HIV research (up til 2001, anyway) can be found online here:

    http://www.aegis.com/pubs/cria/2001/CR100302.html

    Given the photographic evidence you have provided regarding my inability to prevent my sweaters shrinking in the wash, you should obviously feel free to take my opinions with a grain of salt. Thankfully the immunology literature stands up well on its own, even if I regularly fail to persuade anyone to read it.

  32. #32 Dr. Steve
    July 14, 2006

    “Nor were gay men whom did die before this, even put under the intensive microscopic analysis to find critically compromised humoral immune cell function, T4 counts of zero, cryptococcal meningitis, pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, etc.”

    Ridiculous. Severly ill people go to hospitals and get intensive work-ups gay or straight. How do you think cryptococcus and PCP were discovered as human pathogens in the first place? Because they affect children and pregnant women in the first case and those immunocompromised through genentic or medical means in the second.

    Your witches brew of meth, poppers, etc. etc. is not bio-medically plausible. Not even close. There are VERY few things which significantly effect cellular immunity. Meth, poppers and poop are not among them (those are bad for you but for reasons independent of T-cell number and function).

  33. #33 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Dear Dr. Steve and Tara and Richard. Unfortunately, there have not been any trial studies to see what the combined effects of these various conditions are. But of course if you are all willing to volunteer to further serve the interests of science. I would be glad to see to it that you are both rammed orally, and also rammed anally with fists while sniffing poppers, high on crystal, K, GBH, ecstasy, with weekly shots of high potency antibiotics, and we will supply you with a mouth and anus full of several highly promiscuous peoples dung and semen. We will even make sure that all fisters and dung and semen providers and oral rammers test HIV negative. I think we should start with 3 times a week for 6 months. We will also make sure you have no contact with family and are stressed with a poor diet. With many sexually promiscuous gays, 1000 sexual contacts per year is not unusual, so we will hook you up with 500 in six months. And then for the next six months, we will put you on a combo therapy of AZT and 2 protease inhibitors. Let me know when you would like to start. You can disprove Duesberg and put this issue to rest for once and for all. All you need to do is not get any of the 30 aids defining diseases, not get less than 200 t cells, and show negative on an HIV test a year from now.

  34. #34 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Still finding yourself so bored Tara? This study could also solve that problem for you as well.

  35. #35 Richard Jefferys
    July 14, 2006

    If your hostilely articulated litany caused AIDS Michael, then those things would have to have been done by all the people in the world that have died from AIDS. And that is not the case. The unifying factor is infection with HIV (and please feel free to bring up Duesberg’s claim regarding “4,621 HIV negative AIDS” cases; I will happily walk you through the papers he cites in support of this claim, which do not report any such thing).

    If you’d like to argue that malnutrition causes AIDS, please go to PubMed and see if you can find any articles describing malnutrition leading to disseminated MAC, CMV retinitis, toxo, PML, disseminated KS, disseminated KS, or any of the other serious opportunistic infections that are only seem in the setting of severely compromised cellular immunity. Using the date limits to restrict your search to prior to 1981 should be helpful. I don’t think anyone is arguing that malnutrition didn’t exist prior to 1981.

  36. #36 noreen martin
    July 14, 2006

    It would be criminal but give healthy people AZT, etc. or any of the combinatin drugs given to hiv + or AIDS patients, see what happens to their blood, liver enzymes, gastro-intestioanl conditions and more. No sane person would do this, yet sick, not so sick and AIDS person are given these treatments without a second thought. What is most disheartening is that whatever caused the person to get in this condition isn’t even addressed. You say we are denalist, we are realist, there are so many holes in the HIV causes AIDS theory, that it is ridicious.

  37. #37 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Put your money where your mouth is Richard. When do you want to volunteer? I think we will put you on the rotating wheel to get it from both ends at once. And don’t worry, if you want it more than three times a week, we will oblige. It will help stretch out that sweater you seem to be having problems with, and I can tell just from your cute little picture that you would enjoy it.

    To begin with, AIDS is not a disease. It is a category requiring only HIV positive diagnosis and any one of 30 common diseases or a t-cell count of less than 200. If you can show me any person who was not on the aids drugs, was not doing any one or more of the above listed behaviors, or such as in Africa, was not drinking from water that was poisoned by feces, and was an otherwise healthy person whom contracted HIV and then died of something that was not a common illness that many die from all of the time such as flu or pneumonia, then I will agree with you. Tara seems to think that there is possibly only one co-factor needed. What makes her think there is not more than one. What makes any of you think that a person’s immunity won’t be shattered just from the stress and fear of a diagnosis of HIV. Fauci himself did his doctorate on the immune system failures due to stress alone.

    Any time you speak of anyone dying of AIDS obfuscates what they actually died from. No-One dies of AIDS. They die of very specific causes, such as liver failure, etc. Most “AIDS” deaths are and have been listed since the earliest days as “Complications of AIDS” which is a simple code word for their doctor killed them with the drugs.

    Considering I myself know dozens of HIV positives that have not come down with any AIDS defining disease in the almost 20 years of having the diagnosis, probably due to the fact that none of them had any of the antiHIV drug or recreational drugs or intensive shots of antibiotics, or behavioural cofactors that I listed, is more proof than I would ever need that HIV alone is harmless. All of the many whom I know that died of the disease had many cofactors in drugs, behavior or psychology such as major stress.

  38. #38 Hank Barnes
    July 14, 2006

    Please love, I lost my lover to AZT. He was healthy when diagnosed as HIV, after coming down with TB from a jaunt to Mexico, but he scared himself to death within 8 months by taking 1500 milligrams a day of AZT.

    Putting aside the scientific dispute for the moment, this is the concrete problem facing the AIDS orthodoxy. From 1987-1996, the standard treatment for AIDS patients was 1500 mg of AZT –taken daily.

    This was disasterous. AZT is a highly toxic carcinogen. Numerous animal studies by researchers at the National Cancer Institute have borne this out. See Olivero, Journal of NCI, (1997) 89: 1602-1603:

    At 1 year of age, the offspring of AZT-treated mice exhibited statistically-significant, dose-dependent increases in tumor multiplicity in the lungs, liver, and female reproductive organs. (Olivero, page 1602).

    Olivero, Diwan and Poirer did several follow-up studies, all of which conclude that AZT is a transplacental carcinogen and is incorporated into the DNA of human white blood cells.

    Again, it was disasterous to scare hundreds of thousands of AIDS patients — mostly gay men — into taking AZT on such high doseage. It probably killed them much more efficiently and painfully then the virus.

    And, one must wonder, why were these animal studies involving AZT were done 10 years AFTER the drug was already widely disseminated to people, and not before?

    Hank Barnes

  39. #39 Richard Jefferys
    July 14, 2006

    Very few people with HIV die from “a common illness that many die from all of the time.” If you want to evaluate how common the opportunistic infections that kill people with HIV were prior to 1981, you can go to PubMed here:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

    Then use the “limits” tab and go to “published in the last” and select “specify date range” and just put “1981″ in the ending year box.

    Now try searching for OIs like “disseminated mycobacterium avium intracellulare” or “CMV retinitis” or “disseminated kaposi’s sarcoma” or “progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy” or “cryptococcal meningitis” etc., etc.

    You’ll find quite a bit of literature on some of these, but if you look through it you’ll find mainly case reports because the diseases in question were so rare (i.e. first report of cryptococcal meningitis in Ethiopia was in 1978). Are you arguing not only that feces in the water causes a suppression of cellular immunity that has never been described in the literature, but that it only began to do so in the late 1970s?

    You can also try doing the same searches with the end date moved to something like “1990″ – what you’ll see is the literature on these previously rare opportunistic infections increasing dramatically because of the advent and spread of HIV in the human population.

  40. #40 michael
    July 14, 2006

    Dear Auschwitz Guard Jefferies. You wrote that “first report of cryptococcal meningitis in Ethiopia was in 1978″. Please take note that they never looked for it in Ethiopia before 1978.

    Are you arguing that combining poor nutrition with cholera infested water, and stress due to poor living conditions, and massive outbreaks of Malaria and Tuberculosis in a country whose population doubles every twenty five years is healthy for an immune system?

  41. #41 argystokes
    July 14, 2006

    Are you arguing that Malaria, Cholera, and/or Tuberculosis cause CD4+ T Cell depletion?

  42. #42 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Dear Tara and Dr. but not a healer Steve, and Aushwitz guard Jefferys. The following is a quote from the discoverer of HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, found on the wikipaedia:

    AIDS does not inevitably lead to death, especially if you suppress the co-factors that support the disease. It is very important to tell this to people who are infected. I think we should put the same weight now on the co-factors as we have on HIV. Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you suppress this psychological support by telling someone he’s condemned to die, your words alone will have condemned him.
    - Luc Montagnier

    Obviously he believes cofactors are more important than HIV, and obviously believes the psych effects alone are deadly. He should know, he discovered HIV and what he says directly refutes all three of you. AND it also puts Duesberg in the drivers seat. Maybe all of you should shut the fXXk up and listen when very knowledgeable people speak. In case you don’t quite get the drift or understand what he is carefully saying, HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS!!!!!!!

  43. #43 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Dear Argystokes. Are you aware that Canada does not even use a T cell count in AIDS diagnosis? There are many things that cause a drop in t cells, and many people that have low counts by nature. Counts also vary up and down through out any given day and with simple stress.

    The reason they lowered the AIDS diagnosis to a count of 200 T cells from the original 500 that was early on set as the point at which a person was declared as AIDS, was because they found many people, including some of the doctors giving the diagnosis, had less than 500 t cells by nature.

    I do not know if these specific factors of TB, Malaria, or Cholera could cause a drop. Hopefully you will investigate for yourself and share the results. But I do know that most people in Africa are not even given a 2nd confirmatory HIV test, let alone a t cell count.

    Where testing is done today, they are usually given the same Oraquick Rapid Test that has now been discontinued in several testing sites in New York, LA, and San Francisco. San Fran had one fourth of their results with the oraquick coming back as definitely false positives last year. In most of Asia as well, people are given only one test before being diagnosed.

    And not that I neccesarily believe in the backup tests either. There are more than 60 known factors listed in scientific journals that cause HIV tests to go false positive. You can see the list and the references at the following link:

    http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cjtestfp.htm

    The PCR viral load tests seem to be just as flawed and none of the PCR test packets even have FDA approval for diagnostic use, only prognostic use.

    Just for grins and giggles we tested some dogs blood and it came back with a viral load count of HIV. Maybe we should put the dog on meds?

  44. #44 Richard Jefferys
    July 14, 2006

    Luc Montagnier was a member of the committee that organized the Durban Declaration. Perhaps you should drop him an email and ascertain what he makes of the accumulated literature on the immunological effects of HIV infection now.

    A PubMed search using the term “Ethiopia” with a date limit of 1981 brings up 1,149 published studies dating back to 1950. They describe all kinds of diseases.

  45. #45 Laura
    July 14, 2006

    Michael

    I am sorry but I can’t resist. Dogs have not demonstrated AIDS symptoms however cats have. In fact FIV aka Feline AIDS is similar and can be treated with AZT which can reduce symptoms and improve quality of life in affected felines.

  46. #46 argystokes
    July 14, 2006

    Michael,

    You say that HIV does not cause AIDS. Does SIV cause AIDS in simians?

  47. #47 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Dear Auschwitz guard. Just because Dr. Luc can talk out of both sides of his mouth at once does not mean he is only half serious, unlike you, whom can speak out of two orifices at once and never should be taken seriously.

    Of course he signed the declaration, he also signs his hiv test royalty check, and like you, he also signs his paycheck. Is that supposed to be meaningful or relevant to his quotation?

    Please make sure you search through all of the 1,149 published studies in Ethiopia and show me the one where they had looked for cryptococcal meningitis there before 1978. I looked and can’t find one.

  48. #48 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Hello Argstokes. I will tell you the MOST fascinating thing. Absolutely EVERY disease that man is susceptible to, Chimpanzees are as well. All human diseases can be manifested in chimps, but one. HIV has never caused AIDS in chimps! This alone, should have been a huge wake-up call to our research community, but then they babbled incoherently about SIV is close enough, we need more funding, shut up, they will take away our grants, etc, etc. But no explanation! Furthermore, no wild chimps that show HIV in their feces ever die of AIDS. Furthermore, in lab studies, one has to remember that the awful tests and living conditions these sentient and sensitive creatures endure in some labs is an uncharted co-factor for stress and various illness and immune disfunction as well, and must be taken into consideration with the SIV models. But unfortunately, it is not ever even considered.

  49. #49 Richard Jefferys
    July 14, 2006

    Well, I guess we’re certainly honoring the topic of the thread, which is a change. Luc is right if he ever says anything that might support your views, any other time he’s corrupt. OK. The literature you’re looking at comprises many cases reports, which involve doctors and researchers reporting the diseases they are seeing. They didn’t see a case of cryptococcal meningitis until 1978. People like to get published, and a case report of an unusual disease has an excellent chance of getting published.

    Any thoughts on any of the others? I found only two reports of disseminated MAI in all of the literature prior to 1981. Extending the search to 1990, I found 96. A similar story unfolds for disseminated CMV and CMV retinitis.

  50. #50 Richard Jefferys
    July 14, 2006

    “HIV has never caused AIDS in chimps!” Someone has been reading Celia Farber’s putatively error-free article in Harper’s I guess (see below). Elevated CD38 expression (a marker of immune activation) is also strongly correlated with disease progression in HIV-infected humans. And if lab conditions caused AIDS in macaques, then it would do so irregardless of whether they were SIV infected. Look at macaques in vaccine challenge experiments that are housed in the same conditions and compare the outcomes in the SIV infected animals to the controls.

    J Infect Dis. 2000 Oct;182(4):1051-62. Epub 2000 Sep 8.

    Progressive infection in a subset of HIV-1-positive chimpanzees.

    O’Neil SP, Novembre FJ, Hill AB, Suwyn C, Hart CE, Evans-Strickfaden T, Anderson DC, deRosayro J, Herndon JG, Saucier M, McClure HM.

    Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA. soneil@rmy.emory.edu

    Chimpanzees are susceptible to infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1; however, infected animals usually maintain normal numbers of CD4(+) T lymphocytes and do not develop immunodeficiency. We have examined 10 chronically infected HIV-1-positive chimpanzees for evidence of progressive infection. In addition to 1 animal that developed AIDS, 3 chimpanzees exhibit evidence of progressive HIV infection. All progressors have low CD4(+) T cell counts (<200 cells/microL), severe CD4:CD8 inversion, and marked reduction in interleukin-2 receptor expression by CD4(+) T cells. In comparison with HIV-positive nonprogressor chimpanzees, progressors have higher plasma and lymphoid virus loads, greater CD38 expression in CD8(+)/HLA-DR(+) T cells, and greater serum concentrations of soluble tumor necrosis factor type II receptors and beta2-microglobulin, all markers of HIV progression in humans. These observations show that progressive HIV-1 infection can occur in chimpanzees and suggest that the pathogenesis of progressive infection in this species resembles that in humans.

  51. #51 Richard Jefferys
    July 14, 2006

    Harpooned by HTML code, sorry…

    J Infect Dis. 2000 Oct;182(4):1051-62. Epub 2000 Sep 8. Related Articles, Links

    Progressive infection in a subset of HIV-1-positive chimpanzees.

    O’Neil SP, Novembre FJ, Hill AB, Suwyn C, Hart CE, Evans-Strickfaden T, Anderson DC, deRosayro J, Herndon JG, Saucier M, McClure HM.

    Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA. soneil@rmy.emory.edu

    Chimpanzees are susceptible to infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1; however, infected animals usually maintain normal numbers of CD4(+) T lymphocytes and do not develop immunodeficiency. We have examined 10 chronically infected HIV-1-positive chimpanzees for evidence of progressive infection. In addition to 1 animal that developed AIDS, 3 chimpanzees exhibit evidence of progressive HIV infection. All progressors have low CD4(+) T cell counts (less than 200 cells/microL), severe CD4:CD8 inversion, and marked reduction in interleukin-2 receptor expression by CD4(+) T cells. In comparison with HIV-positive nonprogressor chimpanzees, progressors have higher plasma and lymphoid virus loads, greater CD38 expression in CD8(+)/HLA-DR(+) T cells, and greater serum concentrations of soluble tumor necrosis factor type II receptors and beta2-microglobulin, all markers of HIV progression in humans. These observations show that progressive HIV-1 infection can occur in chimpanzees and suggest that the pathogenesis of progressive infection in this species resembles that in humans.

  52. #52 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Laura, unfortunately, I do not have enough information on FIV or treating it with AZT to know what dosage they found or surmised to be effective for a fuzzy little kitty, nor do I know that the little fuzzy would have definitely come down with life threatening disease without the AZT. A lot of times science jumps to a conclusion that it is looking for without understanding the entire picture or other possible results had certain variables been different. What I mean by that is that you can take Patient A with a given disease and give him a certain med. He gets well, but you now will never know if he would have gotten just as well without that med. We see this problem come up time and again with placebo trials. As I am not familiar with the studies or tests on kitty kats, I really can’t say much about it. For all I know it was done by the company wanting to sell it and there may or may not have been withheld information putting the results in question. You can get away with a lot more in animal trials than you can in human trials and as HIVNET O12 shows us, you can get away with murder.

  53. #53 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Dear Auschwitz guard. Your ignorance is showing. Macaques are NOT CHIMPANZEES FOOL!

  54. #54 Richard Jefferys
    July 14, 2006

    Really? Wow. FYI, I was responding to the reference to “SIV models;” the most commonly used model is rhesus macaques infected with SIV isolates originally from Sooty Mangabeys. SIV from Mangabeys is typically harmless to them, but causes AIDS when transferred into a different species, rhesus macaques. SIVcpz is typically harmless to chimpanzees but causes AIDS when transferred into a different species, humans.

  55. #55 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    I have been at this blog since 9:00 this morning, so I am retiring for now. Dear Auschwitz Guard Jefferys, and Dear Tara and Dear “Not A Healer” Steve, be sure to let me know when you would like to begin the trial study. The following is for you:

    There are none so blind as those who will not see, and none so deaf as those who will not hear……

    Love and Kisses All,
    Michael

  56. #56 Richard Jefferys
    July 14, 2006

    Unfortunately, beyond the enjoyment you might obtain from it, you’re “trial study” would say nothing about AIDS because most of the people that have died from the disease have had access to neither the recreational drugs nor the ARVs you mention. They have also not engaged in the sexual practices you so vividly describe.

    You’re quote, however, is indeed perfect for this thread.

  57. #57 argystokes
    July 14, 2006

    Michael,

    Have a nice weekend. When you come back, please answer the question: “Does SIV cause AIDS in nonhuman primates?”

  58. #58 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Hello Argystokes. I really do not know for sure. I do not know what all other co-factors could have also been at work in any SIV AIDS cases, and I am rather unfamiliar with them. Most Studies are often very easy to manipulate to whatever it is that you would like the outcome to be. Perhaps you can research it and tell us, does HIV absolutely cause AIDS in simian models. If so, are you sure there could have been absolutely no other co-factors, even such as high stress to the model? Did it cause AIDS every time or just sometimes. To be absolutely sure any disease is a definite causative factor, it must show the same results every time. Less than that is always grounds for possible suspicion as to other causes. And even if it was in every case, you must still be certain that there were no other causes at work as well, as even a flu bug or other unknown could sweep through your animal models.

  59. #59 argystokes
    July 14, 2006

    I do not know what all other co-factors could have also been at work in any SIV AIDS cases, and I am rather unfamiliar with them. Most Studies are often very easy to manipulate to whatever it is that you would like the outcome to be.

    That would be fraud. We ought to exclude it unless evidence arises.

    Perhaps you can research it and tell us, does HIV absolutely cause AIDS in simian models. If so, are you sure there could have been absolutely no other co-factors, even such as high stress to the model?

    Sure, we can take a look at controls.

    Did it cause AIDS every time or just sometimes. To be absolutely sure any disease is a definite causative factor, it must show the same results every time. Less than that is always grounds for possible suspicion as to other causes.

    By disease, I assume you mean pathogen. Why would you say this? Pathogens often have different disease progressions in different individuals. Most people infected with Treponema pallidum do not develop tertiary syphilis, but I don’t imagine you’d argue that T. pallidum isn’t the causitive agent of syphilis.

    Alright, I’m off to pubmed.

  60. #60 futurelegend
    July 14, 2006

    “HIV has never caused AIDS in chimps!” Someone has been reading Celia Farber’s putatively error-free article in Harper’s I guess

    When they should have been reading PNAS to learn about siglecs and lots of other cool stuff.

    The thing that’s always puzzled me about deniers, particularly HIV deniers, is what the pay is off for them. What do they get out of denying that HIV causes AIDS regardless of the evidence supporting it?

    Well mainly I think its just a ploy to make someone feel more important than they really are. I mean look at that wonderful ‘list’ that was posted. Nobody journalists, almost-PhDs, hypnotherapists– an easy way to get attention you dont deserve is to throw a tantrum.

    But also, I think the reasoning behind HIV Deniers and evolution deniers and various breeds of religious nuts is all the same. HIV is unlike anything we have encountered before. People are desperate for news that its not so bad, that ‘scientists’ have blown it out of proportion, the world really isnt this dark and evil. Its easy to exploit this hope. But the fact of the matter is, this world is dark and evil enough to contain a virus like HIV, and all the lemon juice and vinegar in the world wont stop it. **shrug** Its hard for some people to accept.
    So in a way, psychologically it is the same as say, Creationists. We didnt evolve on our own! We arent alone in the universe! Theres a god that made us, and loves us, and if he didnt make us exactly like this book says, maybe that book isnt divinely inspired at all. **shrug** Again, its hard for some people to accept.

    Of course he signed the declaration, he also signs his hiv test royalty check…

    Thats simply idiotic. You think there arent enough viruses on the planet that someone needed to invent one for people to study? You think every HIV researcher couldnt easily get a job researching whatever the hell they wanted if HIV didnt exist? Idiotic.

  61. #61 argystokes
    July 14, 2006

    Michael,

    It seems the original studies identifying SIV are unavailable online. However, there are recently published vaccine studies which compare the CD4 cell count and survival of macaques vaccinated vs non vaccinated and subsequently challenged with SIV. Here’s one:

    Vaccination preserves CD4 memory T cells during acute simian immunodeficiency virus challenge

    Joseph J. Mattapallil1, Daniel C. Douek1, Alicia Buckler-White2, David Montefiori3, Norman L. Letvin4, Gary J. Nabel1, and Mario Roederer1

    1 Vaccine Research Center and 2 Laboratory of Molecular Microbiology, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD 20892
    3 Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710
    4 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215

    CORRESPONDENCE M. Roederer: roederer@nih.gov

    Acute simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV)/human immunodeficiency virus infection is accompanied by a massive destruction of CD4 memory T cells across all the tissue compartments. These early events set the course toward disease progression and immunodeficiency. Here, we demonstrate that prior vaccination reduces this destruction during acute SIV Mac251 infection, leading to better survival and long-term outcome. Systemic vaccination with a DNA-prime recombinant adenovirus boost regimen preserved memory CD4 T cells throughout the body. The vaccine regimen induced broad CD4 and CD8 T cell responses in all tissues examined and, importantly, induced antibodies that neutralized the primary isolate of SIV used for challenge. Finally, we demonstrate that the extent of preservation of the CD4 memory compartment during the acute phase provides a strong predictor for subsequent progression to death. Our data provide a mechanism to explain clinical observations that acute-phase viral loads predict long-term disease progression and underscore the need for interventions that protect against early destruction of CD4 memory T cells during acute infection.

    Vaccinated macaques had a reduced loss of memory CD4 T cells as compared with sham-vaccinated monkeys. The loss of CD4 T cells had a strong negative correlation with macaque survival. I would consider these two facts strong evidence that SIV causes AIDS in macaques. Any objections?

  62. #62 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Argystokes. You are correct, I have no reason to doubt the cause of syphillis. Why would I say “To be absolutely sure any disease is a definite causative factor, it must show the same results every time. Less than that is always grounds for possible suspicion as to other causes”? Why would I use words such as “absolute” and “definite causative factor”? Figure out the answer to that and I will offer you a good paying job. If you can’t figure it out, I hope you are not working in science.

    Dear Future Legend in Your Own Mind, if you ever have someone close to you such as a lover, die. And if you believe with all of your heart that your lover died from being poisoned with toxic drugs that he was told would help him, and not from a virus, perhaps then you will understand how someone gets to be an HIV Realist/dissenter. I have experienced this with a lover.

    Or, Have some dear friends of yours disfigured for life from lipodystrophy and other side effects, due to protease inhibitors, whom prior to taking these drugs were healthy, and perhaps you will understand. I have experienced this with several of my friends.

    Or do as I did and Take in someone from off the street, whom took 5 minutes to shuffle across the street in front of your car, whom had walked out of the AIDS hostel in which he’d spent the last six years, and whom was suffering with dementia and diarrhea and swollen limbs and painful neuropathy, and was that near death grey color that one sees in those whom have already died, and that was told by his HIV physician that he would be dead in less than a year, and take this person into your home and take him completely off of the six aids drugs and 8 other drugs that his doctors had him on, and nurse and feed him back to health, and encourage him to excercise every day, and watch over him for the next year as he regains his health free of the toxic medications that he was on. And then, assist this person into having his own apartment again, and now one year and a half later, is healthier than he had been in years. Do this, and you too my shallow friend, might learn what goes into the making of what you call an AIDS DENIALIST.

    Yes Mr. wannabealegend, there is great evil in the world, and often it is us. You are correct, it will take more than lemon juice and vinegar to correct it.

  63. #63 Michael
    July 14, 2006

    Hello Argstokes. I understand how you would consider these two facts strong evidence that SIV causes AIDS in macaques. It certainly does appear to me to be such as well, although I am unable to make any definite conclusion as to whether the study was correct or not, as I do not have enough particulars about it. One can assume all is presented correctly, and one can assume there were no other conditions involved, but in reality? Well I don’t know. Did these guys have some type of agenda with the vaccine? I don’t know. Was everything correctly presented? I don’t know. Were there other factors that these guys did not even heed? I don’t know, and all any of us can do is to make a semi educated guess, although I have no problem whatsoever with your deductions or opinions one way or the other. To me a more interesting point is studies regarding chimps, not monkeys, and HIV, not SIV, as the seemingly to me at least, lacking causative pathogen, of AIDS in either species. Thanks for the posts. Michael.

  64. #64 trrll
    July 14, 2006

    At one point, I became very interested in Creationism. While not a believer myself, I had the idea that Creationists, as Darwinian skeptics, might have discovered important issues relevant to understanding evolution. But after reading a bunch of Creationist literature, I realized that there was just nothing there. Every reference they cited led to something that was misunderstood, misleading, or downright dishonest. What I ultimately realized is that Creationists were not skeptics; rather, they were incredibly credulous when it came to anything that might seem to cast doubt upon evolution.

    Evolution denialists seem mostly to be driven by fear–some of them are afraid of losing their own faith if the “evidence” that they have propped their own belief up on is taken from them. Others think that if people believe that they are descended from animals, then people will tend to behave like animals–they think that they perceive such a trend in modern culture, and they blame evolution. These are the ones who tend to lie and mislead, because they aren’t really concerned whether evolution is right or wrong–they believe, like the Bishop of Worcester’s wife, “My dear, let us hope it is not so; but if it is, let us hope that it does not become generally known.”

    HIV denial seems similarly irrational. After all, we have a virus that is correlated with the disease in man and damages immune cells in vitro, that is related to viruses that cause similar immune diseases in other species. Moreover, life expectancy of people with AIDS has increased since the development of antiviral agents targeted against HIV. Most of the other alleged “causes” of AIDS either substantially predate the epidemic or do not correlate with the disease in all populations. None correlate as well as HIV. So why are some people so desperate to deny that HIV infection is likely the dominant contributory factor toward AIDS? I think that HIV denial is mostly driven by anger. The untimely death of a loved one is very distressing. There is a lot of anger seeking an object, and it is not very satisfying to blame a virus. If AIDS is due to drug abuse or sexual promiscuity, then you can blame the drug/sex culture, or blame the victim for his own vices. If it is because of the drugs used to treat the disease, then you can blame the doctors and suspect their motives. But at least you have somebody to blame.

  65. #65 argystokes
    July 14, 2006

    You are correct, I have no reason to doubt the cause of syphillis. Why would I say “To be absolutely sure any disease is a definite causative factor, it must show the same results every time. Less than that is always grounds for possible suspicion as to other causes”? Why would I use words such as “absolute” and “definite causative factor”? Figure out the answer to that and I will offer you a good paying job. If you can’t figure it out, I hope you are not working in science.

    The first sentence contradicts the second. As for the reason you say “(blah, I’m too lazy to copy),” I would conjecture that you are saying that if infection with a pathogen always causes a particular disease then it is less likely to have a confounding factor that is associated with pathogen infection and is the real cause of disease. This objection would better be phrased as the converse, that is, “To be absolutely sure any pathogen is a definite causative factor of a disease, the pathogen must be shown to exist in diseased individuals every time.” Your quote really addresses a pathogen’s ability to cause disease, whereas the modified one above addresses what the causitive agent of disease are.

    Even if your criterion is satisfied, ie, a pathogen is shown to cause particular disease symptoms in every infected individual, one cannot necessarily say that the pathogen is the “definitive causative factor.” More than one pathogen is capable of causing the same disease symptoms. For example, infection with Plasmodium falciparum “always” causes fever, but P. falciparum is not the definitive causative factor for fever. Of course, the more specific the disease symptoms are, the more likely a pathogen that is capable of causing those disease symptoms is the definitive causitive factor. Even if I was never able to isolate P. falciparum from a patient with fevering recurring every 72 hours and severe anemia, demonstrating that P. falciparum is capable of producing those specific disease symptoms would be powerful evidence that it is the cause of malaria. But what if I could isolate this parasite in all disease cases, but not from healthy individuals? Then I would know the pathogen is associated with the disease, though I couldn’t call it the cause until I knew individuals infected with the parasite could develop the disease symptoms. All this talk, however, about uniform results seems a bit silly. Biological interactions are complex, and subject to a certain degree of unpredictability. It is more important to talk about statistical significance than 100%s, as demonstrated by my syphilis example.

    In short, your criterion for determining whether a particular pathogen is the definitive causitive agent of a disease is neither necessary nor sufficient.

    A breather (I’m not normally long-winded), and on to monkey models…

  66. #66 argystokes
    July 14, 2006

    One can assume all is presented correctly, and one can assume there were no other conditions involved, but in reality? Well I don’t know. Did these guys have some type of agenda with the vaccine? I don’t know.

    The authors have no conflicting financial interests. I assume their agenda with the vaccine is to develop one that works, for personal satisfaction, career advancement, and the betterment of humans.

    Was everything correctly presented? I don’t know.

    All the figures are graphs, and none of them are presented misleadingly (eg, using different values on axes comparing two samples). It’s presented correctly unless the authors are lying about their data.

    Were there other factors that these guys did not even heed? I don’t know, and all any of us can do is to make a semi educated guess,

    It does not say whether the animals were selected at random or not for vaccine/sham treatment (a good scientist would choose randomly). It also did not say whether the T cell counts were blinded or not. The rest of the assays didn’t seem like likely possibilities for confirmation bias. I do not know if the housing conditions for AIDS monkeys are significantly different from other lab monkeys.

    The general point being that if,
    (1) SIV causes AIDS in monkeys and
    (2) SIV is closely related to HIV by both sequence and functional analysis and
    (3) HIV infection is correlationally associated with AIDS

    we have powerful evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS in humans.

  67. #67 Michael
    July 15, 2006

    Dear Richard Auschwitz Jefferys. In a post above, you said

    “your trial study would say nothing about AIDS because most people that died from the disease…”

    Well Auschwitz boy, fact is nobody has ever died of AIDS. AIDS is a category not a disease. Everyone whom died, did so of something or some things very specific such as pneumonia or liver failure or other directly attributable cause of death. As someone whom makes their living from this, you should be the first to point this out. Unfortunately, most of the fools making their living from HIV are as ignorant as you. Perhaps bright boy, you would care to give us your definition of AIDS if it differs from the same one that I very carefully described in a post above, as a CATEGORY that one is put in when one TESTS HIV POSITIVE and has a Tcell count of less than 200, or one of 30 common diseases. What is your definition of AIDS Brightboy? Something different? Something that causes Liver Failure or Lypodystrophy or Cancer.

    And lets also remember that the CDC sent memos out to doctors in 1999 stating how people in high risk groups, whom test HIV negative, can still be diagnosed as having AIDS. So it seems Dear Tara, and Auschwitz Boy Jefferys, and Dr. Not-A-Healer Steve, that even the CDC disagrees with you that HIV and only HIV results in AIDS.

    And lets throw in a bit more mystery:
    Even the NIADS website now calls Human Herpes Virus 8, HHV8, “The Virus That Causes Kaposi’s Sarcoma”. So it seems that now we are finding out a different proclamation of truth, that the number one HIV defining disease in the US for the first 10 years of the disease, KS, Kaposi’s Sarcoma, was never, EVER actually caused by HIV, but was actually caused by a herpesvirus. But not everybody with the common HHV8 gets KS, they say, but only those whom also have other co-factors. What the f are you people, especially Mr Up-to-Date-in-all-of-the-Studies Auschwitz Boy Jefferys, doing by still calling KS a disease caused by HIV?

    When referring to anyone dying of AIDS, Mr. Auschwitz and Ms.knowitall and Dr. Brightboy, you better be telling me the exact cause of death, as AIDS is NOT A CAUSE OF DEATH, and most of the deceased died of “complications of aids” which as I also previously explained means the HIV treatment killed them, which you, Aushwitz Dude, valiantly assisted and encouraged many of them into taking.

    By the way, Ausie Mousie, a buddy of mine is going to New York soon and would like to know your address or whereabouts. I think he wants to discuss with you, one on one, some of the side effects of drugs that you promoted at a talk you gave, that his lover whom came from your area died from. Care to give me the address, so I can pass it on? Otherwise he will have to find you on his own from the post I found of where you work. Any problems with a little one on one discussion Jefferys? I don’t think he is going to hit you as long as you keep the glasses on.

  68. #68 Michael
    July 15, 2006

    Hello Argystokes. I really do appreciate your efforts and your postings. They do seem to be very well thought out, and logical and also do make allowances for not being accepted on face value alone. This shows you to be an independent thinker and one not as subject to the frailties inherent in human ego that most are subject to. I would agree with you that via the presentation it would look to be the cause. Can we deduce that it is the cause, just because the evidence is powerful? How powerful does the evidence need to be? I am unable to answer these questions.

    Would you consider Gallo’s original published study in Science magazine in 1984, published two weeks after he claimed to reporters on the White House Steps that “Boys, We found the probable cause of AIDS”, wherein he published that he had 78 total AIDS patients and only 36 percent of them testing positive to HIV, as being substantial proof of the causation of HIV to human AIDS? Would this be sufficient for you to call it the cause of AIDS?

    Should his being later found guilty of scientific misconduct for appropriating, whether by accident or intention, the previously French supplied LAV virus, and demanding that is was his own independent finding of what he called HTLV-III, should this give us a pause for thought as to whether his work should be given a higher or a lower rating for integrity and truth?

  69. #69 Chiefley
    July 15, 2006

    Oh man, I had no idea. Dr. Smith, you deserve a medal for putting up with this stuff. I withdraw any concerns I had about rebutting trolls.

  70. #70 futurelegend
    July 15, 2006

    Yes Mr. wannabealegend, there is great evil in the world, and often it is us. You are correct, it will take more than lemon juice and vinegar to correct it.

    1.) Im a Miss.

    2.) Someone doesnt know their Bowie. Track 1. ‘Diamond Dogs.’

    3.) Nice try, but you dont want to play the ‘if youve ever had’ game with me. My research involves watching children die slow, painful deaths because they dont have access to anti-retrovirals. ‘If you ever had’ to helplessly watch a 3 month old baby die, youd be working against that virus. Not contributing to a retarded (and I do mean retarded) anti-science movement that tells mothers not to take their antiretrovirals when they could prevent the death of their child. Its. Sick.
    On the other hand, Im glad your friend is doing okay. I really am. Nor am I surprised hes doing okay while hes off the meds. Now. I do not think that he will be okay in the long run, and I know anti-retrovirals wont work as well for him in the future since hes gotten of of them. But I assume he is a grown adult and capable of making his own decisions.

    I don’t know, and all any of us can do is to make a semi educated guess

    No, you can read the paper and know exactly what they did. And if you dont trust their results, you attempt to duplicate their experiment. Thats part of ‘peer review.’

    To me a more interesting point is studies regarding chimps, not monkeys, and HIV, not SIV, as the seemingly to me at least, lacking causative pathogen, of AIDS in either species.

    Again, ignoring what someone already said about the same virus having different tropisms/pathogenicities/etc in different species– Chimps get AIDS when you infect them with HIV, but they progress to HIV at a slower rate. Could be because of a family of siglecs. Could be because of APOBEC. Maybe Trim-5-alpha. But we cant have a discussion about that because you have no idea what Im talking about, but you KNOW HIV doesnt cause AIDS. This isnt strange to you?

    Kaposi’s Sarcoma, was never, EVER actually caused by HIV

    KSHV is a normally harmless virus that infects a large percentage of the population. Its only causes Kaposis Sarcoma if you are immunocompromised. Like if you get an organ transplant. Or AIDS.

    High-five to trrll! :)

  71. #71 Richard Jefferys
    July 15, 2006

    That’s the second time someone has resorted to intimations of threats and a request for a “meeting” in the few months I’ve participated in blog discussions on this topic. And that’s after studiously ignoring all the puerile, nonsensical vitriol and trying to stick to the scientific misconceptions. “some of the side effects of drugs that you promoted at a talk you gave” – where was that exactly? I think the point about people looking for someone to blame clearly has some merit. Threat away, Michael, there’s nothing that you or any of friends could do to me that would change the science.

  72. #72 argystokes
    July 15, 2006

    Can we deduce that it is the cause, just because the evidence is powerful? How powerful does the evidence need to be? I am unable to answer these questions.

    Consider the alternative, if my 3 premises are accepted (and as far as I can tell, you don’t object to any of them): Scientists identify a virus which, for various reasons, they believe to be the causative agent of AIDS, which is characterized by a severe depletion of CD4+ T Cells. Then, a virus is discovered in macaques suffering from Simian AIDS. This virus (SIV) is later shown to be capable of producing a very similar disease progression to that of humans with AIDS. Furthermore, this virus is similar to HIV structurally, functionally, and genetically. With this information alone, for HIV not to be the causative agent of AIDS, we must deduce that the scientists who identified HIV as the causative agent of AIDS got extremely lucky, and just happened to pick the one virus out of all pathogenic and nonpathogenic human viruses that is closely related to the causative agent of AIDS in monkeys. This hypothesis would run pretty far afoul of Occam’s Razor. Thus, I consider this information sufficient without even knowing the details of how HIV was first identified as causing HIV in humans for me to support treating HIV positive individuals or patients exhibiting the symptoms of AIDS with drugs that suppress HIV reproduction.

    All scientific theories are created by mounting evidence. When is the theory accepted? I suppose when the experts in the field decide it is.

    Would you consider Gallo’s original published study in Science magazine in 1984, published two weeks after he claimed to reporters on the White House Steps that “Boys, We found the probable cause of AIDS”, wherein he published that he had 78 total AIDS patients and only 36 percent of them testing positive to HIV, as being substantial proof of the causation of HIV to human AIDS? Would this be sufficient for you to call it the cause of AIDS?

    That, of course, would depend on how many non-AIDS patients out of 78 tested positive for HIV. If it were 0 or 1 or 2, then I would certainly conclude that HIV is associated with AIDS. If 20% of healthy adults were HIV positive by the same tests used on the AIDS patients, I’d be more skeptical. But association is not causation. Epidemiologically, I’d need to know how the control population compared to the cases. Significant differences in the demographics of the cases vs controls could be a problem. In terms of basic science, I’d want to know if the virus associated with the disease is likely to cause the disease symptoms. Since AIDS is characterized by depletion of CD4+ T cells, I’d need to know if the virus could infect those cells. This knowledge would override many concerns I would have with the epidemiological study design.

    Should his being later found guilty of scientific misconduct for appropriating, whether by accident or intention, the previously French supplied LAV virus, and demanding that is was his own independent finding of what he called HTLV-III, should this give us a pause for thought as to whether his work should be given a higher or a lower rating for integrity and truth?

    Yes.

  73. #73 Michael
    July 15, 2006

    Dear Wannabe,

    “Could be because of a family of siglecs. Could be because of APOBEC. Maybe Trim-5-alpha”.

    Cuhbe couldbe mebbe mebbe ain’t exactly based in solid reality either now is it? Yeh you are right it could be may be, but it could also be and may be a bazilion other things as well. And considering all of the current research on all three of the above is also very unsolidified, and every paper I have read on all of them is still full of the same coulbe mebbes, it does not count for anything except another drop in an unlimited realm of possibilities.

    It could also be mebbe that the chimp just didn’t believe the white witch doctor when he or she waved his magic hypo at the chimp and said the infamous magic incantation and chant that we have all heard and been brainwashed by a million times: “You have HIV, The Virus That Causes AIDS, You are going to die from it”.

    Also Mizzz Wannabe, show me a study that proves that mothers treated with ant-virals fared better than ones who did not, and I will show you up with a study that shows the opposite. By the way Wannabee, you can’t use the HIVNET 012 or any of the AZT trials because they changed their mind on a blind trial against placebo and only trialed for drug versus drug.

    You said “Now. I do not think that he will be okay in the long run, and I know anti-retrovirals wont work as well for him in the future since hes gotten of of them”.

    Well my GOD Mizzz Wannabee, I would hate to be your patient with your negative attitutes of hopelessness and helplessness being projected at me if I were ever to trust the likes of YOU. Maybe you need to again read the quote by Dr. Montagnier:

    “Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you suppress this psychological support by telling someone he’s condemned to die, your words alone will have condemned him”.

    Maybe you need to write it 10,000 times so you have a better chance of reflecting on it and understanding it. People with attitudes such as yours would really do the world a favor by staying away from patients.

    You said:
    “Its only causes Kaposis Sarcoma if you are immunocompromised. Like if you get an organ transplant. Or AIDS”.

    Well maybe you should join in and be the 4th volunteer for the above mentioned trial to prove the dissidents wrong. And we can stick a crack pipe in your mouth, hype you up several times a week on some meth so that you are hyped up and horny for a straight 36 hours, stick a bottle of poppers up your nose, shove some benzene lubricants where the sun don’t shine, poke you in three orifices with dung and semen from some highly promiscuous bag whores (they are people who will do any sexual act with anyone just for a bag of dope), and see to it that you have unrelenting sex involving feces by people who have nothing more than treatable syphillus, gonorrhea, chlamydia, fungal and bacterial infections, and a little flesh eating staph thrown in for good measure, for eight hour stretches, see how many links of chain you can take up the ass end, see how much of a benzene coated arm you can take for night and day for six months, see to it that your doped up body has improper sleep and nourishment, set your ass in a steamroom with 25 horny sex addicts whom are sitting around in the petri dish like filth of the hot humid steamroom full of semen and shit, and we will see if you end up immunocompromised. But no HIV positives, I promise! We will test them all with the same Oraquick rapid test that is now banned in clinics in LA, San Fran, and New York. And if you don’t believe that this kind of stuff goes on, ask anyone whom visits gay bathhouses or goes to the upcoming “Sons of Bacchus” party. What I described here is mild, child!

    And this fact presents another complete problem for any doctors or scientists in trying to understand the American HIV/AIDS model for the last 25 years, because almost no patient whom has been living the above described lifestyle is about to be honest regarding their history. It is far too shameful to discuss with anyone whom is not already familiar with it. You want to watch some interviews with people to find out how dishonest they are with their HIV docs?

    And while we are on the subject of the lack of scientific understanding, I doubt that any of you are familiar with the work of the Institute of Noetic Sciences http://www.noetic.org , begun by a NASA astronaut Edgar Mitchell of Apollo 14, after his return from a space mission during which he had an “epiphany” to explore the inner space of human consciousness, and which has now documented thousands of cases of doctor reported spontaneous healings from pretty much every disease known to mankind. But considering this just does not add up in a know-it-all type of scientific mind, such as those displayed on the Aetiology site, I am certain it is all quite beyond any of you to be interested in or capable of fathoming, let alone following any of this. Just quackery to you brilliant people.

  74. #74 Michael
    July 15, 2006

    Thanks for your comments and reflections Argystokes. I hope you can now understand why so many have been calling for a re-thinking and re-opening of the HIV=AIDS model for the past 20 years. Yes there are some whom signed the re-thinkers petition to re-open the case whom even most of the re-thinkers would prefer had not signed on. But I can understand that any or most “outside of the box” thinkers would sign on, no matter how far outside of the box some of their thinking may be. Seems to many rather intelligent people that there are far too many questions and problems that have gone unanswered on the original model foundation. Many of the mainstream models assign intelligence and a seemingly criminal mind to a very tiny set of proteins that comprise a minute retrovirus that are much smaller than that any virus. Also, I am not sure that Science done by Declaration, either on the steps of the WhiteHouse, 2 weeks before publishing any papers, or by 5000 HIV invested doctors and scientists at Durban in more recent years, is quite the way that science should be done. Science is NOT a democracy, to be declared by votes. Or is it?

  75. #75 Mark
    July 15, 2006

    Michael, just stop, ok?

    You had me at “unrelenting sex involving feces.”

  76. #76 Kristjan Wager
    July 15, 2006

    It’s also ways good to have a case study when debating a specific subject – here we are debating the boredom of debating deniers, and up shows Michael to prove the very point.

  77. #77 Michael
    July 15, 2006

    Hello Mark, and thank you, and I will take you up on your suggestion. I just want to say thanks all for listening, and one more little note to our sponsor, the lovely and even smarter than she is pretty, Tara. Hey Tara, Thanks for hearing me out. But just remember, if you are Still utterly bored with us HIV Deniers, as you like to call us, Tara, You are not nearly as bored with us and our position as we are with you and your position and lack of presenting evidence for what you claim. And any time you like, Bring it on, girl, show us the study that shows that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. Show us your “mountain of evidence”. Open up a new thread with it. Show us the paper that proves HIV causes AIDS. Bring it on girl! Show us your cards or shut up and listen up. We could have the very first ever public scientific debate on the causality of AIDS right here on your lovely little blog site! Bring it on!

  78. #78 Kristjan Wager
    July 15, 2006

    Show us the paper that proves HIV causes AIDS. Bring it on girl! Show us your cards or shut up and listen up. We could have the very first ever public scientific debate on the causality of AIDS right here on your lovely little blog site!

    Are you really this ignorant? Tara and commenters here have posted numerous links to papers that show a connetion between HIV and AIDS. There is not any “the paper“, there is a whole bunch of papers, that put together shows that HIV causes AIDS.

    And there have been plenty of scientific debates about the causality of AIDS. Both before and after the cause became known.

  79. #79 Kristjan Wager
    July 15, 2006

    This is like when Creationists demand “the evidence” for evolution. We can show them the fossil record, the evidence of evolution going on at the moment, and many other pieces of evidence, yet they keep demanding more.

  80. #80 Richard Jefferys
    July 15, 2006

    “we will see if you end up immunocompromised”

    You just can’t let got of this, it seems. But I’m afraid your assumptions about how the immune system works are incorrect. You keep repeating the denialist talking point about opportunistic infecions being common diseases even though it’s been pointed out that this is untrue. The cellular immune system is responsible for the ongoing control of multiple pathogens in every human being, and only in the unusual (at least before HIV) setting of severely depleted cellular immunity can these pathogens cause disease. Before HIV, these settings were almost exclusively limited to rare inherited immunodeficiences, people receiving potent immunosuppressive agents to prevent transplant rejection and people receiving certain immunosuppressive cancer chemotherapies. That’s why there are so few references to serious opportunistic infections in the literature prior to 1981.

  81. #81 argystokes
    July 15, 2006

    Many of the mainstream models assign intelligence and a seemingly criminal mind to a very tiny set of proteins that comprise a minute retrovirus that are much smaller than that any virus.

    Are there any specific elements of the HIV life cycle that you think have been incorrectly described? Can you cite some HIV biochemistry papers where the authors are in error? Otherwise, this is just an argument from incredulity.

  82. #82 Michael
    July 15, 2006

    Good Morning Kristjan. You wrote”

    “Tara and commenters here have posted numerous links to papers that show a connetion between HIV and AIDS”.

    Kristjan, a connection is not a causation. In your mind, which of the papers presented shows HIV to be the probable cause?

    You wrote “There is not any “the paper”, there is a whole bunch of papers, that put together shows that HIV causes AIDS”.

    This is the same argument that you AIDS creationists repeatedly make, claiming its all right here in your bible of 75,000,000 cranked out NIADS bible pages generated by some fools with an agenda that if you cut and paste parts here and there, and piece them together just right, and ignore all conflicting data, comes out with HIV as the guilty party.

    The buddha taught that doubt is the beginning of wisdom, but I don’t expect that you will be all that wise any time soon.

    You wrote “We can show them the fossil record, the evidence of evolution going on at the moment.

    But you fail to remember that just a couple of hundred years ago, the primitives used these fossil records as proof that dragons and one eyed ogres were real. Took us realists a while to set you denialists straight on that one as well. Yet, alas, there are still those that believe in dragons.

    Obviously Kristjan, you already know everything, and therefore can be taught nothing. Kristjan, you have added nothing to this discussion, and it is unfortunate that your momma never taught you to keep your trap shut unless you have something to say.

    And whack-a-mole Richard Auschwitz Jefferys just keeps on rambling about pre-81 when any imbecile could read from my third posting in this thread above how many variables changed in the 1980′s. Whack him down and he still barfs up the same incoherent nonsense over and over and over and over.

    You should all go take a look in the mirror and you will see the number one denialist whack-a-mole staring back at you eye to eye.

    Methinks all you AIDS creationists and true denialists of ‘evidence au contraire’ doth protest too much. Must be some deep seated reasons you are totally threatened by anyone exposing anything resembling truth. Perhaps it is just a fear of being wrong, again.

  83. #83 futurelegend
    July 15, 2006

    Cuhbe couldbe mebbe mebbe ain’t exactly based in solid reality either now is it?

    Sweet. Another link to Creationism. This is their ‘abiogenesis argument’

    Yeh you are right it could be may be, but it could also be and may be a bazilion other things as well. And considering all of the current research on all three of the above is also very unsolidified, and every paper I have read on all of them is still full of the same coulbe mebbes, it does not count for anything except another drop in an unlimited realm of possibilities.

    Those are the things that have been associated with the differences between HIV–>human and SIV–>primate disease progression. The Denier ‘answers’ dont answer, much less address any of that. Here is another Creationist/Denier connection: Deniers do no research of their own. They dismiss real research that supports their opponents, or distort real research to ‘prove’ their point, a la Answers in Genesis.

    Of course we still have unanswered questions about HIV. What do you think people who do research on HIV are doing? Spinning around in their desk chairs all day? We might not know everything, but Deniers know nothing, and clearly youre proud of it.

    show me a study that proves that mothers treated with ant-virals fared better than ones who did not

    **shrug** Why? Are you going to ‘read’ it? Like you ‘read’ the Padian paper? Like you ‘read’ the siglec paper?

    And we can stick a crack pipe in your mouth, hype you up several times a week on some meth so that you are hyped up and horny for a straight 36 hours, stick a bottle of poppers up your nose, shove some benzene lubricants where the sun don’t shine, poke you in three orifices with dung and semen from some highly promiscuous bag whores (they are people who will do any sexual act with anyone just for a bag of dope), and see to it that you have unrelenting sex involving feces by people who have nothing more than treatable syphillus, gonorrhea, chlamydia, fungal and bacterial infections, and a little flesh eating staph thrown in for good measure, for eight hour stretches, see how many links of chain you can take up the ass end, see how much of a benzene coated arm you can take for night and day for six months, see to it that your doped up body has improper sleep and nourishment, set your ass in a steamroom with 25 horny sex addicts whom are sitting around in the petri dish like filth of the hot humid steamroom full of semen and shit, and we will see if you end up immunocompromised. But no HIV positives, I promise! We will test them all with the same Oraquick rapid test that is now banned in clinics in LA, San Fran, and New York. And if you don’t believe that this kind of stuff goes on, ask anyone whom visits gay bathhouses or goes to the upcoming “Sons of Bacchus” party. What I described here is mild, child!

    I love Bacchus. Best character in Greek/Roman mythology.
    However, none of the infants in my study have done anything like you mentioned, yet they die of KS. There goes that hypothesis for you.

    And was that trying to ‘shock’ me? Do you think I hang out with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? Do you think everyone who is HIV+ has done those sorts of things? I thought that sort of ignorant prejudice went out with the 90s.

    explore the inner space of human consciousness, and which has now documented thousands of cases of doctor reported spontaneous healings from pretty much every disease known to mankind.

    More links to other alties– metamagical thinking, word-salads in the name of postmodernism.

  84. #84 futurelegend
    July 15, 2006

    It’s also ways good to have a case study when debating a specific subject – here we are debating the boredom of debating deniers, and up shows Michael to prove the very point.

    No kidding!

    I just want to say thanks all for listening,

    Hey Tara… Bring it on girl!

    Dear Richard Auschwitz Jefferys.

    Dear Future Legend in Your Own Mind,

    [snip of unappropriate garbage regarding Bacchus]

    Well mainly I think its just a ploy to make someone feel more important than they really are. I mean look at that wonderful ‘list’ that was posted. Nobody journalists, almost-PhDs, hypnotherapists– an easy way to get attention you dont deserve is to throw a tantrum.

    lol!

  85. #85 Wilhelm Godschalk
    July 15, 2006

    It would be less boring if they’d come up with a new argument once in a while, but they never do.

    Whaaat! You want new arguments already? And you’ve never even begun to answer the old ones in any acceptable fashion! It’s like reading virological papers of the past 20 years. The conclusions read as if the questions that were asked 20 years ago and were never answered, are the gospel truth now.

    It isn’t actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It’s boring.

    You know what’s really boring? To see you parade the old strawman of “creationists” along, time after time.
    Creationism has nothing to do with sloppy and atrocious HIV/AIDS research. And, as far as I know, there are no creationists among us Rectifiers.

  86. #86 Wilhelm Godschalk
    July 15, 2006

    My current strategy for Creationists is to argue from a theological standpoint, as a Christian.

    Tell somebody who gives a shit, Stephen. Are you sure you’re posting to the right forum? Creationists have only been brought up by Tara, our Strawman Queen. They have nothing to do with the way science has been murdered by pharma phlunkies and other incompetents. Let’s leave Theology out of it. Even though the HIV/AIDS theory is more about faith than about science.

    I first thought this thread was a total waste. Scraping the bottom of the barrel, with even a guitar eddie on board (‘t zal toch niet waar zijn?), and all the thugs from TAG.
    But thanks heaven for Michael, who did a great job of bringing on good arguments against assurances of the kind of “overwhelming evidence shows that HIV causes AIDS”.
    And Michael has done this purely out of the kindness of his heart. He owes you no arguments at all. The burden of proof is on you. Denial?? What’s there to deny? You haven’t delivered proof for anything, sad flunkies! The time draws near that the whole HIV/AIDS lie will be deposited where it belongs; in the garbage can, along with hundreds of thousands of faulty or fraudulent scientific papers. And what will happen to you? You will just be discarded by the main perpetrators, because they don’t need you any further. The big guys will go on to their next scam. Unless we get to them first. But right now, we can’t get to the Gallo’s and the Fauci’s of this world, because you’re shielding them, doing their dirty work. Like Adolf’s foot soldiers.

  87. #87 argystokes
    July 15, 2006

    And, as far as I know, there are no creationists among us Rectifiers.

    Phillip Johnson?

  88. #88 Wilhelm Godschalk
    July 15, 2006

    What drug addicts and promiscuous people don’t die of and never died of before the 1970s was critically compromised humoral immune cell function, T4 counts of zero, Kaposi sarcma, cryptococcal meningitis, pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, etc. All the meth, poppers, blood and excrement in the world does not explain that.

    WHOA, Dr. Steve! Just a damn minute now! It’s generally very hard to find something if you’re not looking for it. Before 1981 no one even thought of looking for a compromised immune cell function. Just because a scoundrel named Michael Gottlieb was into Immunology, 5 patients (of which one was already dead) were lumped together into a cohort, marked for progression to an epidemic. (NOTE: Of all abuses of Epidemiology, this is the worst I’ve come across).

    Dr. Steve, I hope you’re a practicing M.D. Because, in that case, I can keep on socking it to you with utmost pleasure.
    Cryptococcal meningitis also occurred before the AIDS madness. PCP? The patient would have been already dead before you’d even get the notion to do a bronchial lavage. All you would have done is diagnose pneumonia, after which the patient would have been stuffed with antibiotics (which he’d need like a hole in the head). And Kaposi sarcoma? Did anyone during the early eighties even realize that the gay community was abusing poppers like crazy?
    Let’s face it: The medical profession is stuck in a straitjacket named “General Medical Procedure”, which has to be followed whether it makes sense or not. If you don’t, the lawyers will get ya… But apart from that, it’s a convenient crutch to lean on. You don’t have to find out what ails the patient; just give him the standard treatment.
    And finally, I really don’t see what promiscuity has to do with death and disease. They’ve been yammering about that since Biblical times. Envy perhaps?

  89. #89 Chris Noble
    July 15, 2006

    Michale writes:

    And while we are on the subject of the lack of scientific understanding, I doubt that any of you are familiar with the work of the Institute of Noetic Sciences http://www.noetic.org , begun by a NASA astronaut Edgar Mitchell of Apollo 14, after his return from a space mission during which he had an “epiphany” to explore the inner space of human consciousness, and which has now documented thousands of cases of doctor reported spontaneous healings from pretty much every disease known to mankind.

    Well if this is your idea of science then it explains a lot.

    It is such an irony that HIV “rethinkers” claim on one hand to be defending the scientific method and on the other hand embrace pseudoscience twaddle such as faith healing, psi, homeopathy, Hulda Clark zappers.

    These people have the gall to claim that there is no evidence that HIV exists and/or causes AIDS.

    Sometimes sarcasm is the only possible response.

  90. #90 Chris Noble
    July 15, 2006

    It may also be constructive to look at what happens when a former supporter of Duesberg rethinks.

    James Scutero was a person with AIDS and the founder of misc.health.aids. He intitially questioned the relationship between HIV and AIDS but changed his mind when he started to find faults in the claims of AIDS “rethinkers”.

    The non-doctor non-reverential Michael Ellner should be familiar to everybody reading this thread.

    Michael Ellner: Your a lowlife scumbag. You deserve to die of AZT you
    prick!

    James M. Scutero: Excuse me?

    M.E.: I said you deserve to die of AZT poisoning you lowlife!

    J.S.: Why are you telling me this? [I have never taken AZT]

    M.E.: I want to talk to you in person you scumbag-eye to eye
    -man to man you little scumbag!

    J.S.: This is a helluva way of an AIDS organization to be talkin’
    to somebody.

    M.E.: I find out that your a scumbag-a total prick!

    J.S.: Why, because I don’t do what you tell me to do?

    M.E.: You can’t scare me you little prick.

    J.S.: I’ve scared bigger people than you my friend. Get off
    my property.

    M.E.: …you’ve been acting weird, maybe it’s AIDS dementia you scumbag.
    …I’ll break your legs you motherfucker. Let me catch you in the office.
    I’m going to change the locks. Let me catch you in the fucking office you
    motherfucker let’s see each other on the street and let’s see what a big
    man you are!

    J.S.: You’re threatening a person with AIDS, sir!

    M.E.: You don’t have AIDS! You’re a phony, your a fake! You
    don’t have anything. You don’t deserve a dime! You’re a liar!
    What AIDS! You’re a fake!

    J.S.: Are you a doctor or do you only dress like one?

    M.E.: I’m going to catch you in person motherfucker, let’s see
    what happens!

    10 second pause.
    Outside door opens.

    J.S.: Whoever just came in right now, call the police!

    M.E.: Fuck you, I’ll be back everyday you prick.

    J.S.: And I’ll have the police waiting for you, sir.

    M.E.: I don’t think the police will respond to scum like you.

    J.S.: Why? Get off the property and stop bothering the tenants
    in this building.

    M.E.: You made an enemy you scumbag.

    misc.health.aids

    Nothing cult-like about AIDS Denial!

  91. #91 Raphel
    July 16, 2006

    For the Bowie-expert futurelegend : I do have some questions about “if you ever had”: Very simply , what kind of research(er) ” watches children die” because of lack of antiretrovirals, or for that matter lack of anything?
    Can you cite some cases from your files, or even just give it to us off the cuff?

    And , for Argus strykes, or whatever your nommedenet, I got lost in that blizzaard of a ( admittedly well written) post, but, none the less, what is your understanding of , or even your best guess, as to what the biochemical mechanism is that enables this virus to cause AIDS?

    as Uma said to Bill: “…be nice…”

  92. #92 futurelegend
    July 16, 2006

    Raphel: Very simply , what kind of research(er) ” watches children die” because of lack of antiretrovirals, or for that matter lack of anything?

    In the third world, access to antiretrovirals is limited. And, even if antiretrovirals are available, we have to battle to get pregnant mothers to take their drugs when they need to to prevent transmission to their infants, thanks to the kind folks, like the ones you see here, who tell them that antiretrovirals will kill their baby, kill them, make them sterile, etc.

    We give them juice, we give them food, but thats about all we can do without a few billion bucks per year. Im on the basic research side of things, not treatment, but if youre interested in helping these kids and other impoverished persons get the meds they need, I can think of more than a few organizations that would appreciate your donation, if you like?

  93. #93 Edwin
    July 16, 2006

    I think you have the wrong link – ” a John Derbyshire article discussing the wearying business of aruging with creationists” links to Gilder’s wearisome creationist claptrap, not Derbyshire’s article.

  94. #94 Chris Noble
    July 16, 2006

    Eddie asks

    The thing that’s always puzzled me about deniers, particularly HIV deniers, is what the pay is off for them. What do they get out of denying that HIV causes AIDS regardless of the evidence supporting it? It’s not as if they are trying to maintain a religious belief inorder to be a functional person.

    AIDS “denial” is heterogenous.

    Some people are HIV+ and just like people with cancer they are easy prey for quacks and charlatans that either offer cures ar try to convince people that they aren’t really sick at all.

    Thabo Mbeki appears to associate Western medicine with western racism and colonialism. His disastrous battle with reality is his extension of the fight against apartheid.

    Alfred Haessig (who is on the rethinkers list) was responsible for the saftey of blood products in Switzerland during a time when many people became infected with HIV. His motivation for denial is obvious.

    Others want to think of themselves as iconoclasts. They seem to relish the role. Believing that most people in the world including scientists are stupid and/or ignorant while you and a few select others “know” the truth can be psychologically attractive.

    A number of “scientists” on the rethinkers list also offer alternative cures for AIDS (and cancer etc). Again their motivation is obvious.

    As a rule I try to avoid making any assumptions about motives and stick to the science. But of course I also wonder why people believe silly things.

  95. #95 argystokes
    July 16, 2006

    Raphel asked,

    what is your understanding of , or even your best guess, as to what the biochemical mechanism is that enables this virus to cause AIDS?

    As far as I can tell, the mechanism of CD4+ T cell destruction remains unclear. I’m really rather unqualified to evaluate competing hypotheses without doing lots of literature reading, which frankly I’d rather not do at this time. Vpr-mediated apoptosis looks like it is becoming a popular explanation for T-cell destruction, and I certainly have no reason to doubt that explanation.

  96. #96 pat
    July 16, 2006

    Chris: “Alfred Haessig (who is on the rethinkers list) was responsible for the saftey of blood products in Switzerland during a time when many people became infected with HIV. His motivation for denial is obvious”

    How does HIV survive the batching process when it is said to survive mere seconds maybe minutes outside the body?

  97. #97 Anonymous
    July 16, 2006

    Its intra-cellular in blood not extra-cellular.

  98. #98 pat
    July 16, 2006

    For Tara.
    Where can I find some info on blood collecting and storing technique? What anonymous writes is only of limited use to me. Thanx

  99. #99 Jeff Sullivan
    July 16, 2006

    Can someone, one of the doctors or scientists, explain why the common cold or influenza has not been a featured complaint of those diagnosed HIV positive?

    Why haven’t the cold and flu been on the list of 28 AIDS defining defining diseases?

    Am I to understand that cold and flu have nothing to do with the immune system?

    Also, futurelegend, you reported seeing HIV infected children die. Can you say how many, and in what country?

  100. #100 LS
    July 16, 2006

    Hi Kristjan

    That’s a lovely name. I bet you’re a minx.

    You say:

    This is like when Creationists demand “the evidence” for evolution. We can show them the fossil record, the evidence of evolution going on at the moment, and many other pieces of evidence, yet they keep demanding more.

    Which evolution are you talking about, specifically?

    The Punctuated Equlibrium evolution? The acquired genomes of Margullis, et al?

    The morphological resonance of Sheldrake?

    The unnamed impetus of Darwin?

    Survival of the fittest?

    What makes one ‘fit?’ Just the ability to fuck? And produce more than others, I suppose…

    So, Ugandese are more “fit” than Americans, as they have a stronger population growth.

    What is the impetus for evolution? Accidental gene drift? Gene-shuffling via transposable elements? Exposure to chemicals in utero (the plastic stage of existence?)

    Which theory, exactly, is exactly like the theory that you seem to think is being debated here,

    Minxily,

    Liam

  101. #101 Chris Noble
    July 16, 2006

    Jeff Sullivan writes:

    Can someone, one of the doctors or scientists, explain why the common cold or influenza has not been a featured complaint of those diagnosed HIV positive?

    The immune system has been traditionally divided into humoral and cellular components. HIV specifically depletes CD4+ cells that are just one part of cellular immunity. AIDS defining diseases are typically diseases that are normally kept under control by this particular part of the immune system

    Why haven’t the cold and flu been on the list of 28 AIDS defining defining diseases?

    People with AIDS will have an increased risk for many infectious diseases but not all of these are AIDS defining diseases. PCP is essentially only seen in cases of extreme CD4+ depletion. If you have active PCP it means that you are immune suppressed. This can be due to chemotherapy for cancer, antirejection drugs after organ transplant or HIV. If you have PCP and are not on chemotherapy or antirejection drugs then you are almost certainly HIV positive. PCP predicts a) low CD4+ counts and b) infection with HIV. It is AIDS defining. KS can occur in people with CD4 counts within the normal range but this is relatively rare. The risk of KS skyrockets as CD4+ counts go down. In the US if you have KS you are almost certainly HIV positive and immune suppressed.

    Other infectious diseases like the common cold also occur with normal CD4+ levels. It is not an AIDS defining disease. Being sick with a common cold is not predictive of CD4+ levels.

    Am I to understand that cold and flu have nothing to do with the immune system?

    No you just have a simplistic understanding of the immune system. Humoral immunity, ie antibodies, are an important component of the immune system for the control of many infectious diseases including viruses that cause the common cold and influenza.

  102. #102 Chris Noble
    July 16, 2006

    Pat asks:

    How does HIV survive the batching process when it is said to survive mere seconds maybe minutes outside the body?

    What you are referring rather loosely to is the inactivation of HIV in blood dried in air.

    This is not the case for instance in used needles where HIV can remanin viable for much longer periods of time.

    It is also not the case for the production of blood products. Even factor-VIII is a lyophilised powder. Lyophilisation is essentially freeze drying. It is used because it avoids the destruction (oxidation) caused by drying in air. Many live (attenuated) vaccines such as mumps and measles are lyophilised powders.

    It has been demonstrated that HIV can and does survive lyophilisation. An extra heat treatment step was shown to further reduce the probability of infectious HIV surviving in factor-VIII products.

    After the introduction of this heat treatment step the number of people infected with HIV through blood products has dropped to effectively zero.

    Most countries also began to screen donors for HIV. Australia even began before the US. Some countries despite knowing about the potential risks of HIV infection did not do so. Thousands of people were infected with HIV.

  103. #103 trrll
    July 16, 2006

    What makes one ‘fit?’ Just the ability to fuck? And produce more than others, I suppose…

    In evolutionary theory, “fitness” denotes a trait that causes the frequency of its associated genetic alleles to increase from generation to generation relative compared to other alleles. Ways in which a trait can enhance fitness include (but are not limited to)

    1. Enhancing survival (at least until after reproduction).
    2. Enhancing fertility.
    3. Assisting the survival or reproduction of other individuals who are likely to share the same alleles.

  104. #104 Chris Noble
    July 16, 2006

    Liam writes:

    Which evolution are you talking about, specifically?

    I shouldn’t need to point out that a common tactic of Creationists is to highlight minor differences in views about evolution (such as whether evolution has occured at a constant rate throughout the history of life on Earth or whether there have been periods of more rapid evolution and periods of relative stability) and to then imply that nothing about evolution is certain.

  105. #105 futurelegend
    July 16, 2006

    Jeff Sullivan: Also, futurelegend, you reported seeing HIV infected children die. Can you say how many, and in what country?

    1. Too many. If you want a specific number, look at the stats at http://www.unaids.org

    2. Zambia. But you can pick any country in Sub-Saharan Africa. You see the same thing everywhere.

  106. #106 Pharma Bawd
    July 16, 2006

    Looks like everyone’s moved over here for the after denial party. Good! I was out of town since friday AM so I just saw Celia and Liam’s responses.

    Celia wrote:
    “Dear Pharma Bawd:
    Most people who are honest about the matter agree that clean water, elemental nutrition, and basic health care, is a priority in most African nations–before ARVs. Why would you distort the matter so flagrantly and sarcastically as to suggest anybody thinks a reading of the Padian paper is what has been suggested.”

    Well Celia, that would be because in a blog post about philanthropic billionaires doing anything but giving ARVs out in lieu of providing the basic elements of good health, your colleague Hank has brought up the Padian study yet again and Liam has accused not only them but Tara of being a Eugenicist. Not only was Tara’s post not primarily about the well established fact that HIV causes AIDS, the condoms, birth control pills, and abortions in question were not primarily about preventing the further spread of HIV and AIDS, they were about birth control and about a collective group of idiots who were angry that someone was making those forms of birth control available to people in the developing world. So, in a world where you and yours ignorantly twist every thread Tara posts to be about you (plural) and your(plural/collective) delusions, my sarcasm is natural and I think understandable. As to “distort(ing)-ed the matter so flagrantly…” Well, if discussing the subject of the blog author’s post, or interpreting the comments in light of the topic of the main post is flagrant distortion I think you’ve illustrated once again what the problem is with the HIV/AIDS pseudo”debate”. Your side has a penchant for an inability to read with comprehension.

    As for:
    “Don’t you see how small, ugly, absurd you sound when you have to resort, time and again, to shaming, sracasm, distorting, belittling?”

    Have you read Hank, Liam, Simon, and the illustrious HIV denialist extraordinaire former editor of Biotechnology Dr. Harvey Bialy’s comments to Tara on her blog?

    Let’s just say the ugly started with you guys, the absurd has been yours from the beginning, the shame is again yours and well-deserved, the sarcasm as I said is natural, the distorting again comes from you(collective) twisting Tara’s comment threads to be about you(plural) and your (plural) fantasies. And the belittling will continue until you get a clue.

  107. #107 Kristjan Wager
    July 17, 2006

    That’s a lovely name. I bet you’re a minx.

    You know what, fuck off Liam.

    I bet I am not the only one who has noticed a pattern in the way the deniers here speak to others. They talk down to them (“Dear X”), and they differentiate in how they speak to what they percept as women and as men (notice how Michael always call men by their full name?).

    They are male-chauvanistic, patronizing shits, and we should call them on this as well as the rest of their bullshit.

    Tara has a lot more patience than I have – I would have banned this bunch of creeps a long time ago.

  108. #108 Chris Noble
    July 17, 2006

    Michael writes:

    Are you aware that Canada does not even use a T cell count in AIDS diagnosis?

    You are confusing the surveillance definition with diagnosis. Surveillance definitions are used for — surveillance.
    Surveillance definitions are not used for diagnosis!

    We resolve that the AIDS surveillance case definition has been developed for epidemiologic surveillance only and is not intended to be used to determine an individual’s disability or eligibility for social or medical benefits.

  109. #109 viji
    July 17, 2006

    Indeed Kristjan, they’ve always been rude. A simple look at the posts by Michael, Liam, Hank, and Wilhiem for example .. their writings have always been crude, insulting, demeaning, and akin the chatters of ill-mannered, frustrated ruffians, and this, I observe, is in contrast to the patience, composure, and restraint shown by Chris Noble, Richard Jeffreys, and Tara despite being hurled insults and called-names. I wonder if readers of the posts would ever see past those “intellectual” charades of the likes of Hank and co.

    and after looking through the posts, the arguments, esp those about the disbelief of HIV AIDS-aetiology, are again going in circles. The Whack-a-mole analogy is apt, as I see the incessant same old lines…. look back on the old post Wrong Again

    Well, I’ve abstained from getting involved anymore, since I think both Chris and Richard is giving adequate analysis, explainations, and response to what I feel to be blalant misinformations and twisting of facts by persons to engrossed with their denial of HIV. My whole episode at Wrong Again nearly cost me two deadlines. Persons like Hank seem to have all the time in the world.

    In any case, I think this is getting weary for Chris etc. as well, having to repeat the same explanations and questions they’ve posted many times before, and I think there is a need to tabulate all of those excellent responses into a FAQ page. For (1) the ease of new readers to refer to, and (2) to reference to the FAQ everytime the same old denial argument is posed.

    And finally to trrll, indeed, for some persons, accepting evolution might just mean losing faith, and degenerating their Belief-based ego of a human to mere lowly existance of an animal, and in the process lsogintheir humanity, of which I think religion might be great idea to hold on to… It not that people aren’t acting more animalistic nowadays .. a quick look on TV will see how sex and violence is the themes of nearly all pop and TV culture, and easy-come-easy-go relationships w/o long lasting love is the norm in Westernised societites. I have no problem accepting I am descended from an ape, since Asian beliefs I am accustomed to, Buddhism in particular, have thought me that humans have climbed a long way from thier animal origins, and that we are different because we are equipped with a thinking mind to rhyme and reason. There is a choice for us to either make use of our minds for the betterment of humanity, or else waste the mental energy on violence, insults and degenerate into the realms of incomprehensible animals…the choice is ultimately our own, and the choices we make are peppered with rewards or consequences depending on our own actions.

  110. #110 Raphael
    July 17, 2006

    2.Zambia.But you can pick any country in Sub-Saharan Africa. You see the same thing everywhere.

    No , you don’t.
    I pick Ghana, which is below the Sahel, as are its ECOWAS trading partners. Furthermore, I pick St John’s Hospital in Korfua-Nsawum as base of operation for inquiry.

    Now maybe I have blinders on , but I don’t see any AIDS, I don’t know anyone with AIDS, nor do I even know of anyone who has a family member with AIDS. I made it a point , years ago , in the 90′s when I first began to suspect something was terribly wrong with this portrait of an epidemic that had people dropping dead in the streets, to ask these questions. The answers are almost always the same. Nobody has seen anything. All is quiet on the Ghanian western Front. There are even refugee camps in the westernbore region, but there are no cases of AIDS in those camps. Yes, there are “AIDS” cases in Ghana, but they are in the hospitals at Sekundi-T and Accra, and number a very low percentage of the population, perhaps no more than major American AIDS cities like NYC, San Francisco, or LA.

    Now you mention the point , that you have to “battle” with mothers to get them to take their ARV’s, because of people…well. I suppose…people like me, although I have never been to Zambia. If you were talking about the RSA, I might believe that statement. But there is no Mbeki in the Zambia, and it is a long way from the Limpopo to the bridge at Victoria crossing the Zambezi. In the Botswana, they have ..campaigns…perhaps the wrong word, but public health ministry promotes and encourages just the opposite of what you suggest, ie they promote that women get HIV arresting drugs which they (the government), in a rather large array of venues, have made available for that purpose.What Mugabe is doing these days other than starving his people, of that I know nothing. But this much I can guarantee you, if you wish to come to Ghana with your juice and your food and your medicine’s , no one will stand in the way of you . I am the last dissident , born for cause…but the country is very large and there is room for the both of us.

    I applaud the good work you are doing, because I have heard tha Zambia is rough country , the mosquitos are very harsh there, and it is very poor. True poverty can grind down the soul. But if you are frustrated with a force you believe is working against you, perhaps you should shop around for another venue. Because it is not the same everyhwere in Africa. That much is for certain.

  111. #111 Raphael
    July 17, 2006

    2.Zambia.But you can pick any country in Sub-Saharan Africa. You see the same thing everywhere.

    No , you don’t.
    I pick Ghana, which is below the Sahel, as are its ECOWAS trading partners. Furthermore, I pick St John’s Hospital in Korfua-Nsawum as base of operation for inquiry.

    Now maybe I have blinders on , but I don’t see any AIDS, I don’t know anyone with AIDS, nor do I even know of anyone who has a family member with AIDS. I made it a point , years ago , in the 90′s when I first began to suspect something was terribly wrong with this portrait of an epidemic that had people dropping dead in the streets, to ask these questions. The answers are almost always the same. Nobody has seen anything. All is quiet on the Ghanian western Front. There are even refugee camps in the westernbore region, but there are no cases of AIDS in those camps. Yes, there are “AIDS” cases in Ghana, but they are in the hospitals at Sekundi-T and Accra, and number a very low percentage of the population, perhaps no more than major American AIDS cities like NYC, San Francisco, or LA.

    Now you mention the point , that you have to “battle” with mothers to get them to take their ARV’s, because of people…well. I suppose…people like me, although I have never been to Zambia. If you were talking about the RSA, I might believe that statement. But there is no Mbeki in the Zambia, and it is a long way from the Limpopo to the bridge at Victoria crossing the Zambezi. In the Botswana, they have ..campaigns…perhaps the wrong word, but public health ministry promotes and encourages just the opposite of what you suggest, ie they promote that women get HIV arresting drugs which they (the government), in a rather large array of venues, have made available for that purpose.What Mugabe is doing these days other than starving his people, of that I know nothing. But this much I can guarantee you, if you wish to come to Ghana with your juice and your food and your medicine’s , no one will stand in the way of you . I am the last dissident , born for cause…but the country is very large and there is more than enough room for the both of us.

    I applaud the good work you are doing, because I have heard tha Zambia is rough country , the mosquitos are very harsh there, and it is very poor. True poverty can grind down the soul. But if you are frustrated with a force you believe is working against you, perhaps you should shop around for another venue. Because it is not the same everyhwere in Africa. That much is for certain.

  112. #112 futurelegend
    July 17, 2006

    I pick Ghana.

    West Africas HIV rates are a fraction of what you see in Southern Africa– Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lestho, Swaziland, Malawi, South Africa, Namibia, etc. However, rates in West Africa have been increasing as well.

    And dont even pretend ‘Oh Deniers arent in Zambia! Mothers not taking their meds isnt our fault!’ Duesberg et tards have been killing people in South Africa for years. While at least the communitites Ive worked with support and educate pregnant women, superstitions travel fast. Especially superstitions about HIV. If Deniers were only providing nutrients/housing/etc (like they proclaim is the cause for AIDS related deaths in Africa. Except for Michael who thinks its because of crack, or something) then I would say absolutely there is enough room for everyone who wants to help. But Deniers spread bullshit that kills. No, there is not enough room for Deniers in Africa.

  113. #113 Tara C. Smith
    July 17, 2006

    I’m closing down this thread for severe violations of Godwin’s law. But nice that y’all stopped by and proved my point.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.