A reader pointed this out to me awhile back, and it’s just too absurd not to mention. You may or may not be familiar with Gary Null. He’s a self-proclaimed “natural living” guru, and the writer/director of the recent HIV denial documentary, AIDS Inc.:

AIDS, Inc. is a film about the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry, and how it profits from continuing fears and misconceptions about the disease….Could it be that after so many years of research, and so much money being spent, that the entire orthodox medical establishment has been wrong about AIDS, or even worse, has sought to profit on a system that it knew was flawed from the beginning? …The film challenges the entrenched notion that AIDS or HIV is an African monkey virus that is spread sexually and can be “treated” with harmful drugs. Instead, the film considers the common underlying conditions of the epidemic, such as malnutrition, unclean water, poverty, illness, and poor lifestyle choices.

Well, we’ve certainly seen HIV deniers advocate a number of quack cures to replace antiretroviral drugs, including megadoses of vitamins and the aforementioned potato cure, so it probably won’t come as a surprise to anyone that Null also espouses some, erm, rather “wacky” ideas regarding what makes one healthy. But some of these were new even to me; more after the jump.

Let me first note that none of these are specifically recommended for HIV. Rather, Null is anti- lots of mainstream medical science, of which HIV/AIDS is just a part. So rather than the evil drugs pushed upon unsuspecting, naive Americans, what does Null recommend for healthy living?

Magnetic pants. And magnetic bras–a bargain at only $72. If you really want to splurge, how about a king-sized magnetic mattress pad for $400 more? Or try his “new and improved!” Brainy caps, only $50 for a month’s supply. And don’t forget your pets!

Once again, I find it hard to believe the hypocrisy of HIV deniers, including Null himself, who decry the “profits” supposedly made by all these “unethical” HIV researchers, and yet go and make money off of scams like magnetic pants. Despicable.

Comments

  1. #1 ERV
    August 16, 2007

    hehehe The HIV Conspiracy theorist I ‘debated’ has $200 magic tuning forks for sale. $25 for a few ounces of magic water. $70 flu cure DAT TEH FDA TRIED TO STEALZ!

    Him: *rant about how HIV is all a money scheme*
    Me: I make $20,000 a year. How much do you make?
    Him: *silence*

  2. #2 BG
    August 16, 2007

    I’d love to hear the theory behind the magnetic pants, etc., but I don’t think I have the patience (or the stomach) to go clicking around the denialist blog underworld. Do infected cells possess some sort of magnetic quality that will allow them to be moved around, sort of like those kids’ toys with the iron filings and the magnetic pen?

    Maybe these results could be published in something peer-reviewed so we could all–oops, darn it, I keep forgetting that The Establishment has a bias. Maybe the Discovery Institute has space in an upcoming roll of toilet paper, er, Proceedings?

  3. #3 factician
    August 16, 2007

    Him: *rant about how HIV is all a money scheme*
    Me: I make $20,000 a year. How much do you make?
    Him: *silence*

    Heh. You’d be surprised how often you can end an argument that way. Most people outside science assume that scientists are well-paid elites. I stopped my conspiracy-theorist banker cousin in mid-sentence by telling her how much money I made.

  4. #4 Joe
    August 16, 2007

    Before the advent of magnetic pants, men on a combination supplement- iron plus sildenafil citrate- were embarassed by turning to face north whenever an attractive woman showed up. The pants overcome the natural magnetic field and allow such people to seem reasonably normal.

  5. #5 garx
    August 16, 2007

    I remember Gary Noll. I used to listen to his nationwide radio show years ago. I’ve always considered him to be one of the kings of pseudo-science. He’s actually a very intelligent person. It’s a shame he hasn’t put his intelligence to better use.

  6. #6 cooler
    August 16, 2007

    The biggest quack cure for hiv is AZT, prescribe a chemotherapautic drug that kills cells to treat a disease that kills cells! Makes so much sense!

  7. #7 donk
    August 16, 2007

    I am really confused. What is Noll (and all the others) trying to do? Is this a semantic problem, where people are arguing about words? Or is this people trying to say that there can be no inter-species disease transfer?

    Or, because this is now a sexually transmitted disease and one that can be transmitted maternally, that someone must have had sexual relations with a monkey or ape? Eating “bush meat” is common even in the U.S.A.

    Where it began is an interesting question and important in order to figure out how it started. How to treat the disease, and hopefully cure it is very important, and we are progressing.

    I read Noll’s web site and the only thing I can conclude is that:

    a) he’s a charlatan and is profiting on other’s suffering, or:

    b) nope, I think that a) is correct.

    Donk

  8. #8 noreen
    August 17, 2007

    Maybe some of you will think that Professor Michael Ovadia, a scientist from Tel Aviv University is a nut too. His cinnamon extract, Ovadia, which comes from coumarin and cinnamon aldehyde is being tested for the Avian flu, as an alterantive to the flu vaccine, to immunize chickens embryos against Newcastle disease virus, and in the air conditioning systems in hospitals to prevent the spread of infectious disease. He has also found positive resutls against other viruses.

    Even snake venom has anti-viral and analgesic properties and bee stings have helped many individuals. I wouldn’t be so fast to disregard something because it is natural.

  9. #9 BG
    August 17, 2007

    Noreen–

    I think you’re mixing apples and oranges here. I agree completely that many natural (i.e., plant or animal-derived) compounds hold great potential for the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases, as well as contributing to our knowledge of basic biological processes. Another good example, beyond snake and bee venom, is the recent work on cone snail toxins.

    But I hope you can see that there’s a huge gulf between heretofore undiscovered, and potentially useful, natural products and the pure garbage that’s being touted as a “cure” for HIV infection. Magnetic pants and magic water? Come on. Natural?

  10. #10 Shalini
    August 18, 2007

    Magnetic pants and woo water is certainly NOT natural.

  11. #11 Michael
    August 19, 2007

    Some reliable studies:

    New York College of Podiatric Medicine: In conducting a study of patients with heel pain, the results were negative. 19 patients wore a molded insole containing a magnetic foil, while 15 patients wore the same type of insole with no magnetic foil. In both groups the results were the same — 60 percent reported improvement. These results suggest that the magnetic foil was of no benefit.

    Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: A double-blind test that compared the effects of magnets and sham magnets on knee pain in 50 patients who had suffered from poliomyelitis. There were 29 people who received an active magnet and 21 who received the sham magnets. The 29 who were treated with the real magnets did report a greater reduction in pain. The test was not repeated, however, to show similar results.

    Fact is, exceptionally few studies have been done, so nobody, including the little miss know-it-all blog host, knows if there is ever benefit to magnets or not.

    Googling “health” and “magnets” shows about 6 million plus hits, so obviously a lot of people do seem to think, or at least believe, that they are of value for something. And perhaps some do find value and benefit, or perhaps simply placebo effect in believing in the treatment. I do not know.

    But one thing seems CERTAIN! They do not seem to be harmful.

    Now, all of the HIV drugs on the other hand…..

    Magnets do not cause Liver failure, which is the leading cause of death in HIV positives and is highly associated with the aids drugs.

    Nor do they cause any of the other effects of AIDS Drugs:

    They do not cause lipodystrophy, neuropathy, calcium loss, nutropenia, Abdominal pain,
    Altered taste, Anorexia (reduced apetite), Arthralgia (joint pain), Chills, Constipation, Depression, Diarrhea, Dizziness, Fatigue, Fevers, Headache, Insomnia (sleep problems), Malaise, Menstrual Irregularities, Myalgia (muscle pain), Nausea, Nephrolithiasis (kidney stones), Neurological Symptoms, Neuropathy (pain/tingling in arms arms/legs/hands/feet)Pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas)Paresthesia (numbness, prickling, tingling)Rash,
    Seizures,Vomiting, Anemia (low red blood/hemoglobin count), Leukopenia (low white blood cell count), Neutropenia (low neutrophil count), Thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), Elevated Alkaline Phosphatase (liver), Elevated Amylase (pancreas), Elevated Bilirubin (liver), Elevated Cholesterol, Elevated Creatinine (kidney), Elevated Liver Functions, Rash, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia, hair loss.

    Now, I know one heck of a lot of dissidents, but I don’t know any that have ever recommended magnets for opportunistic infections, so I really fail to understand why Tara feels the need to paint dissidents as if they are all promoting magnets and potatos.

    I also certainly see no reason why anyone who wishes to try magnets, or herbs, or potatos or any thing else, even including HIV drugs for their own particular ailment should be deprived or scorned for doing so, as the seemingly wicked witch of aetiology likes to arrogantly and smuggly do on a regular basis, if any should dare to believe other than her own little smug and arrogant beliefs.

    Tara, perhaps you can give us one good reason why those who wish to try magnets or potatos or herbs for some ailment they suffer from should be deprived?

    I truly fail to see why Tara has such a problem with this.

    But for your information, Tara, arrogance characterises pride. And your post is nothing if not arrogant. Pride looks down scornfully upon others.

    They say Pride goeth before the fall. So keep on a keepin on with all of your smug arrogance and scorn for others, and we will be seeing you next fall!

  12. #12 BG
    August 19, 2007

    Michael,

    Oh, please. Give it a rest, will you? “The wicked witch of aetiology”? Who’s being smug now?

    I see a huge difference between Tara’s objections and your complaints. Of course anyone is welcome to try magnets or rubbing vitamin E on their butt or burying a washcloth under a full moon and chanting the name of Snow White’s dwarfs 13 times. If device or treatment X isn’t likely to cause harm, but probably won’t help (based on an objective, scientifically rigorous analysis of how device or treatment X is likely to/not to help), then of course people should try it. They have nothing to lose. The difference between that and what you’re beefing about is that some of the alternative “therapies”–the magnetic pants, magic water, etc.–are being touted as effective by someone with a rather obvious vested interest in the device or treatment. (And before you launch into a diatribe about how this is exactly what big pharma does, the obvious response is what I said earlier–the published, peer-reviewed, rigorous scientific inquiry of those therapies is the difference between treatment that’s likely to help, even at the expense of side effects, and just plain baloney.)

    Show me the published research on magic water and I’ll zip my lip.

  13. #13 Adele
    August 19, 2007

    Michael,
    Googling “health” and “magnets” shows about 6 million plus hits, so obviously a lot of people do seem to think, or at least believe, that they are of value for something.

    Yeah googling health and cyanide has like 2,100,000 hits so obviously a third of people who like magnets also like cyanide.

    health and poison gives 2,700,000 hits so it’s not just cyanide people like for their health it’s all poisons!

    But my god if you google health and job, you find out how you can REALLY be healthy, get a job! There’s 394 million hits!

    So a job is even better for your health than Michael but I do admit he must be very healthy to because google health and Michael and you get 234 million hits, not bad Mr. Geiger!

    Denialism and Google whatta combo!

  14. #14 Dan
    August 19, 2007

    Michael,

    perhaps you want to consider not playing Tara’s game.

    She puts up these fluff “AIDS” posts in an attempt to put the dissidents on the defensive. It’s all quite propagandistic on her part.

  15. #15 cooler
    August 19, 2007

    Give one group chimpanzees magnet therapy, give another hiv, give a third group 1200 mg of AZT………………………see who lives the longest and happiest lives.

    We know HIV wont do anything, 150 chimps were injected 20 years ago, and nothing happened(one might had a low t cell count, what do you expect if you are locked in a cage for 20 years)

    I doubt magnets would hurt, that group would be fine, you’d be left with the 3rd group of chimps suffering and dying with the cell killing dna terminating chemotherapy AZT, and you call us “kool aid drinkers”

  16. #16 JP
    August 20, 2007

    We know HIV wont do anything, 150 chimps were injected 20 years ago, and nothing happened(one might had a low t cell count, what do you expect if you are locked in a cage for 20 years)

    First off, back that statement up. I don’t know of any study concerning 150 chimps injected with HIV. You cannot go around talking about alleged results at Sb without giving citations.

    Second, I would not be surprised if *Human* Immunodeficiency Virus was significantly less pathogenic in chimps. There are physiological differences between species. What matters is the effect of HIV on humans, something which has been heavily studied.

    I like to keep an open mind and consider other viewpoints. However, my support goes towards the body of research with the greatest explanatory power, and the AIDS/HIV research is quite convincing. You may disagree, but do try to restrict yourself to purely scientific debate (no ad hominems or other logical fallacies).

  17. #17 Bob
    August 20, 2007

    Quick question!! How does <4% of the US population make up 68% of HIV/AIDS cases? I mean the whole sexually transmitted, everyone at risk, viral theory of AIDS seems quite plausible to the layperson but these numbers from the CDC seem to hint more towards what was said 20 years ago– life style. This is where I’m normally directed to the epidemic in Africa. However according to UNAIDS and WHO, Africa can’t be used as a viable part of any explanation since they flat out tell you in bold their numbers are assumptions and estimates in a section duly titled “Methods and assumptions for estimates”. You’d figure with the sheer number of heteros and as much collective anal as heteros have, Oprah would have been right about 1990.

    Another puzzling tidbit I found interesting- According to the CDC, around 40,000 become HIV+ or diagnosed with AIDS (doesn’t differentiate between the 2) while some 16000 die. (suicide generally has a rate double this but that’s beside the point) Anyhow, I could not find reliable stats on HIV+ that take medication but I’ve heard around the 400,000 mark while CDC has been saying for years that 1 million are infected with HIV. So isn’t it a bit odd that 40% is the magic number in both equations? Coincidence? …or maybe I’m missing something? Maybe someone could help out. I noticed certain mathematicians are in or among discussion on this site but it doesn’t take much more than an 8th graders arithmetic to begin questioning HIV/AIDS stats. Who needs denialism when you have the CDC and UNAIDS begging the questions?

  18. #18 noreen
    August 20, 2007

    Bob, you are right. Go further and check out the top STD’s in this country, which are many thousands. AIDS does not fit the standard there either, meaning not in the sex, age group, race or locations of the country that has the most STD’s but we rethinkers are suppose to overlook this too. When things don’t add up, we ask questions, then we are ridiculed for asking poignant questions. I would love to see the statastics on those of us who don’t take the meds, it probably would be an eye-opener to some.

  19. #19 Adele
    August 20, 2007

    Bob,
    The CDC does differentiate between HIV infections and AIDS diagnoses.
    HIV infections, estimate 40,000
    AIDS diagnoses, about 45 or 46 thousand a year.

    AIDS deaths were highest in 1995, over 51,000. It went down after HAART was given to 16 or 17 thousand now. Part of that decrease is because of HAART some of it because new infections we call that incidence went down in the late eighties.

    About estimated 160,000 people were getting infected a year at the worst part of the spread around mid eighties. Incidence goes down late eighties until you have about 40,000 new infections a year now.

    I guess your question is, if 160,000 people got infected 1985 why didn’t they all die in 1995?
    First AIDS doesn’t work like a clock everybody’s immune system is different HIV can kill some people in three years, a few people might die of old age. If you say people develop AIDS x years after infection and die y years after that doesn’t mean everybody just automatically dies y years from infection.
    Second alot happened in science between 1985 and 1995 and doctors were catching HIV and AIDS sooner and looking for OIs treating them.
    Third antivirals, yes even AZT was helping until resistance, were helping people still before HAART.
    Fourth this is part of 2 and 3 people with HIV were getting better educated about the virus and disease and promoting their own health.

    So people with HIV are living longer and people with AIDS are living longer too. So fortunately you didn’t have 160,000 people dying in 1995 or whenever.

    The 40% is wrong. Does anyone know how many people take HAART? But see you don’t go on HAART as soon as you find out your positive! Alot of people with HIV don’t need to be on HAART. And also we talked about prevalence so many times. Are you really new here Bob or are you just bringing up stuff that got refuted already and you think you’ll put it in again with a new name?

  20. #20 Adele
    August 20, 2007

    Noreen,

    No one is ridiculed for asking “poignant questions”

    But sometimes people are asking a question, getting a answer with references and statistics and then a few weeks later ignoring it coming back and saying the same refuted thing again.

    We talked about your STI stuff weeks ago. I showed you how you were wrong about it. You ignored me and now your saying again HIV doesn’t spread like other STIs.

    Why not respond to those points I made? If you’re right you should have a good response.

  21. #21 Bob
    August 20, 2007

    Some how, the first question of my post got truncated.

    Quick question!! How does <4% of the US population make up 68% of HIV/AIDS cases? I mean the whole sexually transmitted, everyone at risk, viral theory of AIDS seems quite plausible to the layperson but these numbers from the CDC seem to hint more towards what was said 20 years ago– life style. This is where I’m normally directed to the epidemic in Africa. However according to UNAIDS and WHO, Africa can’t be used as a viable part of any explanation since they flat out tell you in bold their numbers are assumptions and estimates in a section duly titled “Methods and assumptions for estimates”. You’d figure with the sheer number of heteros and as much collective anal as heteros have, Oprah would have been right about 1990.

  22. #22 Bob
    August 20, 2007

    ah I think I know why now… sorry for the extras

    Quick question!! How does less than 4% of the US population make up 68% of HIV/AIDS cases? I mean the whole sexually transmitted, everyone at risk, viral theory of AIDS seems quite plausible to the layperson but these numbers from the CDC seem to hint more towards what was said 20 years ago– life style. This is where I’m normally directed to the epidemic in Africa. However according to UNAIDS and WHO, Africa can’t be used as a viable part of any explanation since they flat out tell you in bold their numbers are assumptions and estimates in a section duly titled “Methods and assumptions for estimates”. You’d figure with the sheer number of heteros and as much collective anal as heteros have, Oprah would have been right about 1990.

  23. #23 cooler
    August 20, 2007

    “However, the establishment of an animal model of AIDS by HTLV-III-LAV injection has not been successful. Gajdusek, D.C., et al., Lancet I, 1415 (1984). The chimpanzee is the only primate other than man found to be susceptible to infection by HTLV-III/LAV. However, overt AIDS manifested by the development of opportunistic infections and/or unusual malignancies has not yet been seen, despite evidence for persistent infection and/or viremia in experiments on this species. Gajdusek, D.C., et al. Lancet I, 55 (1985). Thus, the human retroviruses have not fulfilled Koch’s postulates, i.e., producing transmissible AIDS-like diseases in experimental animals”

    From Dr. Shyh Ching lo’s work (Cheif of the armed forces of pathology”, no chimp has died of aids after 20 years………hundreds infected

    You should see the film hiv fact or fraud to see duesbergs and his collegues problems with the hiv hypothesis,
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5064591712431946916

    Dr. shyh ching Lo md Phd had serious doubts about the hiv hypothesis as well, he discovered a microbe called mycoplasma incognitus that is being found by pcr in CFS/aids gulf war illness, unlike hiv, this microbe killed every animal injected.

    http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/1990/ATN09501.html

  24. #24 Adele
    August 20, 2007

    Glad you figured out the HTML. Don’t use arrows unless your doing html commands or things get cut.

    Sounds like you were watching too much Oprah or been reading to many denialist books!

    “less than four percent of the population”? What are you talking about? “68 percent of HIV/AIDS cases” What? Obviously what you’re saying Bob is AIDS is a “gay disease”. Not so cool.

    Also not true. Less than half of new AIDS cases every year are from male to male sexual contact. Not 68%.

    Look at it another way. 100% of people have mothers and 100% of AIDS patients have mothers. So 100% of the population provides 100% of AIDS cases. Or another way, if 0.5% of the population has HIV so 0.5% of the population contributes 100% of AIDS deaths.

    Play with the numbers to your antigay hearts content Bob, people are still getting HIV and dying of AIDS some of them gay some of them hetero.

  25. #25 Adele
    August 20, 2007

    cooler would you mind giving us the link one more time? I didn’t think there was anything to it but now you’ve said it three hundred times so you must be right.

    Did you know the secret Zionist conspiracy, I’m a part of it thanks thats how i know! held its yearly meeting in Shanksville pennsylvania exactly 666 days before 911 and planted all that evidence?

    Your a trip cooler!

  26. #26 cooler
    August 20, 2007

    JP asked for it, evidence that hiv didnt induce disease in animals, I gave it to him, and for a good review of what dissidents have to say.

    Please stop lying and saying youre a PCR tech with a Masters, you post on this site 24/7, youre a laughing stock, go out and do something contsructive, instead of pretending to be a scientist.

  27. #27 Adele
    August 20, 2007

    Noreen,

    Since you said again after I corrected you, HIV is not sexually transmitted, I guess you didn’t get to read my comments on the Introduction thread. Hhere is what I said before,

    What’s your basis when you say 40,000 is too low for a std? Every std has a different transmission chance. Gonorrhea is high. Maybe more than 50% chance for one sex act. There’s estimated 800,000 infections, USA, every year.

    Do you know how much syphilis there is? 70,000 new infections in USA last year. Syphilis is less infectious than gonorrhea maybe a 5 percent chance per act?? but its more than HIV except sometimes when someone has a very high HIV viral load like acute phase. Then syphilis and HIV can be similar and its true alot of people are infected by someone in acute phase.

    So,
    800,000 gonorrhea
    70,000 syphilis
    40,000 HIV

    It’s interesting these numbers correspond so nice with the diseases’ average transmission chances. And also interesting HIV is down this far from alot higher in the eighties (160,000 pre year) because of education and treatment.

    HIV is different from gonorrhea because its not always AS infectious but that doesn’t mean its NOT infectious.

  28. #28 noreen
    August 20, 2007

    Adele, maybe you should check out the CDC’s STd stats. First, most STD are in the 14 to 24 years olds, this does not hold up to AIDS. Secondly, most STD’s are in the south, there too the top ten locations in the states are not predominantly in the south, Third, most of the AIDS case are in the male population but most STD’s are in the female population. Let us not forget Dr. Padian who could not find ONE conversion to HIV Positive.

  29. #29 Robster, FCD
    August 20, 2007

    Cooler,

    Give one group chimpanzees magnet therapy, give another hiv, give a third group 1200 mg of AZT………………………see who lives the longest and happiest lives.

    First, pick a virus appropriate for the host species. SIV strains can cause AIDS like immunodefficiency, if they cross species boundaries (important detail, I’ll get back to it). So use SIVagm (African Green Monkey strain) in Rhesus Macaques.

    Next up, pick an appropriate dose of a drug for the host species. You can’t just pick a human dose and assume it doesn’t need to be adjusted for the animal model. It takes time and experience to come up with a workable experimental design, which is why you can’t just toss some random variables together and assume that the setup will work.

    As for magnet therapy… There is no scientific mechanism as to why they would do anything health wise. Magnets are neat, they have some useful properties and applications, but they aren’t magic. Quite simply, without a reasonable justification as to why magnets might possibly be useful, your experiment is a waste of research primates and research funds.
    ———-

    Why is it important that SIV strains can cause AIDS like syndromes in different species of primates naive to the virus? Because we are a different species from chimpanzees. SIVcpz (from chimpanzees) is the SIV most closely related to HIV-1, while SIVsm (from Sooty Mangabeys) is most closely related to HIV-2. Since the current hypothesis on the origin of HIV-1 and HIV-2 is that it crossed the species boundary during bush meat butchering, it is new to humans and can cause AIDS in the new species (us).

    This doesn’t always work. Sometimes the new species has some resistance factor, and the virus has trouble taking hold. In the case of HIV-1, there is enough difference between humans and chimps that most chimps are resistant to the worst that the infection has to offer. Likely, at some point over the millions of years since human and chimp lineages split, chimps either developed, or we lost, the important resistance factor.

    Chimpanzees are resistant to their own virus, but we aren’t. Give us a few hundred generations, and our uncommon resistance factors may become the norm and HIV-1 and 2 won’t be a threat to humans. Perhaps our new SIV, call it SIVhs for Homo sapiens, will be a serious infection for chimpanzees but not humans.

  30. #30 Adele
    August 20, 2007

    Noreen you said,
    First, most STD are in the 14 to 24 years olds, this does not hold up to AIDS

    “Most” is two thirds. That’s true. But it doesn’t mean all STDs are in that group or no STDS are more in other groups. Highest syphilis cases for example are in 30-40 year olds.

    Secondly, most STD’s are in the south, there too the top ten locations in the states are not predominantly in the south,

    STDS are where people are. HIV is where people are! Eastern seaboard, south, west coast, chicago area.

    Third, most of the AIDS case are in the male population but most STD’s are in the female population.

    Right from the CDC, syphilis cases is highest in 30-40 year old men.

    Let us not forget Dr. Padian who could not find ONE conversion to HIV Positive.

    Dr. Padian’s found alot of conversion in her career, in one study where the GOAL was preventing transmission she was successful and there weren’t transmissions in her group.

  31. #31 Dan
    August 20, 2007

    Dr. Padian’s found alot of conversion in her career, in one study where the GOAL was preventing transmission she was successful and there weren’t transmissions in her group.

    Pew! Jeanne, you’re quite the turd polisher!

    So Padian found a lot of conversion in her career? Is this some sort of joke? It must be, because it made me laugh. Nancy’s good for that.

    So, Padian’s “goal” was preventing transmission? Yes, somehow she did an extraordinary job at that in her study, because there were no “seroconversions”…whether condoms were used or not. Got to wonder what she did to prevent “transmission” when condoms weren’t used. Let’s ponder that. Or not, as it’s entirely absurd.

    I think you need a little more coffee this morning, Jeanne, Adele, whoever. You need to grease the propaganda wheels a bit better than this one. If I’m laughing, you’re not doing so well.

  32. #32 Adele
    August 20, 2007

    Got to wonder what she did to prevent “transmission” when condoms weren’t used. Let’s ponder that. Or not, as it’s entirely absurd.

    Condoms were used and their use increased over time. and significantly. Here’s what Padian said Significant behavior change over time in serodiscordant couples was observed.

  33. #33 Dan
    August 20, 2007

    Keep polishing, Adele.

  34. #34 Dan
    August 20, 2007

    Poor Nancy.

    Never sure how to feel about her dilemma.

    If she had any integrity, she’d be a dissident.

    Perhaps the power of the AIDS establishment is just too strong for her to resist.

    Is she a victim? A sellout? A pawn? We may never know.

  35. #35 Dan
    August 20, 2007

    Give one group chimpanzees magnet therapy, give another hiv, give a third group 1200 mg of AZT………………………see who lives the longest and happiest lives.

    Robster spends how many paragraphs avoiding the simple point Cooler was trying to make? A point even a third-grader would understand.

    The simple point that Cooler was trying to make (I believe) is that the AZT therapy is more harmful than magnet therapy or infection with an allegedly pathological retrovirus. Am I correct, Cooler?

  36. #36 Adele
    August 20, 2007

    Not sure how to feel about Nancy Padian?

    Maybe you should try reading one or two of her papers. She’s got more than a hundred on HIV transmission.

    If you don’t like Nancy Padian and I know its fun to pretend you know people youve never met then I say, read a paper by someone else who study transmission.

    Again and again on here there’s comments about scientists by people who never read their papers. Yes you know exactly what Amy Justice says and exactly what Anna Coutsoudis discovers and exactly what Nancy Padian thinks. And then it turns out you never read one of Justice’s papers or Coutsoudis papers or even one Padian paper. And of course you never met these people or know anything about them.

  37. #37 Dan
    August 20, 2007

    She’s got more than a hundred on HIV transmission.

    That’s just super!

    Got to keep busy, I suppose. I noticed a few healthy gay men in the Castro last week. I wonder if their health is a direct result of her studies.

    God bless her for her efforts to save humanity from a fearsome retrovirus, or something.

  38. #38 Bob
    August 20, 2007

    Bob, The CDC does differentiate between HIV infections and AIDS diagnoses. HIV infections, estimate 40,000 AIDS diagnoses, about 45 or 46 thousand a year.

    NO it does not. One of us is ocularly challenged. I’ll help other posters distinguish which one of us it is.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm

    “In 2005, 37,331 cases of HIV/AIDS in adults, adolescents, and children were diagnosed in the 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting”

    “*The term HIV/AIDS refers to 3 categories of diagnoses *****collectively*****: (1) a diagnosis of HIV infection (not AIDS), (2) a diagnosis of HIV infection with a later diagnosis of AIDS, and (3) concurrent diagnoses of HIV infection and AIDS.” [emphasis mine]

    AIDS deaths were highest in 1995, over 51,000. It went down after HAART was given to 16 or 17 thousand now. Part of that decrease is because of HAART some of it because new infections we call that incidence went down in the late eighties.

    My question was about the relationship between the 2005 CDC report of 37,331 cases of HIV/AIDS and 16,316 deaths compared to the total vs. anecdotal reports of people who took medication. Please cite the reference to the number that took medication. I want to see a number correlation with your claim.

    About estimated 160,000 people were getting infected a year at the worst part of the spread around mid eighties. Incidence goes down late eighties until you have about 40,000 new infections a year now.

    Another tidbit NOT relevant to my questions. But, How exactly to you suppose the incidence rate went down?

    I guess your question is, if 160,000 people got infected 1985 why didn’t they all die in 1995?

    You guessed incorrect. Dont EVER take words out of my mouth then answer with your holier than thou attitude. Id slap you in real life.

    So people with HIV are living longer and people with AIDS are living longer too. So fortunately you didn’t have 160,000 people dying in 1995 or whenever. The 40% is wrong. Does anyone know how many people take HAART? But see you don’t go on HAART as soon as you find out your positive! Alot of people with HIV don’t need to be on HAART. And also we talked about prevalence so many times.

    If you would have read my question, you would have CLEARLY seen the part where I stated “I could not find reliable stats on HIV+ that take medication”. What part of this did you ignore or flat out fail to read???? I do NOT care how many times you have discussed a certain topic. This is my first time asking and you WILL respect it as such or you’re simply dismissed as a flame baiting troll.

    Are you really new here Bob or are you just bringing up stuff that got refuted already and you think you’ll put it in again with a new name?

    Yes I am a new poster here. However I have read over discussions before. How stuck up your own ass are you exactly? I mean you are seriously one stuck up person. With your condescending attitude, it wouldn’t matter who I said I was or how genuine I actually am. Of course I can give my cell# if you wish further evidence. Who did you think was where you obviously thought I had been refuted? Who the fuck do you even think you are to have any authority to question my identity?

    Glad you figured out the HTML. Don’t use arrows unless your doing html commands or things get cut.

    Glad you troll long enough to know that this is only a problem on this site. Most any other site recognizes open tags and do not cut half a post.

    Sounds like you were watching too much Oprah or been reading to many denialist books!

    No it didnt. Sounds like you like to talk out of your ass and love the vibration. I have never watched a full episode of Oprah nor have I ever read any books on HIV/AIDS. Its common knowledge however that Oprah said- By 1990 one in five heterosexuals will be dead of AIDS. Your ignorance is no excuse though. You need a lesson in manners and humility. I’m sure you are fond of the anonymity the
    net offers. I promise you wouldnt speak to me in person like this.

    “less than four percent of the population”? What are you talking about? “68 percent of HIV/AIDS cases” What? Obviously what you’re saying Bob is AIDS is a “gay disease”. Not so cool.

    I didnt say this- this is what I came up with from the CDC stats. Homosexuals account for 2-3% of the population according to what I’ve read and possibly upwards of 10% according to Kinsey. IV drug users account for less than 1%. You can pick you own stats but the population of homosexuals + IV drug users does NOT exceed 12% of the US population no matter how you wanna spin it. If you know of a reputable source for the homosexual and IV population, I’d like to see it.

    Less than half of new AIDS cases every year are from male to male sexual contact. Not 68%.

    Where did you get your numbers? I got mine from the 2005 stats on the CDC.

    Look at it another way. 100% of people have mothers and 100% of AIDS patients have mothers. So 100% of the population provides 100% of AIDS cases. Or another way, if 0.5% of the population has HIV so 0.5% of the population contributes 100% of AIDS deaths.

    I do not need your ignorant, irrelevant analogy. Thanks though!

    Play with the numbers to your antigay hearts content Bob, people are still getting HIV and dying of AIDS some of them gay some of them hetero.

    Ad hominem. You know this word so well I’m sure. But, heres how I “played” with the numbers. Unless you have death certificates, you have no idea how anyone died other than to spout off what stats someone told you. According to the CDC, 37,331 were living with HIV/AIDS per CDC definition. As the pie chart shows: 67% of males (27,455) were homosexual, 13% were IV drug users, another 5% was homo+IV drugs. Of females, 15% were IV drugs. Now 67% of 27,455 males is 18,395. 13% is 3,569. 5% is 1372. Now 19% of the 9,708 women are IV drugs which is 1845. So counting up all homosexuals and IV drug users, you get a grand total of 25,181. Can you guess what % 25,181 is of 37,331 reported cases is? Heres some help since Im not so sure you can pull it off without help

    http://www.math.com/everyone/calculators/calc_source/percent.htm

    Now PLEASE tell me how this is anti-gay for pointing out numbers on the CDC website?

    Might wanna stay off your steed of yours… for it ran you into a tree.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm

  39. #39 cooler
    August 20, 2007

    You are absolutely correct Dan, magnets wont kill/harm you like the dna chain terminating cell killing drug AZT would, and that hiv acts as the harmless passenger virus it probably is in chimps.

    people should read http://www.projectdaylily.com/

    to find out about the mycoplasma biowarfare program, now this microbe kills every animal injected.

  40. #40 Robster, FCD
    August 20, 2007

    Dan,

    Robster spends how many paragraphs avoiding the simple point Cooler was trying to make?

    The point was based on bad reasoning, ignorance of experimental design, and is a meaningless rhetorical dichotomy. Sorry you couldn’t follow my response.

    Cooler has constantly been harping on how chimpanzees almost never get AIDS from HIV. HIV-1 rarely has serious effects on chimps because it evolved in chimps, and chimps evolved to resist it. If this concept was so easy to get, it wouldn’t be such a sticking point for him. Hell, I had to do some reading on SIV before I knew it, or I would have pointed it out earlier.

    And how dare you suggest that cooler is only on a third grade level. I have it from good sources that he got his GED, and is happily living in his mom’s basement. (I kid, I kid)

    The simple point that cooler was trying to make (I believe) is that the AZT therapy is more harmful than magnet therapy or infection with an allegedly pathological retrovirus.

    Cooler wholeheartedly believes that the experiments that he comes up with are valid and would work with no changes. He gets credit for trying, at least. The problem is that magnets will have no side effects compared with any drug, but no positive effects either.

    Do the experiment in an appropriate animal model under appropriate circumstances, and the results can easily be predicted.

    We know that Rhesus Macaques develop an AIDS like syndrome when infected with SIVsm. The infected macaques treated with anti retrovirals (ARV) (AZT or others) will survive longer than the untreated or magnet treated animals.

    We know from the scientific literature, regardless of how often it is denied, that HIV+ people statistically live longer when they receive ARVs. Yes, there are LTNP people, often with known genetic resistance markers. Since magnets are no better than any other kind of magic trinket, they will do no harm, but no good either.

    All drugs have side effects and toxicities. ARVs have side effects, but they extend life for people with AIDS.

  41. #41 ElkMountainMan
    August 20, 2007

    Bob,

    You are partially correct, of course, in the sense that you have successfully pulled some numbers from the CDC website.

    Adele is also correct, as you may have noticed had you examined the CDC information more closely. I get the sense that she was referring to the CDC estimates for the entire United States, not just the 33 states covered by the estimates you presented.

    When the CDC refers to “HIV/AIDS,” this is not a confusion of the former with the latter. You may consider this to be a strange term, and I might even agree with you on that, since AIDS by definition involves HIV. However, mere use of the term “HIV/AIDS” does not change the fact that the CDC does keep separate statistics on new HIV infections and new AIDS cases.

    Exactly what proportion of AIDS cases are found in the gay community or among IDU depends greatly upon the time period one choses for examination. For example, should we include all AIDS cases from the beginning of the pandemic, we would get a very different answer than if we viewed only cases newly diagnosed in the last year. While HIV in the United States was first found predominantly among homosexual males and IDU (or, to use your words, “homo + IV drugs”), HIV has since moved into other segments of society…until, as another commenter correctly noted, fewer than half of the newly-diagnosed AIDS cases in 2005 were in MSM.

    HIV in the United States began its spread in a relatively small portion of the population. With each passing year, that initial compartmentalization becomes less stark and will eventually resemble the distribution found in some geographically distinct areas. If this somehow implies that HIV does not exist, or that HIV does not cause AIDS, I would be grateful for any enlightenment as to how this is so, Bob.

  42. #42 Dan
    August 20, 2007

    Robster,

    please…

    Cooler confirmed that he was only trying to make a simple point. You can either agree with it or disagree. But, you choose to run with it, turning it into something extraordinarily complex just to avoid the simple fact that AZT probably isn’t the best thing to put inside a body.

  43. #43 Bob
    August 20, 2007

    ElkMountainMan, what part of “2005″ and “CDC” statistics did you miss??? Heres the link incase you missed it.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm

    “The term HIV/AIDS refers to 3 categories of diagnoses collectively: (1) a diagnosis of HIV infection (not AIDS), (2) a diagnosis of HIV infection with a later diagnosis of AIDS, and (3) concurrent diagnoses of HIV infection and AIDS”

    Reread if if you didnt understand the first time. I could have a transcontinental trip, if I were to attach some of you to a car, the way some of you spin (or atleast in a circle).

    Now for the “homo” thing, lets drop the PC’ness here and now because I give a handfull of shit about how one interprets that. We both know “homo” mean same. Adele already tried to paint me a gay hater when I said nothing of the sort. What ever works though huh? I mean gosh, the CDC has FUCKIN PIE CHARTS that show God or nature one- hate gays, blacks, and junkies(lesbians are OK though). Either the CDC charts ar misleading (which someone should have pointed out why the charts are an error) or I did infact read them correctly. Either way the CDC looks bad.

    I really dont understand it sites attitude. Some hold like a personal vendetta to destroy the dissident movement. Whats the point??? Most every layperson is oblivious to anything except what they were taught in 6th grade sex ed.
    Anyhow, you should jump on the opportunity to hopefully correct someones misintepretation if infact they have been misguided. You do NOT get that here. You can’t ask a question without the condescending attitude and labeled a gay bashing troll. This isnt about whos right or wrong though– its a pissing contest between 2 sides of the scientific debate. Of course the orthodox wont even aknowledge its a “scientific” debate– but a quite few sure do spend an awful lot of time an energy thwarting the dissident opposition.

    So since the CDC page is inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise misinterpreted, someone please direct me to the statistics that show whats really going on.

  44. #44 Bob
    August 20, 2007

    I couldnt help but reread the CDC and I was wondering exactly what the other 17 states numbers would yield, had they been collected.

    “CDC has estimated that approximately 40,000 persons in the United States become infected with HIV each year.”

    So is the aforementioned sentence fair to say or can I not read or what? Where are the real numbers I need to review instead? Do you need a special decorder ring or join some club on here? I mean seriously, if I cant go to the CDC website for clear, accurate information, you think IM going to believe any of you? Get real.

  45. #45 Chris Noble
    August 20, 2007

    Quick question!! How does less than 4% of the US population make up 68% of HIV/AIDS cases?

    The simple answer is that, despite the fantasies of Duesberg, STIs do not spread randomly.

    Sexual networks are not random at all.

    If you really are curious then you should look at the statistics for syphilis for the same year.

    2003 Syphilis Surveillance Annual Report

    The male-to-female ratio for syphilis is 5.2:1 which is higher than the 2.7:1 for HIV. If you look at the individual states then you can see that San Francisco had a male-to-female ratio for syphilis of 106:1.

    STIs do not spread randomly.

  46. #46 franklin
    August 20, 2007

    Bob,

    You suggested that either you or Adele is ocularly challenged:

    Bob, The CDC does differentiate between HIV infections and AIDS diagnoses. HIV infections, estimate 40,000 AIDS diagnoses, about 45 or 46 thousand a year.

    NO it does not. One of us is ocularly challenged. I’ll help other posters distinguish which one of us it is.

    And to help us distinguish which of you is “ocularly challenged”, you directed us to a CDC fact sheet: A Glance at the HIV/AIDS Epidemic, from which you quoted:

    “In 2005, 37,331 cases of HIV/AIDS in adults, adolescents, and children were diagnosed in the 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting”

    “*The term HIV/AIDS refers to 3 categories of diagnoses *****collectively*****: (1) a diagnosis of HIV infection (not AIDS), (2) a diagnosis of HIV infection with a later diagnosis of AIDS, and (3) concurrent diagnoses of HIV infection and AIDS.” [emphasis Bob's]

    Well, I’ve gone through a lot of the HIV/AIDS statistical pages at the CDC Web site, and I’m not sure that either of you is “ocularly challenged”. Rather, it seems that either, like Dr. Maniotis, you “really don’t understand what is going on,” or (also like Dr. Maniotis) you simply choose to take information out of context and hope no one notices.

    The Fact Sheet to which you directed us is divided into two parts. The first (from which you quoted) is subtitled “HIV/AIDS Diagnoses,” and presents statistics on cases of HIV infection whether or not the patients have progressed to AIDS.

    The second part (which you ignored) is subtitled “TRENDS IN AIDS DIAGNOSES AND DEATHS,” and presents statistics limited to cases of AIDS, not simply HIV infection.

    So even in the very web page to which you directed our attention, the CDC differentiates between HIV infection and AIDS diagnoses.

    In typical Denialist fashion, you pick a quote out of context that you believe supports your argument, but you make no effort to understand the data being presented, and seem to hope that no one else will actually read the source that you cite.

    Perhaps if you start at the beginning, the CDC HIV/AIDS page called “Basic Statistics.”

    Among other things, this page defines the some of the terms used in the other statistical postings (including the fact sheet from which you quoted):

    Definitions

    AIDS: This refers to persons diagnosed with AIDS, based on the CDC definition in adults and adolescents and children.

    HIV/AIDS: This refers to cases of HIV infection, regardless whether they have progressed to AIDS from the 37 areas (33 states and 4 U.S. dependent areas) that have had confidential name-based HIV infection reporting long enough to monitor trends. These 33 states represent approximately 63% of the epidemic in the United States.

    It seems the Maniotis Mantra applies to more than one of the Denialists:

    I really don’t understand what is going on.
    Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D. July 6, 2007

  47. #47 Robster, FCD
    August 20, 2007

    Dan,

    Cooler confirmed that he was only trying to make a simple point.

    A point based in ignorance and wrapped in a logical fallacy. Not worth that much, really.

    You can either agree with it or disagree.

    So the range of opinions I can have is determined by you? For any drug, there are desirable effects and undesirable effects. This was never considered within cooler’s false dichotomy.

    But, you choose to run with it, turning it into something extraordinarily complex just to avoid the simple fact that AZT probably isn’t the best thing to put inside a body.

    Again, sorry you couldn’t follow it, but biology and experimental design are often very complex.

    For example, your statement that “AZT probably isn’t the best thing to put inside a body” appears simple, except when you consider the exceptions. First, for the HIV- majority, the side effects outweigh the positives (zero, as they lack the condition AZT is indicated for). Second, for HIV+ people with AIDS, while solo AZT is better than no treatment, combination treatments are available with much better positive effect/ side effect profiles.

    So we come down to two groups. Group one, HIV- or HIV+ pre AIDS, AZT is not needed, so it isn’t “the best thing to put inside a body.” Group two, HIV+ with AIDS, there are better treatments available now, so again, AZT isn’t “the best thing to put inside a body.”

    However, for a period of time during the 80s, AZT was the best ARV available. AZT was the best thing to “put inside” the bodies of a limited patient population.

    Is AZT going to be in the next batch of multivitamins? Of course not, but since magnets have no effects, positive or otherwise, they have no use as a medication whatsoever.

    AZT isn’t the best thing to “put inside” a body, except when it was for some.

  48. #48 Chris Noble
    August 21, 2007

    Quick question!! How does less than 4% of the US population make up 68% of HIV/AIDS cases?

    Ever heard of the 20/80 rule?

    It’s a small world, after all

  49. #49 Bob
    August 21, 2007

    On the surface, your argument seems plausible but I have little faith in comparing such low overall prevalence.

    “The overall increase in primary and secondary (P&S)syphilis cases during 2000-2005 was observed primarily among men. During 2004-2005, P&S syphilis reported to CDC increased among men (from 6,722 to 7,383 cases) and women (from 1,255 to 1,339 cases).”

    For the sake of every produce section in American grocery stores, lets keep the apples with the apples shall we? At least, lets compare it with other sexually transmitted viral infections. Or do they not illustrate your argument very well?

    Heres what the CDC says about HSV-2-

    “Herpes is more common in women than men, infecting approximately one out of four women, versus one out of five men. This difference in gender may be because male-to-female transmission is more efficient than transmission from females to males.”

    heres what is says about HPV-

    “Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV. At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year.”

    I understand how sexual networking would play a role in any STI but what can we conclude by comparing syphilis to HIV to HSV to HPV? Well that a number of different opinions an observations can be drawn depending on point of view. I fail to see exactly how this explains why HIV is still viewed as a gay disease among the general population. Chris, can you imagine if you suddenly became the new host of Family Feud and ask 100 people “What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you hear HIV or AIDS?” What will the survey say? You know the answers to this and the CDC numbers only confirm it. Dr Bob on the Body tried to tell me that there were epidemiological, biological, and social reason why HIV looks like a gay disease. He didnt actually tell me the reasons though. Id like to understand why HSV and HPV behave similar as viral infection among the general population where HIV, as you say, looks more like syphilis.

  50. #50 noreen
    August 21, 2007

    In the Eureka Alert, Tara has stated that we denialists are dangerous and misinformation may lead to serious consequences, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/plos-hds081707.php

    I find this statement ridiculous because if she really felt this way, then she would stop posting all of her threads about HIV, which she creates in the first place. She won’t because she knows that her audience would stop if she did. She also failed to tell that many DO NOT take the meds or why we don’t believe that the mainstream is right. Maybe, we should stop posting and then see how well her blog does.

  51. #51 CARTER
    August 21, 2007

    Tara is moderating posts, thusly I’ve stopped posting here.

  52. #52 Adele
    August 21, 2007

    Bob I’m sorry if you are not a homophobe and I called you one. It’s just that, usually when you see someone trying to “blame the victim” that persons also a religious conservative or another kind of conservative or even a “liberal” homophobe. When the first thing you say on here is HIV is a gay disease what am I supposed to think?

    I can also say sorry if I’m too arrogant. Maybe I am. Just that, the last few weeks it’s like everything I read on here from people like Noreen and Julianna KEnny and Carter and Dairn Brown is wrong. And if I correct it they just ignore it don’t even bother to dfend themself. Just one exeption, Noreen finally admitted Bill Clinton didn’t pardon Bob Gallo. A good start one out of a hundred isn’t bad for denialists.

    So when you Bob showed up with your stats and your questions like you never been here before I thought you were wrong too. And like Elkman said you weren’t really wrong about some of it. But I wasn’t wrong either you were looking at the “at a Glance” page. I was looking at the full report see TAble 3
    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2005report/table3.htm

    Where their giving AIDS not HIV/AIDS estimates for 2005. I thought too you were talking about only gay men since you didn’t specify and ive heard bigger percentages for total gay population than 4. So for gay people yes its under 50% of new AIDS cases if your saying gay people and injecting drug users then its closer to your number.

    You can also find statistics and information at avert dot org.

    But anyway i won’t argue anymore about if gay people are 3 or 5 percent of the population or if homosexuals and IDU are 68% or 66% or whatever of new AIDS cases.

    I just want to ask what’s your point? What if one percent of the population gives 70% of AIDS cases? What does that mean to you Bob?

  53. #53 Adele
    August 21, 2007

    Tara is moderating posts, thusly I’ve stopped posting here. says carter two minutes before he says something on the other thread.

    Maybe, we should stop posting and then see how well her blog does. says Noreen when she calls Tara hypacrite.

    Before you go noreen please please help me out with something if you can.

    You said HIV couldn’t be a STD because 40,000 new infections a year is too low for STD. Then you said it couldn’t be a STD because AIDS cases are more in men than women.

    But that’s just like syphilis! So do you say syphilis doesn’t exist either and its not a STD? If not why do you say HIV isn’t a STD and doesn’t cause AIDS? I want to understand this and how your thinking about it.

  54. #54 Dave S.
    August 21, 2007

    I find this statement ridiculous because if she really felt this way, then she would stop posting all of her threads about HIV, which she creates in the first place.

    Better to shine the light on the ignorance of darkness than to ignore it.

    She won’t because she knows that her audience would stop if she did. She also failed to tell that many DO NOT take the meds or why we don’t believe that the mainstream is right. Maybe, we should stop posting and then see how well her blog does.

    I think you’re badly mistaken in assuming she’s after mere raw numbers. No-one is stopping you from leaving as far as I can tell. By all means, there’s the door, go for it. I’ve read this blog from its inception on Day 1 (when denialism posts were few and far between), and it was perfectly pleasant informative and well hit place then as now, occasional rantings of denialists aside.

    It’s no Pharyngula I’m sure, but then again, few blogs are.

  55. #55 Dan
    August 21, 2007

    Before you go noreen please please help me out with something if you can.

    Such a “sincere”, impassioned plea.

    You’re utterly transparent, Jeanne, Adele, whoever.

    So is Tara and her goon squad of AIDS propagandists.

  56. #56 Adele
    August 21, 2007

    No Dan I am sincere I want to know how can Noreen see stuff like this so selectively. Does syphilis exist does it cause disease or does only HIV get disqualified as a STD in her thinking?

    And if you wanna talk about goon squads maybe you should talk to your friend Michael who said he might want to to slit Franklins throat and he hoped someone in Franklins family got AIDS or talk to this new gal or guy here, Bob, who says Id slap you in real life and then
    You need a lesson in manners and humility. I’m sure you are fond of the anonymity the net offers. I promise you wouldnt speak to me in person like this and curses me out.

    I can’t remember last time there was this kinda poor behavior threats of violence really goonish stuff from anyone except the denialists here.

    If you have something intelligent to say DAn please say it but if not theres alot of places better than a science blog you can be sarcastic and talk about “turd polishing” and things.

  57. #57 Dan
    August 21, 2007

    If you have something intelligent to say DAn please say it but if not theres alot of places better than a science blog you can be sarcastic and talk about “turd polishing” and things.

    Adele-Jeanne,
    this is hardly a “science blog”. It’s Tara’s AIDS propaganda blog, peppered with a few respectable non-AIDS articles to give the appearance of something other than an AIDS propaganda blog.

    You, Tara, Chris, and your lovely friends are here to at least try and prop up the fatally-flawed HIV/AIDS hypothesis. It requires much turd-polishing. I can think of no better crew for that task.

  58. #58 Dale
    August 21, 2007

    to at least try and prop up the fatally-flawed HIV/AIDS hypothesis. For a hypothesis that you consider to be ‘fatally-flawed’ Dan, HIV/AIDS seems to keep right on ticking. Unlike, I might note, the dissidents efforts that make some kind of spastic movement every now and again only to sputter and disappear. Would that HIV /AIDS, the disease, would behave less like the former and more like the latter.

  59. #59 Adele
    August 21, 2007

    Of course its a science blog Dan unfortunately in this thread its mainly denialists telling lies and then people like me using science to prove their wrong. Its not always just science that’s true, sometimes its just basic facts like how much an AIDS counseler and how much a South Africa teacher makes. The constant thing is, the AIDS denialists are wrong about everything they say AIDS related science related or other things.

    You could help keep this on track Dan by telling us why the “hypothesis” is fatally flawed and giving some references for what your saying. But you like insulting people more don’t you and calling me “Jeanne”. I am not Jeanne, Jeanne has been here before and she uses her own name.

  60. #60 Dan
    August 21, 2007

    Would that HIV /AIDS, the disease…

    First, Dale, HIV/AIDS isn’t a disease.

    Second, the reason your beloved HIV/AIDS keeps “ticking” is through fear and ignorance. Get rid of these factors, and there will be no more “HIV/AIDS”. But you already knew that.

  61. #61 Dan
    August 21, 2007

    I am not Jeanne, Jeanne has been here before and she uses her own name.

    Sorry, “Adele”,

    your writing styles are quite similar.

  62. #62 Dan
    August 21, 2007

    Of course its a science blog Dan unfortunately in this thread its mainly denialists telling lies and then people like me using science to prove their wrong

    You’re making me laugh again, Adele.

    To be less funny, when you say you’re using science, please put quotation marks around the word.

  63. #63 Adele
    August 21, 2007

    fear and ignorance. Get rid of these factors, and there will be no more “HIV/AIDS”.

    Kinda like Caspar Schmidt said about the “group fantasy” of AIDS. Anyone know how Dr. Schmidt died? Of AIDS. If anyone could of seen through the fear and ignorance it was Dr. Schmidt because he wrote the book about it. Sadly its a virus causing immunodeficiency and making you a target for OIs, not fear and ignorance and fantasy and so sadly Dr. Schmidt died. You can’t kill a virus with your mind.

    Oh anyone know what list of “dissidents” still has Dr. Schmidt on it like he’s still one of that “growing group of scientists”? Why that charming little list of students and a few senile archconservative mds that Carter’s always going on about. Fifteen years later and still not over 2500 yet even with all the dead people!

  64. #64 Adele
    August 21, 2007

    But I have to say thanks Dan because no body ever said before I have a “writing style”! Thanks! Still hope for me maybe!

  65. #65 Tara Smith
    August 21, 2007

    Three quick comments, while I’m on break from a day-long faculty meeting.

    One, I’m not moderating comments, nor have I ever on here, as all the denialist comments still standing should attest to. The only comments I’ve ever unpublished have been a few of the worst ones from Michael Geiger, and I alerted him to this fact when I did so (this was perhaps a year ago).

    Two, Noreen says comments in my recent paper are “ridiculous” and if I felt that way (that HIV denial is dangerous), I wouldn’t post on AIDS. I find this a bit ridiculous itself. First, I post on AIDS to get accurate, scientifically-based information out there. Second, I allow comments because these denialist ideas are out there all over the internet anyway (as I address in my manuscript), and at least here, they can be countered by people with an understanding of HIV/AIDS, and honestly, most of the time they simply show how weak your case is and allow y’all to hang yourselves with your own ropes.

    Third, as far as traffic, my posts with the highest amount of traffic so far haven’t had anything to do with HIV/AIDS, so I think you give yourselves too much credit. Yes, you may be responsible for the majority of comments, but not the majority of hits, so stay or go, it’s all the same to me. Indeed, many people get incredibly bored of all of these long comment threads, including myself, so much so that I took a bit of a hiatus earlier this year from posting frequently on HIV. Of course, don’t let the facts get in your way…I know you certainly don’t with regard to the science.

  66. #66 Dale
    August 21, 2007

    Second, the reason your beloved HIV/AIDS keeps “ticking” is through fear and ignorance. Get rid of these factors, and there will be no more “HIV/AIDS”.

    Hardly ‘beloved’. But it keeps ticking because people keep getting infected and getting sick and many of them are still dying. Refusing to believe that HIV exists or that there is a disease “AIDS” that is caused by infection with HIV doesn’t change that no matter how much you would like it to.

  67. #67 carter
    August 21, 2007

    No, it keeps on ticking because of your marketing of the phoney balony tests based on fear. Add that to the death hex and low and behold and another phoney baloney epidemic!

  68. #68 Adele
    August 21, 2007

    Ok I’ll repeat it. Fear doesn’t cause AIDS. If it did Dr. Caspar Schmidt would still be alive and well today because he saw threw it and saw how AIDS was just a “group fantasy”. So why did he die of AIDS?

    Why did so many other people on that list with Dr. Schmidt that list you like so much carter die of AIDS when they didn’t believe in it?

  69. #69 Dan
    August 21, 2007

    Dale,

    I think you need to brush up on your terminology and learn the difference between disease and syndrome.

    Jeanne, dearheart,

    Caspar-whoever…dead or alive. It doesn’t matter, sweetlumps. You and your AIDS propagandist friends have nothing but a mountain of bad science to stand on. And by god, you will stand on it!

    In a macabre way, you remind about the story of two boys, one an optimist and the other a pessimist (you’re the “optimist” in this story). You probably know how it goes. Anyway, the “optimist” was given a pile of manure. Rather than be sad or upset, he’s certain that there must be a pony that comes with it! You’re certainly as optimistic about the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Much like John Moore, as was recently shown on NAR when Mr. Moore wrote the word “hope” in relation to HIV’s pathogenicity. That one little honest “slip” communicated a great deal of information. Sounds like John’s the boy with the manure as well.

  70. #70 Chris Noble
    August 21, 2007

    Carter, ignorance is not bliss.
    People infeceted with HIV progress to AIDS whether they know they are infected or not.

    HIV positive patients first presenting with an AIDS defining illness: characteristics and survival

    Between January 1991 and December 1993, 97 out of 436 patients (22%) presented with their first AIDS defining illness coincident with their first positive result of an HIV test (group B).

    Ignorance did not save the people who did not know they were HIV+.

  71. #71 Bob
    August 21, 2007

    Well franky, Why would you put the blame on me for misquoting the site we have “In 2005, 37,331 cases of HIV/AIDS in adults” (in 33 states of course) then we have 40,608 AIDS diagnoses while 16318 died. Now you can spin it how you want but the CDC lumps HIV/AIDS together in one number then separates them in another. Lets read it again

    * In 2005, 37,331 cases of *HIV/AIDS* in adults, adolescents, and children were diagnosed in the 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting
    *The term HIV/AIDS refers to 3 categories of diagnoses collectively: (1) a diagnosis of HIV infection (not AIDS), (2) a diagnosis of HIV infection with a later diagnosis of AIDS, and (3) concurrent diagnoses of HIV infection and AIDS.

    So, whos really to blame here? Should it have read “in 2005, 37,331 cases of — HIV — in adults, adolescents, and children were diagnosed…” That seems to be the point of confusion. This also begs the question of when the 40k AIDS diagnoses/year will hit a plateau in total cases since the ratio of new cases vs death is 2.5:1.

    Bob I’m sorry if you are not a homophobe and I called you one. It’s just that, usually when you see someone trying to “blame the victim” that persons also a religious conservative or another kind of conservative or even a “liberal” homophobe. When the first thing you say on here is HIV is a gay disease what am I supposed to think?

    I dont give a shit what you or anyone thinks about my position or social identity. This isnt important nor relevant. Please dont resort to name calling to discredit me when I simply pointed out, in my opinion, what the CDC pie chart shows.

    I can also say sorry if I’m too arrogant. Maybe I am. Just that, the last few weeks it’s like everything I read on here from people like Noreen and Julianna KEnny and Carter and Dairn Brown is wrong. And if I correct it they just ignore it don’t even bother to dfend themself. Just one exeption, Noreen finally admitted Bill Clinton didn’t pardon Bob Gallo. A good start one out of a hundred isn’t bad for denialists.

    I am not any of these people. Extend the common courtesy to others If you wish to have them take you seriously no matter how right you believe you are. You hurt yourself in the long run. No one wants to listen to assholes and bitches no matter how pertinent or correct you ideals may be. I can speak from my own personal experience here.

    So when you Bob showed up with your stats and your questions like you never been here before I thought you were wrong too. And like Elkman said you weren’t really wrong about some of it. But I wasn’t wrong either you were looking at the “at a Glance” page.

    Look my point of my question that got turned into shit was simply about *my* interpretation of the pie chart. The pie chart does in fact show homosexual + IV drug users to be a huge chunk of the HIV pie while a huge minority in the general population. I didnt read a book by some “denialist” or visit a website. This is coming from a true scientific layperson with a very capable and inquisitive mind.

    Where their giving AIDS not HIV/AIDS estimates for 2005. I thought too you were talking about only gay men since you didn’t specify and ive heard bigger percentages for total gay population than 4. So for gay people yes its under 50% of new AIDS cases if your saying gay people and injecting drug users then its closer to your number.

    I already mentioned I didnt have solid numbers but please cite your source. Of the several I saw on the net, I wasnt sold on validity. The first thing that pops up in search is http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php but I’m not so sure about the credibility of that site either.

    I just want to ask what’s your point? What if one percent of the population gives 70% of AIDS cases? What does that mean to you Bob?

    Depends on how you define what 1% of a whole defines. If its general population, that could mean or be anything or nothing at all. If its 1% of a specific group, then id be alarmed. If 1% of the general population got extreme diarrhea, I wouldnt look much in it. Now if that 1% all happen to be NASCAR fans, thats a bit more interesting. Isnt this exactly what aetiology and epidemiology are all about? We can question worm holes and quantum physics but it seems HIV is a no no huh?

  72. #72 Dan
    August 21, 2007

    Tara said, “Since there are already several threads on HIV running, and I’m loathe to have another…

    Um. Sure. Entirely believable.

    Ugh. So transparent, Tara.

  73. #73 Dale
    August 21, 2007

    I think you need to brush up on your terminology and learn the difference between disease and syndrome.

    Might I suggest you do the same,Dan.

  74. #74 Tara C. Smith
    August 21, 2007

    No one’s forcing you to participate, Dan.

  75. #75 murison
    August 22, 2007

    My, my. This certainly stirred up a hornets’ nest. Tara’s post makes decent sense to me, but then I belong to the reality-based community so go figure. Anyway, I wanted to thank Tara and Steven Novella for publishing in the open-source PLoS Medicine. My workplace, being an institution whose job is astronomy not medicine, does not purchase access to the medical journals, so PLoS is a wonderful thing for folks like me.

  76. #76 factician
    August 22, 2007

    Congrats on the PLoS paper, Tara.

  77. #77 noreen
    August 22, 2007

    Bob, you will find on this site that when you bring up things that don’t agree with their theories, you will be attacked. In regards to defending myself, there isn’t any need to as some folks only want to argue and attack me. I have the best point because I had AIDS, while most only read about it so in reality what do they really know about it? It doesn’t sit well with their theories that people can survive AIDS without antiretrovirals, yet it is being done by many. I will post my lab results every few months to continue to show that it can be done. Quite frankly, all of this is futile and I have better things to do, to live life!

  78. #78 Adele
    August 22, 2007

    Bob,

    The CDCs estimates of new infections with HIV, about 40,000, are seperate from their estimates of new diagnoses of HIV infection with or without AIDS they lump into “HIV/AIDS”.

    The “HIV/AIDS” numbers. They’re from actual reported cases to the CDC from those 33 states for 2005. They get adjusted for reporting delays and stuff but it’s not a big change but thats why its called an estimate. For the HIV reports in these numbers from these 33 states they’re positive confirmed test results but the infection could of happened anytime. 1985 1995 2005 anywhere inbetween.

    That’s why the 40,000 estimate is totally seperate, its just for estimated infections happpened in 2005.

    AIDS numbers the ones I gave before are partly based on the HIV/AIDS numbers and they get adjusted too and to cover the whole country they’res some range here and you can find about 41000 from the full CDC report and the table I linked yesterday up to I think 46000 or 47000 in 2005 from avert or the kaiser family foundation website.

    Maybe an epidemiology person can correct me here but I think the new infection numbers are probably least solid you can’t really know how many new infections unless you test everyone in the whole country Dec 31 one year and Dec 31 the next year. There’s enough tests and other data you can estimate OK but the answer depends on your model.

    Where with the HIV/AIDS or the AIDS estimates you’re using reports and you know when they come in.

    Bob more personal, I apologized to you for what I said before and now your still calling me a bitch and asshole. That’s ok you are angry for reasons probably some of them I don’t know anything about. I explained you why at first I thought you were just another conservative denialist whose trying to say HIV is just a gay disease and I apologized for that. Again I’m sorry. You have to remember you came on here the other day and gave a few opinions about HIV being a gay disease and antiretrovirals killing all AIDS patients. remember that “coincidence” you said about. And the data your basing this stuff on like the “cDC says 1 million” and the Oprah quote from 1987, this is stuff you find on racist, homophobic conservative websites or from denialist books.

    Bob I know believe me its hard to get over that conservative upbringing and the stuff that gets stuffed into your head, you’re getting there like when you gave that “traditional values” website but you said you’re not sure about its cred. damn right its not credible! I hope you keep thinking for yourself and asking questions and I’m glad to help with my little bit of knowledge on this and hopfully less arrogance than I gave you these last days.

  79. #79 carter
    August 22, 2007

    Oh My Stars!… Chris..”HIV positive patients first presenting with an AIDS defining illness: characteristics and survival”

    What A crock that is.. Lets say I came back from my vacation in Panama, show up at the hospital and have Malaria (a single disease) and just so happens elevated antibodies to many non specific antigens, I’m then labled, OH MY GOD, AIDS! Yikes! Now I’m a statistic, another cause for your camp’s bogus theories, all substantiated by a fraudulant HIV test and all those good intentioned Docs wanting to treat me for AIDS. This is pure unadulterated insanity. Studies like that purly goes to show what a wack job you guys are promoting.

  80. #80 Adele
    August 22, 2007

    What the hell johann is a “non specific antigen” there’s can be non specific antibodies but hows a antigen non specific?

    How do you talk about how accurate a test is if you don’t even know what a antigen and antibody is?

  81. #81 factician
    August 22, 2007

    carter,

    Methinks you don’t understand how the HIV test works. Merely elevating the antibodies in your blood won’t result in a positive HIV test. ELISA tests are highly specific (particularly ones that have been standardized to the degree that the HIV tests have been). Western blots (which are done as a confirmation) are also very specific. You can easily detect (specifically) picomolar concentrations of protein using a Western blot, and if you’re using a standardized setup (like for HIV) you can easily detect even lower concentrations of HIV antigens. Specifically. (I.e. you can dope in all the other antigens you want, and it won’t mess up the test).

  82. #82 Dan
    August 22, 2007

    ELISA tests are highly specific (particularly ones that have been standardized to the degree that the HIV tests have been

    …And here’s your proof that this is actually an AIDS propaganda blog.

    From the Abbott Labs 2006 HIV ELISA test insert:

    At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.

    No standard.

    No standard, but the masses are expected to just shut up and take it. Trust the brave, bold scientists and their standardless “tests”. Go ahead, folks. It’s up to you.

  83. #83 carter
    August 22, 2007

    Factician: Me thinks you’ve been dupped into the group trance! Please just repeat to your self over and over every day when you wake up and got to bed, “HIV=AIDS / HIV=AIDS………

  84. #84 carter
    August 22, 2007

    And Adele thinks Johann and I are the same person. That just further goes to prove her mental instability.

  85. #85 Adele
    August 22, 2007

    Come on Johann Carter and Dan, where’s your facts your reasoning this is a science blog. and no johann HIV does not equal AIDS HIV causes AIDS finally in most people with HIV infection. It doesn’t equal AIDS.

    “No standard” is right. No standard. Not “no way”

    There’s also no standard for how you should comment on a science blog obviously.

    There’s no standard for how to make coffee.

    There’s no standard for how to make a new PCR assay for measuring a gene.

    Doesn’t mean you can’t comment on a science blog even if you don’t know HIV from AIDS like Johann Carter, or make coffee or measure a gene with PCR. It just means there’s no standard like no world court of smart people with authority who pass a decree, here’s how everyone has to make coffe here’s how everyone does PCR from now on.

    If you kept on reading in that label Dan you would find out even though there’s no “recognized” standard there’s a bunch of standards and the Abbott people describe the ones they use.

    Their test is specific and sensitive like the other fifteen or twenty out there. You don’t have to believe it but your gonna have to come up with something better than a sentence you didn’t understand in the label if you wanta convince someone else except your friend Johann who pretends he’s a USA taxpayer.

  86. #86 Dan
    August 22, 2007

    If you kept on reading in that label Dan you would find out even though there’s no “recognized” standard there’s a bunch of standards and the Abbott people describe the ones they use.

    Jeanne…
    and so the turd-polishing begins.

    No standard means no standard. It’s oh, so simple.

    Look, Jeanne. If you think standardless “tests” are a good way to go about diagnosing people for something, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

  87. #87 Adele
    August 22, 2007

    And Adele thinks Johann and I are the same person. That just further goes to prove her mental instability.

    Does it?

    Yesterday you wrote,
    What’s this? “secret reservoir”? What next? Harry Potter in there somewhere?

    Johann a few days ago at a denialism cult page wrote
    “What next? Harry Potter in there somewhere?”

    Just a coincedence carter? MAybe but that phrase just like that, on HIV isn’t any where in the internet.

    So you are Johann or you are just copying from him which is it?

  88. #88 Seth Manapio
    August 22, 2007

    The thing is, if you read a site like “Alive & Well”, these guys make a compelling case for the lack of a connection between HIV & AIDS. For example, they make much of the fact that HIV is not cytoxic.

    In fact, all evidence to date conclusively demonstrates that HIV — like all retroviruses — is not cytotoxic.

    It isn’t until you get to the FAQ section that I can find absolute untruths. The claim that “no drug studies since the AZT trials in the mid-1980s have attempted to compare the outcomes of matched groups of HIV positives not on AIDS meds with those taking AIDS treatment.” is absolutely false, there have been monotherapy trials of AIDS drugs.

    But still. Its hard to sort through all the information.

  89. #89 Adele
    August 22, 2007

    these guys make a compelling case for the lack of a connection between HIV & AIDS. For example, they make much of the fact that HIV is not cytoxic.

    Fact? HIV kills lots of CD4+ cells actually most sometimes at mucosal surfaces like in the gut in days or weeks of infection. Directly or indirectly HIV is cytotoxic.

  90. #90 Chris Noble
    August 22, 2007

    From the Abbott Labs 2006 HIV ELISA test insert:

    This test was approved for use in 1985. At that time there was no standard.

    If you actually read the labels from these tests you would see the evidence that these tests are highly sensitive and specific.

    Contrary to Denialist mythology they have to prove that non-specific antibodies and other conditions do not cause false positives.

  91. #91 Chris Noble
    August 22, 2007

    What A crock that is.. Lets say I came back from my vacation in Panama, show up at the hospital and have Malaria (a single disease) and just so happens elevated antibodies to many non specific antigens, I’m then labled, OH MY GOD, AIDS! Yikes! Now I’m a statistic, another cause for your camp’s bogus theories, all substantiated by a fraudulant HIV test and all those good intentioned Docs wanting to treat me for AIDS. This is pure unadulterated insanity. Studies like that purly goes to show what a wack job you guys are promoting.

    Read the paper before you open your mouth.
    The most common AIDS defining illnesses in these late presenters were PCP (38%) and KS (21%). Both of these conditions were extremely rare before AIDS and both indicate severe immune suppression. The median CD4 count in the late presenters was 58. They were severely imunnodeficient.

    They were also infected with HIV. Not knowing that they were infected did not help them. They still ended up in hospital with life threatening opportunistic infections and extremely low CD4 counts.

    Banning HIV tests will not solve anything. Ignorance does not help.

  92. #92 carter
    August 22, 2007

    So Chris tell me what this means please. From their conclusions in this study, “The finding that presentation with an AIDS defining illness coincident with a positive result in an HIV test did not have a detrimental effect on survival gives insights into the effects of medical intervention on disease progression after a diagnosis of AIDS.”

    So then what the hells the difference? Did not have a detrimental effect? What’s that about? That study doesn’t prove anything, just more pomp and circumstance.

    Furthermore their results say, “The survival of patients in group B after the onset of AIDS was significantly longer than that of patients in group A..” So what you’re calling out here is the fact that when someone all of a sudden gets an illness in that orthodox classic “AIDS definition” without succumbing to an HIV test previously, one survives longer? Opps… “significantly longer?”

    Then of course presumably the 22% coincident group B, was put on HARRT or the equivalent thereafter. After 14 years since this study, where’s the follow up study showing out of 436 patients, how many died from liver failure? How many stopped their meds and are living in health? Where Chris? Can you point this out to me?
    Or better yet……
    Why don’t you go to your witches brew and find some more convoluted concoctions to spew about?

  93. #93 Seth Manapio
    August 22, 2007

    “Fact? HIV kills lots of CD4+ cells actually most sometimes at mucosal surfaces like in the gut in days or weeks of infection. Directly or indirectly HIV is cytotoxic.”

    ————-

    I’m using fact loosely. In context, a fact is something that I can’t disprove within 5 minutes on PubMed. Something like a Petri dish study showing that HIV kills cells is harder to come by than a placebo controlled monotherapy study.

    I’m sortof trying to point out a systemic problem… sciency sounding information, like the HIV denial movement, presents as if it were real science unless you have specific reasons to call bullshit: such as recognizing blatant lies or inconsistencies.

  94. #94 Chris Noble
    August 22, 2007

    Furthermore their results say, “The survival of patients in group B after the onset of AIDS was significantly longer than that of patients in group A..” So what you’re calling out here is the fact that when someone all of a sudden gets an illness in that orthodox classic “AIDS definition” without succumbing to an HIV test previously, one survives longer? Opps… “significantly longer?”

    If you had read the study you would have found that ART and prophylaxis for PCP etc delayed the occurence of AIDS defining illnesses but that once you had an AIDS defining illness the disease had progressed further. This was supported by the higher incidence of wasting syndrome, cryptosporidiosis, and cytomegalovirus infection that are only seen in the most severe immune deficiency.

    Your comments are all a vain attempt to avoid the implications of the paper. People progress to AIDS whether they know they are infected or not.

    We already know from the early 1980s that once you come down with PCP, KS etc. with a CD4 count of 50 that survival is poor. In the early 1980s people died very quickly despite treatments for the opportunistic infections. You can’t deny this (never say never).

  95. #95 Robert Gallo
    August 22, 2007

    “Something like a Petri dish study showing that HIV kills cells is harder to come by than a placebo controlled monotherapy study.”

    Hey! Careful there Seth. What are you? Some kinda damn traitor to the cause?

    You could easily be lumped in as just another dirtbag denialist for making a statement like that! Even if its true, cause I might end up having to testify in court that you, sir, are a damn liar! Now listen to me good. Read my lips: “HIV kills like a Mack Truck”. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again! “Like a Mack truck” you punk.

    We’ve spent billions trying to get you bums to believe this, so don’t blow it for us now.

    And don’t nobody ask Adele to back her statement of cytotoxic HIV up with a cite. Just repeat after me: “kills like a Mack truck”.

    And Seth, we are all still trying to forget that you had to go and blabber that the only placebo monotherapy study ever done on AIDS drugs since AZT was only for a couple of days. We are keeping our eyes on you boy. So quit bringing it up and sssssshhhhhhhhhh and be quiet about this stuff! Its our little secret. OK Sethy? Understand? Or else.

  96. #96 Bob
    August 23, 2007

    Bob more personal, I apologized to you for what I said before and now your still calling me a bitch and asshole.

    I did not call you either a bitch nor asshole. I made the general statement that bithces and assholes arent well received no matter how right he or she may be. Your misinterpretation isnt my problem and Id appreciate you not twisting it back at me. Your apology is hollow when you have a history of doing this to EVERYONE you do not agree with.

    That’s ok you are angry for reasons probably some of them I don’t know anything about.

    What the fuck are you talking about? Did the high horse you ride tell you to say this? You dont even know me to tell me what Im “angry” about let alone hypothesize for unknown reasons. If Im “angry” at anything, its your condescending attitude regardless of content– but I do not keep this a secret.

    I explained you why at first I thought you were just another conservative denialist whose trying to say HIV is just a gay disease and I apologized for that.

    No. I do not buy this. Your typical response to anyone that doesnt align with you is the same although you have the luxury of customized name calling, fit to order.

    Again I’m sorry. You have to remember you came on here the other day and gave a few opinions about HIV being a gay disease and antiretrovirals killing all AIDS patients.

    No I didn’t. I pointed out what my conclusion of what the pie charts indicate- nothing more, nothing less. I never said anything about ARVs “killing all AIDS patients”. This is of your own invention. I did inquire about the connection between the the new infections/year to deaths vs total prevalence to the number of anectdotal reports of patients who take meds.

    And the data your basing this stuff on like the “cDC says 1 million”

    The CDC does infact say “1 million” Actually the CDC says “At the end of 2003, an estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 persons in the United States were living with HIV/AIDS” Im sure Frank will point out out I misquoted or interpreted the CDC though.

    and the Oprah quote from 1987, this is stuff you find on racist, homophobic conservative websites or from denialist books.

    You really seem to think I’ve read some book to draw my conclusion. I’m sorry to inform you that your assumption is incorrect. Now who exactly gave Oprah the impression that 1 in 5 would die by 1990? Im sure most would agree that Oprah is generally well informed about much going on about many of her topics. Who fed her this line of shit? We now know it was a line a shit because it obviously didnt happen. As far as what source reminds us of this line of shit is irrelevant, beit homophobic conservatives or dissidents, its still a line a shit.

    Bob I know believe me its hard to get over that conservative upbringing and the stuff that gets stuffed into your head, you’re getting there like when you gave that “traditional values” website but you said you’re not sure about its cred.

    Right. That site happen to be first result when “statistics on homosexual population” is entered into a search engine and not necessarily my particular endorsement. I could have as easily used Kinsey (of roughly 10%) to illustrate the same point that a small number is responsible for a large one.

  97. #97 carter
    August 23, 2007

    “HIV kills like a Mack Truck”? Well, only in your book of dreams, Sir.

    I’ve often wondered how much money was given to Judge Sulan to go on that wonderful long vacation before he gave his verdict? Mind sharing?

  98. #98 Dan
    August 23, 2007

    Chris,

    You did notice that that quote was from the Abbott Labs 2006 HIV ELISA, correct?

    There was no standard in 1985, and there’s no standard in 2006 (see insert). I know this little fact sticks in your AIDS propagandist craw, but facts have a way of doing that.

  99. #99 Mack Truck
    August 23, 2007

    Furthermore their results say, “The survival of patients in group B after the onset of AIDS was significantly longer than that of patients in group A..” So what you’re calling out here is the fact that when someone all of a sudden gets an illness in that orthodox classic “AIDS definition” without succumbing to an HIV test previously, one survives longer? Opps… “significantly longer?” (Bob)

    If you had read the study you would have found that ART and prophylaxis for PCP etc delayed the occurence of AIDS defining illnesses but that once you had an AIDS defining illness the disease had progressed further. This was supported by the higher incidence of wasting syndrome, cryptosporidiosis, and cytomegalovirus infection that are only seen in the most severe immune deficiency.

    Which disease had progressed further, defined by what marker?

    Of course prophylaxis will seem to delay the onset of a specific infection, but how do you know the drugs delayed the onset of AIDS defining illnesses and subsequent death compared to no drugs? Did you fly back in your time capsule 8-10-15 years to determine the exact moment of infection for the late presenters?

    By the way, I thought you said patients were only put on ARVs once they’d reached “advanced stage AIDS”. Or does that only go for Ascher’s bogus study and the AZT poisoned haemophiliacs?

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/09/the_mathematics.html

  100. #100 Mack Truck
    August 23, 2007

    Second part of the italicized quote above is from the inimitable Chris Noble.

  101. #101 factician
    August 23, 2007

    At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.

    From the great Princess Bride: “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    Are you being intentionally obtuse? There is no standard for detecting the proteins that I work with in the lab, either. There are several different antibodies that we use, and they’re all highly specific and have varying levels of sensitivity.

    Cherry pick, much? Distort, much?

  102. #102 Adele
    August 23, 2007

    Bob you are a very angry person and I won’t judge you for that like I said I don’t know what you had to deal with in your conservative background the one you told other people about like Dr. Bob at the Body unless that was just a story. If you have questions please ask them and I will do my best to answer but I’m not getting in fighting with you about what every word you say means.

  103. #103 Adele
    August 23, 2007

    You did notice that that quote was from the Abbott Labs 2006 HIV ELISA, correct?

    I did notice Dan you said it was from 2006 but I can’t find a Abbott Labs test from 2006 on the FDA site or on Abbot’s site. There’s only a hepB test approved in 2006. The last test with that wording I can find was approved 1992. Or maybe you want to link to the 2006 insert?

    Really doesn’t matter though like factician says and like I said yesterday. There’s no universal standard for punctuation on a blog so it means no one here uses punctuation? Punctuation doesnt exist? Gimme a break.

  104. #104 Seth Manapio
    August 23, 2007

    “And Seth, we are all still trying to forget that you had to go and blabber that the only placebo monotherapy study ever done on AIDS drugs since AZT was only for a couple of days.”

    ———

    Dude, I’m not impressed that you can rationalize why denialists lie about this, I’m really not. The fact is, you lie on this topic because if you don’t, you have to justify why you are qualified to comment on study length, which you aren’t.

    The fact is, it is frequently claimed by the denialist movement that these studies simply do not exist. That is a lie. You know it is a lie. Why does it not bother you to tell this lie?

  105. #105 Seth Manapio
    August 23, 2007

    “Hey! Careful there Seth. What are you? Some kinda damn traitor to the cause?”
    ———-

    Apparently not. I spent a little more effort, and a 15 minute google search determined that there have been many culture studies that show the cytotoxic nature of HIV.

    HIV-infected cells can kill CD4+ cells upon contact.
    Nardelli B, Gonzalez CJ, Schechter M, Valentine FT.
    Int Conf AIDS. 1994 Aug 7-12; 10: 101

    Chemokine-receptor activation by env determines the mechanism of death in HIV-infected and uninfected T lymphocytes
    Stacey R. Vlahakis1, Alicia Algeciras-Schimnich2, German Bou2, Carrie J. Heppelmann3, Angelina Villasis-Keever2, Ronald G. Collman4 and Carlos V. Paya1,2,3
    J Clin Invest, January 2001, Volume 107, Number 2, 207-215
    Copyright ©2001 by the American Society for Clinical Investigation

    Etc. The problem isn’t that there is much in the way of actual argument from the denialist camp. There isn’t. With effort, I can show pretty much every claim that any denialist makes to be utterly false. The problem is that the claims are “sciency”, they SOUND scientific and people have to go through much effort to show how they are false.

    And of course, when you do, the denialists will simply move the goalposts, as they do with placebo controlled studies.

    I mean, which denialist in this group is willing to admit that the alive and well site contains false statements about HIV, when faced with this evidence?

  106. #106 Dan
    August 23, 2007

    Interesting responses to the fact that there’s no standard for detecting the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2.

    Chris: “there was no standard in 1985“.

    Ok, no standard in 1985, we agree on that. There’s still no standard, Chris. Perhaps you want to get on the little bandwagon below with “factician” and Jeanne.

    Factician and Jeanne: Standard, schmandard.

    Not the best turd-polishing I’ve seen on this site in recent memory. Got to rub a little harder, folks.

  107. #107 Adele
    August 23, 2007

    Dan give us a link to that 2006 label or admit your wrong and shut up.

  108. #108 Dan
    August 23, 2007

    Oh my, Jeanne,

    getting a little testy now.

    So, is a standard suddenly an important thing?

    Or are you going to stick with you “standard, schmandard” stance?

    You really are bankrupt, pumpkin. You know there’s no standard. So, where do you stand? Is a standard important or not?

  109. #109 Adele
    August 23, 2007

    Dan I explained this. What you did was say a 2006 Abbott test said this stuff. I can’t find it. Can you give us a link so I can read it? If not you made it up.

  110. #110 Dan
    August 23, 2007

    Jeanne-Adele,

    sounds like a standard is suddenly important to you!

    Oh, if only you had some integrity.

    One moment it’s “standard, schmandard”, the next moment, a standard is suddenly important.

    Which is it, Adele-Jeanne?

    Standard: important or not?

  111. #111 Adele
    August 23, 2007

    So you were lying. The 2006 label doesn’t say that. Good to know.

    But answering your question, I answered it already. You’re interpreting that sentence not reading the rest of the label if you read it you would know there was several standards back when that was written and the Abbot people described them. in detail. what they said was, there’s no “recognized standard” no universal standard a big group handed down like a degree.

    We make standards for work all the time. But like factician said those standards aren’t these like universal things everyone agrees on and follows like a law.

    Is it really hard for you to understand this?

  112. #112 Dan
    August 23, 2007

    Here’s what’s going on, Jeanne.

    Chris stated that there was no standard in 1985, implying that a standard was actually of importance. Otherwise, he would have immediately closed ranks with you and “factician” in the “standard, schmandard” camp.

    So, we’ve got a little problem with the AIDS propagandists not agreeing with each other here (not good).

    Chris: No standard in “1985″.

    Jeanne and Factician: Standard, schmandard.

    Oh, the dischord. What to do about it? Lash out at the “denialist”.

  113. #113 Robster, FCD
    August 23, 2007

    Dan, don’t be so dense.

    A “standard” is a statistical tool for measuring the accuracy of a screening test. The standard is 100% correct. There is no lab test with that accuracy, which is not uncommon. We use the standard to determine the relative sensitivity and specificity of a test, so that acceptable alternatives that are less costly for time and resources can be used instead of the standard. It is done throughout medicine.

    In the case of HIV tests, we can predict how many false positives and false negatives there will be for a certain number of tests. Based on this, we can combine multiple tests to move the false result chance to the point that it is extremely unlikely.

    If the chance of a false result is one in 1000 on test A or B, you can run A, retest the positives with B, and your false positive results drop to one in a million. That is how HIV tests work, and combined, they are very accurate.

    You might as well be saying that evolution is just a theory. The lack of a single pass, lab standard no more disproves HIV as the cause of AIDS than it does the existence of diabetes.

  114. #114 Dan
    August 23, 2007

    Robster,

    I have to wonder who you think reads this blog, and how stupid/gullible you imagine that audience to be.

    A…”standard”?

    Why the quotation marks, Robster?

  115. #115 Seth Manapio
    August 23, 2007

    So, we’ve got a little problem with the AIDS propagandists not agreeing with each other here (not good).

    ———-

    Whereas AIDS denailists can’t agree on questions like “does HIV exist at all?” and yet, this seems not to be a problem. Curious how your standards change.

    Of course, when someone too ignorant to know that quotation marks are used to separate a word being defined in a sentence starts writing, we shouldn’t expect deep thoughts.

    Just to let you know, its that kind of thing, where you try to make a big deal out of the quote marks, that utterly convinced me that the denial camp was totally full of shit.

  116. #116 Dan
    August 23, 2007

    Whereas AIDS denailists can’t agree on questions like “does HIV exist at all?” and yet, this seems not to be a problem. Curious how your standards change

    Close, but no cigar, Seth.

    I’m talking about you folks here on Terror Smith’s AIDS propagandism blog agreeing with each other. You’re quite good at closing ranks and creating a united front, except today where I notice that there’s dischord over the importance of a standard for detecting HIV antibodies.

    And it seems that Jeanne-Adele can’t even agree with herself.

    Now, Robster chimes in and can’t define standard without the use of quotation marks.

  117. #117 factician
    August 23, 2007

    Dan,

    Do you even understand how ELISA works? It seems fairly clear that you do not.

    More often than not, we don’t even know what the antibodies look like that we’re using, we merely know that they bind a particular substrate specifically and accurately and sensitively. We can test all those things without developing a standard antibody that we used. I am almost certain that this is the usage of the word “standard” in your little quotemine. Of course, I confess I’m starting to think that you made it up…

    What you’re saying is rather like saying, “Because people don’t use one standard telescope for looking at Jupiter, then Jupiter doesn’t exist”. I hope this is clear to you that it is nonsense.

    Are you being intentionally obtuse? Or are you manipulating sentences to mean things that they don’t on purpose?

  118. #118 Dan
    August 23, 2007

    So now Factician is flip-flopping!

    A standard appears to be important to him/her (sorry, don’t know your gender).

  119. #119 Dan
    August 23, 2007

    What you’re saying is rather like saying, “Because people don’t use one standard telescope for looking at Jupiter, then Jupiter doesn’t exist”. I hope this is clear to you that it is nonsense.

    Yes, it’s clear to me that your analogy is utter nonsense.

  120. #120 factician
    August 23, 2007

    Dan,

    No, I am not changing my position (although, I don’t take changing my position as a weakness – do you?). Let me spell this out for you better, since you seem intent on not understanding me (or misrepresenting me? I’d rather not accuse someone of dishonesty, but when you misrepresent things repeatedly, it starts to seem like that is the case). In this case a standard (as the word is being used) is not important. It is apparent that you are trying not only to distort the intention of the standard statment that you quote, but also the people here who are trying to help you.

    Biology is not done by attempting to score rhetorical points. It is done by actually doing experiments, and honestly comparing the evidence with folks who are honestly interested in understanding it. It seems like you’re more interested in distorting peoples’ words and attempting to score petty rhetorical points. That may work in fields like law, but in biology the only thing you’ll succeed at is getting left behind.

    Best of luck, Dan.

  121. #121 Seth Manapio
    August 23, 2007

    I’m pretty impressed with Dan’s tenacity. I mean, he’s grabbed onto those quote marks with both hands, and he will not let go. This is pretty standard stuff for a denialist: any time anyone seems to be answering their objections, they shift focus and point somewhere else. In this case, its a pretty desparate gambit, but I can see him hanging out with his denialist friends at some denialist blog, gloating about the quote marks and sniggering. He’s just way to smart to be taken in by a standard use of punctuation!

  122. #122 Dan
    August 23, 2007

    Thank you for being honest about your flip-flopping, Factician.

    Is it weak? Not necessarily.

    Is it dishonest? Not necessarily.

    But it’s pretty interesting, given that you’ve done so in less than an hour’s time. I wonder why the sudden change of stance? Time to close ranks?

  123. #123 Dan
    August 23, 2007

    Seth,

    you protest too much.

  124. #124 Jeanne Bergman
    August 23, 2007

    Tara,
    Your otherwise excellent PLoS article has an error: Christine Maggiore’s 3 year old daughter died from AIDS-related PCP in May 2005, not in September.

    This is the first time I’ve posted to this thread, by the way. Others should stop giving me credit for Adele’s expertise.

    Jeanne

  125. #125 Seth Manapio
    August 23, 2007

    “you protest too much.”

    ——-

    Oh no! Anything but that!

    What the hell is that even supposed to MEAN in this context? Do this guy have anything to offer beyond stupid rhetorical games?

  126. #126 Adele
    August 23, 2007

    of course not, Seth.

    Quotation marks, theories I’m Jeanne Bergman, lies and errors and bluster and jokes about Harry Potter.

    That’s all they’ve got. Oh and their antisemitism which is always a great comfort to small minds in need.

  127. #127 Dan
    August 23, 2007

    Where did Robster go?

    For all the bluster about my remark about the quotation marks, I can see that Robster hasn’t stepped in and defined said standard without quotation marks.

    Perhaps we can start there.

    And after that, we’ll do another tally to see who thinks a standard is important and who thinks it’s not important (as there may be more flip-flopping).

  128. #128 Manu
    August 23, 2007

    Round about the caldron go;
    In the poison’d entrails throw.–
    Toad, that under cold stone,
    Days and nights has thirty-one;
    Swelter’d venom sleeping got,
    Boil thou first i’ the charmed pot!

    Double, double toil and trouble;
    Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
    Fillet of a fenny snake,
    In the caldron boil and bake;
    Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
    Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
    Adder’s fork, and blind-worm’s sting,
    Lizard’s leg, and owlet’s wing,–
    For a charm of powerful trouble,
    Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

    Double, double toil and trouble;
    Fire burn, and caldron bubble.

    Scale of dragon; tooth of wolf;
    Witches’ mummy; maw and gulf
    Of the ravin’d salt-sea shark;
    Root of hemlock digg’d i the dark;
    Liver of blaspheming Jew;
    Gall of goat, and slips of yew
    Sliver’d in the moon’s eclipse;
    Nose of Turk, and Tartar’s lips;
    Finger of birth-strangled babe
    Ditch-deliver’d by a drab,–
    Make the gruel thick and slab:
    Add thereto a tiger’s chaudron,
    For the ingrediants of our caldron.

    Double, double toil and trouble;
    Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
    Cool it with a baboon’s blood,
    Then the charm is firm and good.

  129. #129 Tara C. Smith
    August 23, 2007

    Thanks Jeanne–I’m not sure how we changed that from May to September, but I’ll let the editor know.

  130. #130 Mack Truck
    August 23, 2007

    Dan, let me help you. What Robster is talking about here is the properly isolated virus itself and something that picks it up reliably:

    We use the standard to determine the relative sensitivity and specificity of a test, so that acceptable alternatives that are less costly for time and resources can be used instead of the standard

    Unfortunately the virus has never been properly isolated and nothing can pick it up. That’s why Robster can tell you correctly what a standard is, but at the same time claim there isn’t any. He’s a closet Perthian.

    I see Jeannie took time off from her other essential duties to deliver an important message. Jeannie doesn’t want us to think she’s as expert as Adele on HIV science. And Adele doesn’t want us to think she’s as expert as experts like Tara. That places Jeannie pretty low in the expert rankings by any standard (sorry about the pun boyzngalz)wouldn’t you say? So what IS she doing around here? Doesn’t she read her own blog or listen to her own co-cultured interviews with JP? Hasn’t she heard that if you’re not an HIV expert you cannot have an opinion much less voice it?

    Do you know what the standard is for the “HIV” tests Jeannie? How many PCP samples have you examined under the microscope? How many post mortems have you performed?
    Don’t you think it’s terribly quackerish of you to opine in these high matters? There should be a law against laypeople like yourself speaking on matters that could affect public decision making in matters of health wouldn’t you agree?

    Ok,ok, since you’re here, I’m going to give you a chance to redeem yourself on a topic where you may not be so embarrasingly ignorant as the one you just commented on:

    On what legal grounds can the authorities withhold from a grieving mother the result of her daughter’s HIV test? Is it because they’re still looking for the “standard”? I mean this is not anything like NSA wire tapping or executive privilege is it? Why can’t we have full disclosure? Please pop by and share your fascinating thoughts with us.

    PS. That short haircut suits you.

  131. #131 Manu
    August 23, 2007

    –Black spirits and white, red spirits and gray;
    Mingle, mingle, mingle, you that mingle may.

    By the pricking of my Thumbs,
    Something wicked this way comes.
    Open, Locks,
    Whoever knocks.

    –How now, you secret, black, and midnight Hags?
    What is’t you do?

    All
    A deed without a name.

  132. #132 Dale
    August 23, 2007

    And after that, we’ll do another tally to see who thinks a standard is important and who thinks it’s not important

    You can put me down in the standard-is-not-important-if-the-test-is-reproducible-and-reliable-in-predicting-HIV-infection-and-eventual-progression-to-AIDS column.

  133. #133 Chris Noble
    August 23, 2007

    Of course prophylaxis will seem to delay the onset of a specific infection, but how do you know the drugs delayed the onset of AIDS defining illnesses and subsequent death compared to no drugs? Did you fly back in your time capsule 8-10-15 years to determine the exact moment of infection for the late presenters?

    Several studies including the Concorde study showed that AZT delayed the incidence of AIDS defining illnesses but did not improve long term survival. The result from the study I cited is consistent with these results.

    I am definitely not arguing that AZT was a wonder drug. It wasn’t.

    Will the Denialists stop their endless distractions and admit that people infected with HIV end up in hospital with virtually no CD4 cells and PCP and KS whether they know they are infected or not?

    By the way, I thought you said patients were only put on ARVs once they’d reached “advanced stage AIDS”. Or does that only go for Ascher’s bogus study and the AZT poisoned haemophiliacs?

    People were given AZT after AIDS defining opportunistic infections or when their CD4 counts had fallen below a point where they were at risk of opportunistic infections. AZT cannot cause CD4 cell depletion that occurred before it was given.

  134. #134 Chris Noble
    August 23, 2007

    I’m talking about you folks here on Terror Smith’s AIDS propagandism blog agreeing with each other. You’re quite good at closing ranks and creating a united front, except today where I notice that there’s dischord over the importance of a standard for detecting HIV antibodies.

    The only dischordance is in your brain.

    You have ignored the history of the Abbott test and the evidence provided by Abbott.

    At the time that Abbott developed their EIA there were no other tests for HIV.

    Abbott describe how they used AIDS patients and random donors to test for the sensitivity and specificity of their EIA.

    A test that has close to 100% sensitivity and specificity for AIDS is pretty damn good.

    There are also other techniques such as viral culture and nucleic acid testing that confirm the accuracy of the antibody tests.

    Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 detected in all seropositive symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

    You can quotemine and play silly word games as much as you want but it won’t change reality.

    But, of course, quotemining and word games are all that you have.

  135. #135 Robster, FCD
    August 23, 2007

    Dan,

    I have to wonder who you think reads this blog, and how stupid/gullible you imagine that audience to be.

    I am describing a statistical tool used by epidemiologists to examine the relative value of tests. Take it with or without quotation marks. That you are avoiding the actual meaning of my post, choosing to attack punctuation is quite telling.

    I think that people who come to the scienceblog community are mostly interested in learning. However, there is a minority prefer to be intentionally dense, and rather than say “Oh, so that is what standard means in this particular context,” prefer to respond with sentiments such as neener neener neener.

    Sockpuppet Truck,

    Unfortunately the virus has never been properly isolated and nothing can pick it up. That’s why Robster can tell you correctly what a standard is, but at the same time claim there isn’t any. He’s a closet Perthian.

    No. The virus has been isolated and characterized, or didn’t you get the denialist memo from Duesberg? Because there isn’t a 100% accurate test, which is the definition of a standard, no test can be referred to as standard.

  136. #136 cooler
    August 23, 2007

    Proper isolation is a subject that is somewhat irrelevent, because you can properly isolate a harmless retrovirus, doesnt prove much.

    Just read the book on Robert gallo called science fictions, and youll learn about the fraud that Gallo and AIDS inc are.

    All Gallo had was a partial correlation, no animal model with a virus that was in like 1 of 10,000 cells, and he went public? Is this guy nuts? Because the government supported his fallacious research with funding, TV ads etc, there has been one study since to test his dubious hypothesis, they all assumed it to be true.

    See hiv fact or fraud on google to hear Duesberg in his own words.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5064591712431946916

    Read Project Day Lily to learn about the mycoplasma biowarfare program. Every animal Dr. shyh Ching Lo MD PHD injected with this died, no one in the Gallo/Moore/wainberg mob could hold a candle to DR. Lo, the Army’s highest ranking scientist.

    One of the only scientists since Koch to discover a microbe that induced disease in animals. If you read Project Day Lily you’ll realize that Lo was the most brilliant scientist of his generation in China, which is why the Army brought him here, and he was one of the many scientists that applauded Duesberg.

    Thanks to the hiv fundamentalists there is an epidemic of CFS etc because they only want to focus on hiv and nothing else, (Cant look for antibodies in MFI, cause the animals that died only had a weak antibody response when near death)……………the most important book of our time…..
    http://www.projectdaylily.com/

  137. #137 Seth Manapio
    August 23, 2007

    “Just read the book on Robert gallo called science fictions, and youll learn about the fraud that Gallo and AIDS inc are.”

    ———-

    But dude, it isn’t that simple. I’m guilty of this too, I read one book like “Carnage and Culture” (yet another use of quotes, I know Dan is just going to “freak out” about that) and I think I am knowledgeable about the subject. I think I have a lot of information (“knowledgeable” means to know a lot about). But I’m not knowledgeable about western warfare at all, I just have one guys viewpoint.

    Similarly, you don’t actually know very much about the history of HIV. You only have one author’s viewpoint. If you wanted to become knowledgeable about this topic, you would also read books that tell a different story, to compare the two.

    You would also listen to people like Tara Smith, who knows a lot more than you do about biology and disease. She has spent decades learning about disease, researching disease, testing different ideas, discarding most of them and only pursuing what she can prove. So she might have some insight into how to evaluate the claims in your two books, insight that could help you find out what is true.

    But you haven’t done that. You simply accepted the first book you read, a single book by a journalist, and you are claiming it is infallible. To me, that sounds like “faith”, belief without evidence. You have a holy book that you are believing, with no interest in actual tests of the claims in the book.

  138. #138 cooler
    August 23, 2007

    I find the arguments of many “rethinkers” compelling, not just using one book as a reference. All of these scientists questioned the HIv hypothesis at some time

    Duesberg Retroviral expert
    DR Shyh ching LO Md PHd Infectious disease patholgist cheif at the Army
    Walter gilbert Harvard mcb professor (nobel prize winner)
    Kary mullis biochemist(nobel prize winner)
    Ucb berkeley MCB professors Strohman, Rubin
    The list keeps growing………….Margulis, Prof of bioengineering Pollock

    The arguments these people make more sense to most people who hear them in my experience, the lack of a reliable animal model (99% of animals injectyed don’t get AIDS), the low amount of blood t cell infection (1 in 1000 or so t cells) the fact that viruses wreak the most havok before antibodies, not ten years later, thats why we get vaccines, to induce immunity. The ever extending window period that went from 1 year to 10 years…..

    Who knows how many more scientists there are that are afraid to speak out or have not been exposed to the “rethinkers” argument because of the orwellian censorship, so this is a another lie of AIDS inc, that there is an “overwhelming consensus”

    Please Dont refer me to the Durban Declaration, first, many had signed being completely unaware of the “dissidents” arguments, this is not a consensus, this is manufactured consent, when you only hear one side of the story, you tend to believe it.

    Secondly, many worked directly for AIDS inc. like the Moore/Gallo/Wainberg mob, lastly that pathetic declaration was sent out like an evite, just get as many sigs as possible, instead of having everyone hear both sides then decide.

  139. #139 Chris Noble
    August 24, 2007

    Who knows how many more scientists there are that are afraid to speak out or have not been exposed to the “rethinkers” argument because of the orwellian censorship, so this is a another lie of AIDS inc, that there is an “overwhelming consensus”

    The “ever growing list” is bullshit.

    Many of the people on the list do not know that they have been put on the list. I emailed somebody whose name appeared on the list a couple of weeks ago and they had no idea that their name was listed there. They certainly had never signed a petition. They then emailed David Crowe to try to get his name of the list. In a surreal twist Crowe initially refused to take his name off.

    The list is a fraud.

  140. #140 cooler
    August 24, 2007

    Some people want to have their names taken off not because they dont beleive it, its because they fear the gestapo tactics of the mooore/wainberg mob.

    Professor Pollock, Margulis clearly support Duesberg, just read their reviews of Bialy’s book, they probably dont want to be on any list , underestandably because they want to keep a low profile, to avoid the lynch mob of losers (JP/Wainberg) who are going to go down in history as the biggest frauds ever and who will do everything to destroy the careers of honest scientists that have reasonable questions.

    What a great free and open society we have when it comes to Science! Too bad because of the internet the charade is coming to an end…………..but wait…………..Wainberg wants to abolish the First amendment!

    This is the way science operates in America, Just like in the old soviet union, fear and intimidation, not open discourse and further expirements to prove/disprove ambiguities are the modus operandi of Aids inc.

  141. #141 Chris Noble
    August 24, 2007

    Some people want to have their names taken off not because they dont beleive it, its because they fear the gestapo tactics of the mooore/wainberg mob.

    Some of the people on the list do not know they are on the list. They had been put on the list without their knowledge and without being contacted by David Crowe or any other Denialist.

    This is plain fraud. there is no other way to put it. If you want to believe in your paranoid conspiracy theories then go ahead just don’t get upset if somebody calls you a kook.

    Some of the people on the list can’t get their names off the list because they have died from AIDS. They can’t do any rethinking.

  142. #142 carter
    August 24, 2007

    Cooler,
    Youre so correct. Add the fact that all this nonsence of the human immune system failing under the attack of a retrovirus after thousands upon thousands of years of evolution, well thats just science fiction.

    And to all the HIV=AIDS supporters; if you want a better answer, then start asking better questions, at least ones that aren’t skewed by the disasterous belief in the one answer to everything, the almighty HIV.

  143. #143 Bob
    August 24, 2007

    Bob you are a very angry person

    No Im not. Just with you because you are stuck up you own high horses ass.

    and I won’t judge you

    oh but you did already. I believe I was a conservative homophobe remember?

    for that like I said I don’t know what you had to deal with in your conservative background

    you dont know shit about me so dont pretend you do. As I asked you previously, WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? The anonymity of the net provides you with a cover but I can promise you, Id slap the taste out of your mouth in person.

    the one you told other people about like Dr. Bob at the Body unless that was just a story.

    do you just make up random bullshit as you go?

    If you have questions please ask them and I will do my best to answer

    I will never ask you a question. You are too stuck up and love the sound of your lip flapping against your skull.

    but I’m not getting in fighting with you about what every word you say means.

    no but you will bait me until I leave the forum or get banned, I suspect. Of course I need to apologize to Tara for taking this off topic in the first place.

    My original question is: Why is 68% of HIV/AIDS in 4% of the population. You can make every dreidel on Earth jealous but the charts say what they say. Someone needs to write the CDC and have them correct the charts to show what Africa’s “estimates and assumptions” show. Oh yeah why is HPV and HSV spread fairly even between sexes? Lifestyle factors dont seem to affect those two.

  144. #144 InfoOrIntox
    August 24, 2007

    Many of the people on the list do not know that they have been put on the list. I emailed somebody whose name appeared on the list a couple of weeks ago and they had no idea that their name was listed there. They certainly had never signed a petition. They then emailed David Crowe to try to get his name of the list. In a surreal twist Crowe initially refused to take his name off.

    Oh come on Chris. What are you making up there? Any way, don’t forget: Next time you decide to send a troll contribution, decide whether it’s “They” or “He” before you hit the -Post- button.

  145. #145 Adele
    August 24, 2007

    Infooritnox or whatever,
    In collocquial speech they is a way of saying he or she.

    “So I told somebody InfoOrIntox was intoxicated and THEY said yeah I know that dude’s like a total alkie.”

    Heads up, this isn’t a literature blog, Manu, its not a grammar blog, InfoOrIntox.

    You’ve gotta focus on this crap though because you wouldn’t want to admit the fact,

    People on the Durban Declaration ALL signed it they knew they were signing it and theyre all confirmed PhD scientists or MDs. LIke I said along time ago I can’t sign it because I’m not a PhD biologist.

    Some people on David Crowes little list don’t even know theyre on there like the guy Chris Noble emailed. Or Walter Gilbert. Or the people who are dead because they died of AIDS. You can find and photograph something as small as a virus. But can you find David Crowe’s integerity? I don’t think it exists this is a guy who takes a dead person who knew HIV causes AIDS and says they were a denialist puts them on a list they’ll never get of of because they’re freaking dead and unlike that guy Chris emailed they can’t email Crowe five times and demand he’s taking them off.

  146. #146 jspreen
    August 24, 2007

    We (sign sign sign sign) declare that HIV is the cause of Aids
    Yeah, but it’s not because you sign a declaration that what you declare becomes the truth. Didn’t you know that?

    Like I said along time ago I can’t sign it because I’m not a PhD biologist.
    Dance and be happy, Adele. Kneel down and thank all the Gods in the Universe for the fact that you were unable to sign that ridiculous attempt to convince humanity of something.

  147. #147 Robster, FCD
    August 24, 2007

    The whole “list” game is just silly. All the conspiracy types put together their lists, and talk about how big their list is and how it is growing (ooh, scary). Simply put, these lists look impressive until you compare it to everybody else.

    I saw a list of “scientists” who doubted evolution. A hundred plus change, tops, with most signees not even in a field of science. Compare that to Project Steve, where only actual scientists named Steve (or derivations thereof, including Stephanie) were allowed to sign a statement in favor of evolution. It is 824 as of today, and with that corresponding to about 1% of the US population, you can see how silly the ceationist list is.

  148. #148 jspreen
    August 24, 2007

    The whole “list” game is just silly. All the conspiracy types put together their lists,

    So then, why jump around like a little monkey proudly waving the Durban Declaration? Lists are silly or they are not. End of story.

    I saw a list of “scientists” who doubted evolution.

    And since when does a scientist become a “scientist” when he doubts evolution or HIV=Aids or whatdoIknow? Did you forget that a scientist only becomes a “scientist” when he stops doubting?

  149. #149 Adele
    August 24, 2007

    Some very good news just came out in Australia
    http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Man-loses-appeal-on-HIV-charges/2007/08/24/1187462493691.html

    The “full court” unanimously denied Chad Parenzee’s appeal in Adelaide. Chad Parenzee the guy who lied to three women about HIV and infected one of them.

    The defense was saying the judge in the first case was biased he didn’t listen to “science” from the defense side. The new panel of judges said something in legalese when you translate it its “whatever you kooky conspiracy freaks”.

    I thought it was most cool what the defense lawyer said Kevin Borick he said the guy was “remorseful for his actions and unlikley to re-offend on release”.

    But doesn’t David Crowe say Borick’s a denialist? What does the guy have to be remorsefull if HIV doesn’t exist how does he “re-offend” if there’s no virus for infection?

    Oh and who just said on here Bob Gallo or someone paid for the first judges vacation to bribe him did they pay for all these judges to?

  150. #150 Dan
    August 24, 2007

    Because there isn’t a 100% accurate test, which is the definition of a standard, no test can be referred to as standard.

    Robster’s got the propaganda wheels pretty-well greased at the moment.

    First, pumpkin, the test is not the same as a standard. I’m sure you understand that, despite the fact that that’s what you’re saying above.

    Oh, how you dance around the fact that there isn’t a standard for the “HIV tests”.

    Funny though how some of you think a standard is important, and others say “standard, shmandard”.

    At the end of the day, the fact that there’s no standard for “HIV tests” may not be the crucial issue. The sad truth is that the “tests” are nothing more than the official gateway to a life condemned to “infection” with an imaginary lethal retrovirus and the body-deforming, liver-destroying, expensive drugs that are an integral part of the HIV/AIDS fantasy.

  151. #151 Adele
    August 24, 2007

    Dan wouldn’t it be great if we could just get some impartial people who weren’t experts on HIV or experts on denial. Maybe some people who aren’t scientists at all, but people who’re really smart and logical-thinking with advanced degrees but no lab experience or anything. And then we could sit them down and both sides could show them the evidence the tests work or don’t work. And then they could deliberate and decide who’s more credible.

    Oh wait that just happened in Australia, never mind.

  152. #152 Dan
    August 24, 2007

    You’re hilarious, Adele.

  153. #153 greglor
    August 24, 2007

    I wonder how many deniers would be willing to do the Barry Marshall test for HIV… Money where your mouth is, and all that?

    Just curious…

  154. #154 Adele
    August 24, 2007

    Just to clear it up, I’m glad the Australian judges didn’t give that wannabe killer an appeal. Glad they’re smart enough to see through the lies.

    Still HIV causes AIDS or not doesn’t get decided in court. It got decided by peer review science.

    It’s good thousands of real doctors and scientists took the time to say, hey wait a minute, there’s plenty of evidence HIV is real and it causes AIDS and these denialists are nuts. Im glad there’s more of them then the people on Crowe’s list and its true alot of people on Crows thing didn’t really sign it Crowe just decided they were denialists according to him, hey can’t I be on there? I said some drugs are not good for you at some doses!

    But its not lists or numbers saying HIV causes AIDS. its good science from twenty years ago, good work that gets confiremd everyday thousands of times all over the place.

  155. #155 Mack Truck
    August 24, 2007

    Hey well-informed denialists, I’m glad some of you realize that any kind of list is silly. Now could the super well-informed denialists Chris and Adele give us the names of those several people who don’t know they’re on Crowe’s list atpresent or admit they are lying denialists?

  156. #156 Adele
    August 24, 2007

    How bout you compare the list from two weeks ago to the list today? Use an internet archive. There’s four names off it and those are four of the people who didn’t know they were on it!

    Or didn’t you know? David Crowe finds people who said stuff like AZT is not an optimum drug or some things in addition to HIV can make AIDS happen faster and he just puts them on that list.

  157. #157 Mack Truck
    August 24, 2007

    Duhhhh…Adele Yep I’ll gladly go through 2500 names to find the four missing. Sounds like almost as much fun as reading every single HIV paper in pubmed to find teh one proving HIV causes AIDS.

    And by the way, the fact that some people might come off the list is not proof of any of you slander of Crowe.

    Give me the names and affiliation (so we know it isn’t you and Bergman), LIAR, and their written testimony Crowe put them on the list against their will.

  158. #158 Mack Truck
    August 24, 2007

    And Chris, I know Adele is just running her mouth as usual, but you’re actually sick enough to monitor that list and contact people who’re on it. That’s how f-ing SICK you are!! AND I bet they don’t even pay ou extra to do it either. SICKO!!!

  159. #159 Carter
    August 24, 2007

    Lists – smists.. Who cares if a few drop out or ask to be non-affiliated. Obvioisly because of skewed thinking and their collective group trance the AIDS support camp pays no attention to the others who refute by logical and proven methods the grave fallacies and inconsistencies of the prevailing mindset.

  160. #160 Adele
    August 24, 2007

    Mackiotis,
    WEll I can’t spoonfeed it all to you you know! If four people got off the list how did it happen? David Crowe just decided to take them off? for the fun of it? Too many people, getting to 2500 too quick after 15 years even with all those dead people and students?

    Please write Mr. Crowe and ask him, did every person on that list sign it and ask him to be on there? or did he just put some people on it? Then you’ll know if I’m “slandering” him or not. David Crowe has no integrity about this and you know it and he knows it and its time everyone knows it. When you have a list, make sure the people actually sign it or keep them the hell off!

    Mackiotis says,
    Give me the names and affiliation (so we know it isn’t you and Bergman), LIAR, and their written testimony Crowe put them on the list against their will.

    Sorry I’m not a liar its people without integrity like David Crowe who put people on lists without their permision. If you want the truth find out who got taken off and write them. Don’t ask me to do it for you. Find them ask them about David Crowe and how many times they had to ask until their name got off the list. Ask them what David Crowe told them.

    While your at it figure out who some guy like Linus Pauling two time Noble Prize winner got on there. Did he sign that list? Hell no he didn’t even think HIv didn’t exist. Hell no he didn’t say HIV don’t cause AIDS. HE didn’t say any of this denialist bullcrap. He just thought maybe it would be good if AIDS patients who got AIDS becuase they were HIV infected had more vitamin C they might be healthier. How does it make him a deniosaur? Guy died thirteen years ago ask David Crowe if he signed his petission or if the Crowster just put him on it without permission.

    To make it look like some Nobel Prize winners who aren’t on acid support him. Yeah right Mr. Crowe you childkiller friend.

  161. #161 carter
    August 24, 2007

    And so Adele your support of death by prescription (Ryan White for example, or death by Thalidomide on orphans at ICC) allows you to get off scott free? Who’s the real child killer?

  162. #162 Seth Manapio
    August 24, 2007

    “Who knows how many more scientists there are that are afraid to speak out or have not been exposed to the “rethinkers” argument because of the orwellian censorship, so this is a another lie of AIDS inc, that there is an “overwhelming consensus”

    ——

    Well, apparently, you do. Maybe there are also many scientists who doubt heliocentrism and germ theory as well. Who knows?

    Thats just bullshit, and you know it. Rethinkers are given a forum on this blog an in countless other places. It just pleases you to pretend that you are part of a super special minority of hypersmart people. But you know that that isn’t true, because you know for certain that you wouldn’t know how to even begin setting up an epedemiological study or analyzing the results.

    Don’t you have anything substantive to offer?

  163. #163 Robster, FCD
    August 24, 2007

    Dan, your willful ignorance of the definitions used in epidemiology does not, in any way, disprove HIV as the cause of AIDS.

    jspreen, the people I refer to as “scientists” who sign the creationist lists are historians, philosophy profs, journalists, engineers, etc. They have no qualifications to be referred to as scientists.

    Perhaps these gems from the list show the caliber of the denialists…

    Dr. Marie Adams. ND, Bastyr University, Seattle, Washington ND stands for “doctor” of Naturopathy

    Mike Adams. Holistic nutritionist. Author of thousands of articles, interviews, consumer guides and books on topics covering health and the environment. Executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center in Tucson, Arizona. Holistic nutritionist? Need I say more?

    Gabriela Adelstein. Translator, Buenos Aires, Argentina Nothing against translators, I have great respect for the multilingual, but that doesn’t make for a scientist.

    Karin Wiedmer Aebersold. Homeopathic doctor, Hefenhofen, Switzerland Homeopathy isn’t what I would call medicine, nor science.

    Dr. Madhu Agarwal. Homeopathic physician, Nagpur, India Another homeopath…

    Mabili Ajani. Broadcast Journalist, Tampa, Florida Not a scientist.

    Morris Alexander. Senior Public Prosecutor, Pietermaritzburg Magistrate’s Court, South Africa Other than Frank Herbert once writing that law was the ultimate science, this doesn’t count either.

    Miguel Alvarez. Professor of Literature, Shanghai, China Hmmmmm.

    M.A. Armenteros. N.D., Naturopathic Physician, Downey, California Heh.

    There are math instructors, some engineers, more journalists, a couple anthropologists, chiropractors, some lawyers, a couple filmmakers… And I stopped looking when I got to the Bs.

    Are any of these actual scientists? No. What about the rest of Crowe’s list? There are some, many in fields unrelated to health research of any kind (astrophysicist), but how many got on there without their knowledge? How many are dead and can’t be asked?

    Another question of value… How many were HIV positive denialists who died of AIDS? I found two from that list, and only one was listed as deceased.

    This one wasn’t listed as deceased, although I’m sure Crowe has had some time to change the entry. As Crowe’s list writes it up,

    Casper Schmidt. MD, New York

    So either this Casper happens to share the same degree and name as another denialist, or 13 years is meaningless to Crowe.

    Casper G. Schmidt

    Casper G. Schmidt was a psychiatrist who published “The Group-Fantasy Origins of AIDS” in the Journal of Psychohistory in 1984. The article, which claimed that AIDS was not a real disease but a product of “epidemic hysteria,” is still regularly cited by AIDS denialists. Schmidt died from AIDS in 1994.

    Wow. The guy that created the concept that AIDS is just in people’s heads died from the disease he said wasn’t real. The one person who shouldn’t have succumbed to AIDS because of his special insight, did so.

    Wow.

  164. #164 cooler
    August 24, 2007

    Seth, youre just a miserable person, I don’t debate with people who have mental problems.

  165. #165 carter
    August 24, 2007

    Seth Maanapio
    How about the substantial offer of 50K you can collect for simply providing proof of validation at Aliveandwell.org – Can’t be all that hard can it?

  166. #166 Robster, FCD
    August 25, 2007

    So we only need to convince Maggiore’s handpicked cranks to turn over money they have no intention of awarding? Yeah. That’ll happen.

  167. #167 jspreen
    August 25, 2007

    jspreen, the people I refer to as “scientists” who sign the creationist lists are historians, philosophy profs, journalists, engineers, etc. They have no qualifications to be referred to as scientists.

    The heck they haven’t. And that’s exactly why I think they have the best credentials nowadays. Robster, I don’t know what you try to tell or prove with your silly message, but the fact that the so-called scientific community kicks everybody who dares play with some “dissident” thoughts out of said community, means to me that it disqualifies itself to play the game any further and simply clearly shows to all that mainstream science today has no other goals than to defend mainstream ideas. End of story.

    It’s insane. The more scientific people get or better, pretend they get, the stupider they talk, as if scientific thinking excluded all healthy common sense.

    HIV=Aids science:

    Malnourishment at time HIV treatment is started equals much poorer survival

    In the last paragraph I read:

    Mortality amongst individuals initiating HIV therapy could, the investigators suggest, be reduced by providing nutritional support to malnourished patients

    COULD BE REDUCED…

    Nobody can top this shit, Robster, nobody.

    Hey, Robster, why don’t you try to simply be a clever boy every once in a while instead of exclusively blindly hanging on to scientific qualifications? You’d very often be infinitely more qualified to recognize BS, scientific or not.

    JS.

    BTW, you may want to read the next. Maybe it’s good for a grin. If not, you might learn something, one never knows. Isn’t it aways to early to give up all hope?
    The science community does not ‘debate’ with the AIDS denialists, it treats them with the utter contempt that they deserve and exposes them for the charlatans that they are.

  168. #168 carter
    August 25, 2007

    What a lame excuse that is Rob

  169. #169 hypercog
    August 25, 2007

    It should be no surprise to anyone here that iron is attracted to magnets. A local strong magnetic field does force hemoglobin (iron) to accumulate near its poles. No mysterious forces. Just physics, easily demonstrated and observed. (the real mystery would be if hemoglobin somehow was _not_ attracted to a magnet; what mechanism could explain that?) The question of therapeutic effects attributable to this phenomena has yet to be vigorously investigated, most likely due to the overwhelming fear most ‘scientists’ have of going against the priesthood of scientific dogma.

  170. #170 Joe
    August 25, 2007

    @hypercog,

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    Hemoglobin contains iron in a “diamagnetic” state; which means it is very weakly repelled by a magnetic field. The repulsion is so weak that you cannot observe it with equipment you are likely to have at home.

  171. #171 carter
    August 26, 2007

    Truth about Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society LISTS

    I am posting, as per request, an e-mail I received explaining in detail, given here in response to the AIDS Apologists who do and wish to purport downright lies.

    Quote
    My response is this.
    The list of rethinkers was put mainly together by Marcel Girodian. My (David Crowe’s) main role was to import the records into a database and write the software to continually update the website. Plus I have maintained the database since then.

    The list was obtained from two online petitions, one for membership in “Rethinking AIDS” and another to support President Mbeki, along with public statements of people.

    This last category usually did not indicate full questioning of the HIV=AIDS=Death dogma so we put a caveat beside the name. Linus Pauling is a good example with the caveat “Said high dose Vitamin C can control Aids”.

    Petition signatories were first screened for their qualifications or accomplishments and also some backup information was also required. In other words, if someone who claimed to be a PhD in something was found on a university website as an assistant professor, that would be a reasonable validation of their claims.

    We take people off the list at their request. The two commonest reasons are that people fully question the dogma but are scared about reprisals at work and that people are listed with a caveat and ask to be removed, not because the caveat is wrong, but because they are afraid of being associated with more radical rethinkers. The Gisselquist group is an excellent example of this phenomenon.
    In a couple of cases we have had people claim that they actually never signed the petition that their name was on. We have no way of validating the names on the petitions, nor do we have any way to evaluate their claims that they never signed. It’s also possible that they were fearful of being of having their viewpoints made public, but afraid to admit it to us.

    Recent additions are mostly from recent signatories to the VirusMyth petition plus an increasing frequency of emails from people asking to be put on the list. We hope to hit 2,500 names before the end of the year.
    - David Crowe
    End Quote

  172. #172 Seth Manapio
    August 26, 2007

    “Seth, youre just a miserable person, I don’t debate with people who have mental problems.”

    ——-

    Since you aren’t competent to debate me about whether you are wearing boxers or briefs, I don’t blame you for ducking and running? You haven’t provided any kind of evidence to support your position, only innefectual and stupid rhetorical garbage like the above.

    As for the supposed 50K prize: Duesberg has said that the HIV virus has been shown to exist by the strongest possible methods. He has no doubt. Maggiore does not believe him.

    If she doesn’t believe a hero of the denialist movement, who would she believe? Certainly not me. So if the best science won’t even convince her that HIV exists at all… well, according to the Duese, she’s completely delusional. So reality has no bearing on that prize.

    You can disagree with this, of course. But then you’ll have to explain why Duesberg has been taken in by HIV inc. Its a condundra, one I predict you will ignore or obfuscate.

    My favorite obfuscation has been the claim that Pete must have been joking about the existence of HIV. THAT was precious. Can you top that, do you think?

  173. #173 cooler
    August 27, 2007

    Seth,
    ok i will debate you a little more.

    In 1982 nobody thought hiv was the cause of AIDS, in 1985 everyone did, please point out the scientific papers that made this the undisputable dogma.

    Also please point me to an epidemiology study that cleary states in the study aims an intent to prove/disprove Gallo’s hypothesis, not merely a study that already assumed hiv causes Aids.

    This is what you need when there is no reliable animal model, or else any harmless passenger virus can be said to cause disease.

  174. #174 Chris Noble
    August 27, 2007

    Oh come on Chris. What are you making up there? Any way, don’t forget: Next time you decide to send a troll contribution, decide whether it’s “They” or “He” before you hit the -Post- button.

    What’s this? A sock puppet is calling me a troll.

    The person I was referring to who until recently appeared on the list was Stephen Pauker.

    The entry read Dr. Stephen Pauker. MD, New England Medical Center, Boston [Says Hiv tests result in far more false positives than true]

    The entry had been added within the last 3 months. It was a new addition. Stephen Pauker did not sign either of the virusmyth petitions. He did not email any of the dissidents and ask to be put on the list. He was added to the list without his knowledge. None of the dissidents emailed him to ask his views. It also seems that none of the dissidents bothered to do a pubmed search to ascertain his current views.

    The apparent justification for adding him to the list were comments that he made in 1987 that referred to a) earlier versions of HIV tests and b) testing in low risk populations.

    It seems to escape the few remaining brain cells of the denialist collective that any test with less than 100% specificity will show a low positive predictive value in a low prevalence population. There is nothing remarkable about HIV tests in this respect.

    In reality current HIV tests have higher specifity than virtually any other test.

    Dr Pauker emailed the dissidents and asked for his name to be taken off the list. It wasn’t because he was afraid of the orthodoxy. He made it quite clear that he thought that the denialists were wrong and that the act of putting his name on the list was dishonest and deceitful. The remarkable thing is that Pauker had to fight hard to get his name off the list.

    I am posting, as per request, an e-mail I received explaining in detail, given here in response to the AIDS Apologists who do and wish to purport downright lies.

    Which lies? Are you going to deny that Pauker and others were put on the list without their knowledge and without asking permission?

    You are morally bankcrupt.

  175. #175 Chris Noble
    August 27, 2007

    Just to clear it up, I’m glad the Australian judges didn’t give that wannabe killer an appeal. Glad they’re smart enough to see through the lies.

    I think Parenzee was just someone that did not want to admit that he was infected with HIV.

    The people that should be behind bars are the deluded nutcases that convinced him that he had a hope on winning an appeal based on the argument that HIV doesn’t exist.

    I know that lawyers are not known for their moral integrity but this takes the cake. Borick spent months trying to argue that the Perth Group were “experts” and that HIV does not exist.

    In the second attempt to get an appeal Borick argued that his client should not go to jail because the woman that he infected with HIV although being ill is not likely to die with the new ARVs and that Parenzee was remorseful and unlikely to reoffend.

    Hello. First he argues that HIV doesn’t exist and doesn’t call AIDS and now he has the dishonesty to argue that antiretrovirals can successfully treat AIDS and that Parenzee really won’t reoffend.

  176. #176 Darin Brown
    August 27, 2007

    Seth said,

    “As for the supposed 50K prize: Duesberg has said that the HIV virus has been shown to exist by the strongest possible methods. He has no doubt. Maggiore does not believe him.

    If she doesn’t believe a hero of the denialist movement, who would she believe? Certainly not me. So if the best science won’t even convince her that HIV exists at all… well, according to the Duese, she’s completely delusional. So reality has no bearing on that prize.”

    SETH, did you actually read the 50K offer?? I guess not:

    “Without validation by direct isolation of the virus from the fresh, uncultured fluids or tissues of people who test positive, AIDS experts cannot know what positive and negative test results actually indicate.”

    I think both Duesberg and Maggiore agree that HIV has never been isolated from FRESH, UNCULTURED fluids or tissues:

    “Using standard laboratory techniques now available for decades, the active, infectious form of the virus cannot be isolated from the blood or other tissues of most HIV-positive AIDS patients.”

    – Peter Duesberg, “Results Fall Short For HIV Theory”, Insight 14 Feb. 1994

    Sounds to me like Duesberg and Maggiore have more agreement than you suggest.

    darin

  177. #178 carter
    August 27, 2007

    Seth/Chris
    So in other words, you and others are un interested in 50 Grand because you think it’s a fake? Surely you have more balls than that, or is it you know no such validation exists or can be produced? A sure fire way to end this and you’re afraid you wont get paid? I think your inability to produce and receive the reward shows how just a fake you all are.

  178. #179 jspreen
    August 27, 2007

    The person I was referring to who until recently appeared on the list was Stephen Pauker.

    We come before you today to argue against the widespread use of serologic tests for evidence of HIV infection in so-called low risk populations. We firmly believe that widespread screening for such infection, as has been proposed for immigrants, marriage license applicants, and, at least in one state, members of the general population, is unwise; it may in fact lead to a social catastrophe.

    If we take…the data from participant laboratories in 1987 and go to Peoria, we would see 404 [false positive] test results for every truly infected person…identified from a low-risk group. One in 400, that really scares me, and the data we have here, 400 false positives for every true, that is going to be a lot of people labeled socially as outcasts.

    US Congressional testimony, October 1987

    – Dr. Stephen Pauker, MD, New England Medical Center, Boston

    Then again, that was some 20 years ago, and seen the uncomfortable and even dangerous position Aids-”denialists” are in today (Prof. John P. Moore: This is a WAR there are NO RULES and we will DESTROY YOU DENIALISTS one at a time) it is quite plausible that cowardize may inspire some to get away from the fight and even, to pretend they were never part of it.

  179. #180 Seth Manapio
    August 27, 2007

    “So in other words, you and others are un interested in 50 Grand because you think it’s a fake?”

    ———–

    No, in other words, I know that Maggiore has ALREADY rejected the evidence that HIV exists. Since that evidence is, in the opinion of HIV denier Peter Duesberg, as good as any scientific evidence for the existence of a virus is likely to be, I don’t see any point in trying to top it.

    Its sort of like that prize Ken Hamm was offering. Since we already know that he has dismissed a mountain of evidence, we know that his standard is arbitrary. The prize is just propaganda.

  180. #181 Seth Manapio
    August 27, 2007

    “In 1982 nobody thought hiv was the cause of AIDS, in 1985 everyone did, please point out the scientific papers that made this the undisputable dogma.”

    ——–

    Well, actually, this isn’t a true statement at all. Different scientists were swayed at different times by different evidence. The simple picture that you paint of an “undisputable dogma” ignores well over a decade of dispute. You are disputing it now, although quite poorly.

    Some well know denialists did not change their minds until the late nineties, and others remain unconvinced. So your question only makes sense in some alternate reality where your statement is true.

    As to titles of papers, there are literally thousands of papers that examine every possible aspect of the HIV virus and human beings, from tissue cultures to drug regimens. I have listed several in this thread, and you are welcome to read them and comment about their shortcomings.

    Sure, I know what you are going to say: “those studies assume HIV causes AIDS.” But of course, that is a red herring, a distraction, more propoganda. If I assume that my car runs on water, my studies of fuel economy are going to force me to reconsider. All studies test their assumptions implicitly, a fact that propagandists have to obscure in order to peddle lies.

  181. #182 Kristjan Wager
    August 27, 2007

    Its sort of like that prize Ken Hamm was offering.

    I think you’re thinking of Kent Hovind. Unless Hamm also made a bogus challenge as well.

  182. #183 Seth Manapio
    August 27, 2007

    “I think you’re thinking of Kent Hovind. Unless Hamm also made a bogus challenge as well.”

    ————–

    I stand corrected.

  183. #184 greglor
    August 27, 2007

    No deniers want to do the Barry Marshall test? That’s the test where he drank H. pylori to show that H. pylori causes stomach ulcers.

    Would any deniers be willing to infect themselves with HIV to show it’s a harmless virus, that doesn’t cause AIDS?

  184. #185 jspreen
    August 27, 2007

    Would any deniers be willing to infect themselves with HIV to show it’s a harmless virus, that doesn’t cause AIDS?

    How could that be? How can one prove by swallowing or injecting any solution whatsoever the harmlessness of a virus he knows it doesn’t exist? Where’s the logic here?

    Apologist: Your disease is caused by a witch who put a spell on you
    Denialist: How silly you are, I don’t believe in witches
    Apologist: Are your ready to face a witch to prove she’s harmless?
    Denialist: Show me the witch my dear, show me the witch

  185. #186 Seth Manapio
    August 27, 2007

    “How could that be? How can one prove by swallowing or injecting any solution whatsoever the harmlessness of a virus he knows it doesn’t exist? Where’s the logic here?”

    ———–

    Well, if the virus doesn’t exist, and you inject a solution that I claim contains the virus, and you know contains no other toxins, it should have no effect on you. Pretty simple logic, actually.

  186. #187 cooler
    August 27, 2007

    Duesberg actually agreed to do the marshall test, as long as he got the nih funding and publicity for the experiment.

  187. #188 apy
    August 27, 2007

    Then he’d just be a shill for the govt HIV AIDS propaganda machine and would be suspect!

  188. #189 greglor
    August 27, 2007

    How can one prove by swallowing or injecting any solution whatsoever the harmlessness of a virus he knows it doesn’t exist?

    Wow. The craziness knows no bounds. You know this virus doesn’t exist? See, I can almost understand the craziness of the people who think HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. Almost. But HIV itself doesn’t exist? All the electron micrographs, and DNA sequences, and such, are all a figment of tens of thousands of molecular biologists collective imaginations. That’s a whole bucket of crazy I didn’t even know existed.

    I’ll withdraw himself from this “argument”. Good luck!

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?db=nucleotide&val=NC_001802

  189. #190 jspreen
    August 27, 2007

    Well, if the virus doesn’t exist, and you inject a solution that I claim contains the virus, and you know contains no other toxins, it should have no effect on you.

    No effect, of course. HI-virus, man, I couldn’t care less. But since you’re convinced I’m pure evil, I’ll never be sure of the no other toxins.

  190. #191 Seth Manapio
    August 27, 2007

    “No effect, of course. HI-virus, man, I couldn’t care less.”

    ———

    Okay. So you understand the logic. So you would happily be injected with any solution that contained the following things in an otherwise harmless solution, prepared by some third party that was blind to your evil:

    Smallpox virus, Plague bacteria, Hepatitis A, B, and C, Rhinovirus, Cholera, HIV, ebola, MRSA, Strepp, measles, mumps, and polio.

    Correct? And you believe that you could not possibly become ill as a result of being administered such a cocktail? You believe that injecting such a mixture into an AIDS patient would have little or no effect on their overall health? I just want to be sure that everyone is clear about where you stand.

  191. #192 Adele
    August 27, 2007

    Seth,

    I think slur happy friend says yes those are all harmless but what they’re in is always toxin so he won’t do it. Like if you have those pathogens in water well water is a toxin so he won’t inject himself with it. Oxygen you know and hydrogen nasty stuff. And then plus its really STRESSFUL getting that injectio so if he gets sick its because of that not those viruses and stuff.

  192. #193 Seth Manapio
    August 27, 2007

    “I think slur happy friend says yes those are all harmless but what they’re in is always toxin so he won’t do it.”

    ————

    That’s okay. Its a hypothetical case. I just want it to be clear to the rest of the deniers that Spreen does not believe in germ theory. He would see no problem with putting anthrax in their tea.

  193. #194 Adele
    August 27, 2007

    Seth,

    I hope there’s one or two deniers who think this guy’s crazy but I don’t know. Most of them think its fine for spreen to deny germ theory and its fine for him to call Dr. Moore a homophobe slur that starts with f on here last year and fine for him backing up a serial killer whose killed hundreds of people already and blames the jews for it.

    All that’s fine to them the only real crime in the world is getting NIH funding.

  194. #195 Chris Noble
    August 27, 2007

    We come before you today to argue against the widespread use of serologic tests for evidence of HIV infection in so-called low risk populations. We firmly believe that widespread screening for such infection, as has been proposed for immigrants, marriage license applicants, and, at least in one state, members of the general population, is unwise; it may in fact lead to a social catastrophe.

    At that time this was an entirely reasonable concern. Screening 20 year old women with mammography would also result in more false positives than true positives. This would cause more harm from the trauma of getting a false positive than the benefit it would give by finding a very small number of 20 year olds with breast cancer. This does not mean that mammography is worthless.

    Nothing that Pauker said indciates that HIV tests are worthless in 1987 and certainly not now. Nothing he said indicates that HIV does not cause AIDS that is why listing this quote on a page titled –

    IS “HIV” REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY “A FEW SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?

    - is simply deceptive. Pauker does not doubt that HIV causes AIDS.

    The webpage is designed to deceive. Apparently it finds an audience that wants to be deceived.

  195. #196 Chris Noble
    August 27, 2007

    Duesberg actually agreed to do the marshall test, as long as he got the nih funding and publicity for the experiment.

    That’s bullshit. He doesn’t need an NIH grant to infect himself with HIV and he would get publicity if he actually did it. Of course you would need a statistically valid sample size. Can I volunteer all of the HIV- Denialists.

    I’ll give Duesberg a hand.

    https://www.aidsreagent.org/faq.cfm

  196. #197 cooler
    August 27, 2007

    oh yeah noble, if he did and he didnt get AIDS you think it would be on the New York Times front page that “Hiv Doesnt cause AIDS” the same MSM that lied about Iraq and everything else…………..if he did it and nothing happened you guys would ignore him or say he had “special genes”

  197. #198 Seth Manapio
    August 27, 2007

    “if he did it and nothing happened you guys would ignore him or say he had “special genes”"

    ———–

    But it actually wouldn’t matter what anyone said or didn’t say. Duesberg could say that he was injecting himself with HIV every month, and nothing bad was happening to him. Right now he can’t say that. It would strengthen his case in the media, regardless of whether it would convince the specific commenters on this board. Are you actually trying to say that it would not be news that a prominent HIV/AIDS denier was injecting himself monthly with HIV? Get real, dude, it would be huge. And whenever the topic of funding came up, O’Reilly and Hannity would trot out Duesberg. From a PR standpoint, this would be huge. Huge.

    Don’t kid yourself.

  198. #199 Chris Noble
    August 27, 2007

    oh yeah noble, if he did and he didnt get AIDS you think it would be on the New York Times front page that “Hiv Doesnt cause AIDS” the same MSM that lied about Iraq and everything else…………..if he did it and nothing happened you guys would ignore him or say he had “special genes”

    I did say that you would need a reasonable sample size to get enough statistical power.

    If Duesberg could get a hundred Denialists to infect themselves with HIV and none of these got AIDS then you might indeed see “HIV Does Not Cause AIDS” on the front page of major newspapers.

    How many of the “scientists” on the rethinkers list are actually willing to infect themselves with HIV?

  199. #200 cooler
    August 27, 2007

    yeah, you should infect yourself with Lo’s mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe that kills every animal injected, since you deny its role in human illnesses, also hiv apologists should take arv’s as well. Also there was a doctor who actually did infect himself, not to mention the thousands of ltnp.

    All these publicity stunts are not necesarry, just follow a few hiv positive people with no other risk factors and see what happens…………

    but I wouldnt mind seing this, one group of “denialists” inject themselves with hiv, one group of mycoplasma deniers like you inject themselves with mycoplasma incognitus, and one group of ARV lovers take AZT at 1200mg, the group that ends up the healthiest and lives longest wins a million bucks, no abx for your group noble who think mfi is “woo”. NO ARV’s for the dissidents as well. This would be good fun.

    Using kochs postulates its not hard what the results would be, the MFI patients would sicken bc it kills every animal injected as the Brilliant Dr. Lo showed the world in 1990, the hiv patients would be fine, because hiv is harmless in animals and the azt group would be die of chemo overdose.

  200. #201 cooler
    August 28, 2007

    be dead(few too many martinis)

  201. #202 Chris Noble
    August 28, 2007

    yeah, you should infect yourself with Lo’s mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe that kills every animal injected, since you deny its role in human illnesses, also hiv apologists should take arv’s as well. Also there was a doctor who actually did infect himself, not to mention the thousands of ltnp.

    Nobody is saying that mycoplasmas are harmless. Nobody is saying that ARVs are harmless.

    HIV Denialists are saying HIV is harmless. Unfortunately, people like Duesberg apparently do not have enough conviction to infect themselves with HIV.

  202. #203 Seth Manapio
    August 28, 2007

    “yeah, you should infect yourself with Lo’s mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe that kills every animal injected, since you deny its role in human illnesses,”

    ———

    But cooler, the only person on this board who denies the role of mycoplasma incognitus in human illness would be Jan Spreen, who is an HIV denier.

    I looked and found many articles about mycoplasmas in medical literature, and none of them claim that mycoplasmas are harmless. Pneumonia is caused by a mycoplasma.

    Interestingly, there are a lot of studies of mycoplasma fermantans, which is known to promote HIV infection. That is, it is a known cofactor in the development of AIDS. But according to virusmyth, no new research has pursued the mycoplasma connection since 1990. This is a lie. You can verify that it is a lie yourself, by searching pubmed for “mycoplasma incognito AIDS”.

    Why do you think, cooler, that every time I go to a “rethinker” site I find that they make statements about the literature that I can prove are false by simply reading a few abstracts? Do YOU ever read the abstracts of studies to try and learn what people are actually researching, and what the conclusions are? Or do you just accept the rethinker position uncritically?

  203. #204 ElkMountainMan
    August 28, 2007

    The list of 2500 dissidents: what’s the truth?

    I encourage David Crowe to comment here on Aetiology concerning the Alberta RA list. The “list” is a rather important topic, if only because of its role in HIV dissidence. To rethinkers, who refer to it often, the list has become nothing less than a lynchpin in their belief system. To dissidents, the list is proof that 2500 well-educated individuals (mainly MDs and scientists, they say) agree with them about the supposedly questionable validity of HIV/AIDS science.

    If this list is suspect, some rethinking is in order, and unless David Crowe is able to provide convincing answers himself, not through a lackey, the Alberta list will quickly become more of a liability than an asset to rethinkers. To my eyes, it appears to be dishonestly constructed and presented.

    In his presence on the Internet, David Crowe comes across as a fairly unique dissident in that he appears to hold some standards that govern his interactions with others, including those who disagree with him. To me, he would also seem to have a sense of fairness and propriety. As an example, he felt slighted when comments were made about him on this blog and he was not informed by the host. This perceived slight led him to write Tara in protest.

    Suffice it to say that, although some of you would hold that “respect” is a strong word to use towards a person who actively defends reckless behavior that has led to numerous deaths–and, reportedly, that of one child in particular–David Crowe has at least until now earned the measure of respect that I can evince for those in his camp. Until I learn more, I must disagree with some of the comments made about him recently on this blog, for example, those about a lack of integrity.

    My respect for the man explains my confusion as I read the contradictory accounts of the list of dissidents, a list that he, David Crowe, maintains.

    A purported statement of Crowe himself in response to the questions of Chris Noble and others was passed along by “carter” on several threads. Several questions arise:
    -Unless carter is Crowe, why should we believe that Crowe authored this statement? Carter’s poor grasp of the HIV subject matter (and, in my opinion, outright dishonesty), makes carter a strange choice for messenger whether carter is a Crowe pseudonym or not.
    -Crowe has commented on this blog in the past and Tara has not banned him; if his honesty is being questioned and he has a valid defense, why has he not posted his own statement?
    -Why does the supposed Crowe statement not address the specific questions raised about the list, primarily by Chris Noble?

    According to “carter,” David Crowe wrote the following:
    “The list was obtained from two online petitions, one for membership in “Rethinking AIDS” and another to support President Mbeki, along with public statements of people.” (emphasis added)

    This last phrase is important. People with a bracketed caveat after their names have been added to the list without their knowledge or permission. By whom? David Crowe? Marcel Girodian? When were they added? Is it true, as Chris Noble states, that Dr. Pauker was added only very recently, based on a rethinker’s interpretation of a statement he made in the 1980s? Is it also true that Dr. Pauker was forced to write David Crowe several times before his name was removed from the list?

    Crowe or carter continues, “Linus Pauling is a good example with the caveat “Said high dose Vitamin C can control Aids”.”

    Is this true? Did Linus Pauling ever state that Vitamin C could control AIDS? If so, when and where did he make this statement?

    Carter or Crowe also contradicts himself: first,

    “Petition signatories were first screened for their qualifications or accomplishments and also some backup information was also required. In other words, if someone who claimed to be a PhD in something was found on a university website as an assistant professor, that would be a reasonable validation of their claims.”

    But subsequently,

    “We have no way of validating the names on the petitions, nor do we have any way to evaluate their claims that they never signed.”

    My suggestions to David Crowe:
    1) remove all names with caveats from your list, at least until you inform these individuals that they are on your list. If you will not contact your “signers,” include minimal documentation of their supposed statements. There are only 50 or so of these “caveats” and although they are disproportionately well-known people with MDs and PhDs, they do not provide any credibility if you include their names without permission. It’s actually quite shocking to me that you accused Tara of impropriety for merely mentioning your name earlier this year, a far cry from associating you permanently and publicly with a cause you do not espouse;
    2) where possible, note each deceased signer and the year of death. You have done this with several people, but Drs. Linus Pauling (who should not be on the list anyway) and Caspar Schmidt are just two prominent “signers” not listed as deceased, last I checked;
    3) dispense with title references to scientists, etc.; most of the people on the list are not scientists or medical doctors. Many of them list no qualifications whatsoever. Removing those who are listed without permission, there are only about 300 MDs, and as you state, you “have no way of validating the names on the petitions.”

    If you are in fact receiving an increasing number of emails from (I presume) uncredentialed conspiracy afficionados, you will reach your 2500 goal soon enough without the baggage of apparent dishonesty and deception. Would you not agree that a few extra famous MDs is not worth discrediting this aspect of your life’s work?

    David Crowe, will you step up to the plate? Will you explain yourself and the list?

  204. #205 Adele
    August 28, 2007

    Ummm, good points but integrity? In the great western yellow-bellied crow I though that bird was like Queen Christine “I don’t do blogs” so let them eat infected breastmilk” Maggiore.

  205. #206 carter
    August 28, 2007

    Integrity? What do you mean Adele? Is that like the intergrity from your cult meaning death and killing orphans at Incarnation Children’s Center, NYC in the name of HIV science? Get real! Your so far out of wack it’s downright pathetic. http://guineapigkids.com/celia.htm

  206. #207 Manu
    August 28, 2007

    Cratrer:

    What are you doing here still? get a grip. Sorry i have to come tell you here to do it, but as you were doing some good somewhere else and you don’t even come anymore to stay here going round in circles i thought you might apppreciate being told that you seem to have fallen into the trap.You will probably hate me for it but I don’t give a rats tutu. Here yopu do no good at all arueing with this band of twats. get a grip. You can be of much more real use in another place. This is Dantesque…get out of the AIDS zone now!!! What are you doing there?

    A friend.
    Manu.

  207. #208 Chris Noble
    August 28, 2007

    Is it true, as Chris Noble states, that Dr. Pauker was added only very recently, based on a rethinker’s interpretation of a statement he made in the 1980s?

    I checked this one. Although this entry was marked as being a recent addition it was already in the list in 2006.

    David Crowe may not be directly responsible for this addition. I assume that “Marcel Girodian” is.

    It seems tha “Marcel” went through the list of quotemines and decided that a whole bunch of scientists and doctors are really Denialists. Thus, Pauker who made a perfectly reasonable comment about the danger and cost of screeing low risk populations in 1987 becomes a doctor who doubts HIV causes AIDS.

    The Denialists have been attempting the “ever growing number of scientists are coming over to our side” and “the orthodox house of cards is about to fall down” stories for close to 20 years (Evolution deniers have been doing the same thing for over a hundered years).

    The reality is that the Denialists are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the scientific sphere. They have to bolster their numbers by including people like Pauker, who never signed a petition and vehemently disagree with their message, and a plethora of homeopaths and acupuncturists.

    Sadly they have a lay audience that falls for this deception.

  208. #209 Chris Noble
    August 28, 2007

    David Crowe wrote:

    …nor do we have any way to evaluate their claims that they never signed.

    ??? Is he really that clueless?

    Both petitions on virusmyth have a search function. You could – you know – type “Pauker” in and click on the search button.

    What then did Pauker sign? Where?

    Why won’t Crowe admit that some people have been put on the list without their knowledge?

  209. #210 ElkMountainMan
    August 28, 2007

    Chris,

    I take it that you believe David Crowe wrote the statement posted by carter?

    If David Crowe wrote this, then he is deluding himself, keeping himself in the dark about Marcel’s tactics–or intentionally deceiving the rest of us.

    Either way, as the gecko would say (I trust you don’t have that abomination in Australia?), we’re having filet mignon.

  210. #211 David Crowe
    August 28, 2007

    Hi everyone. It’s me, the real “David Crowe” (and not the comedian either, although I note that my YouTube interview is getting more hits than his comedy video). Further, “Carter” is not me, and I really did communicate with him, and he did accurately forward my message.
    A list is simply a list. You can make lists without the permission of every person whose name is on it.
    For example, the editors of the Wikipedia list “List of [famous] HIV-positive people” presumably did not ask everyone if they were okay being listed (especially the dead ones).
    Just like that list, we strived for accuracy in producing the list and if errors are pointed out we correct them. I imagine some people would not like to be on a list of HIV-positive people, but if it is public knowledge, I presume Wikipedia would tell them that it’s too bad, after all they strive for accuracy more than making friends.
    The request to remove people with caveats from the list of rethinkers is simply wrong. If someone has publicly questioned a portion of the HIV=AIDS=Death dogma we have a right to include them on the list as long as we accurately capture that caveat. However, if that person requests their removal, we will honour their request. We do that for people who are scared of being associated with those who are more radical than them, as well as people who are scared of losing their job.
    Really I don’t think we even need to do that. If we put a caveat beside someone’s name like “Does not believe that sexual transmission is the cause of the AIDS epidemic in Africa” … and that person has said that publicly, then we probably would be justified in leaving the name there. However, we’re nice people so we have no desire to get into a fight over inclusion on the list.
    So if all the dogmatists out there would like to check the list and see if their name is on it, just send an email via the list page and we’ll get your name taken off.
    I think the big question is why so many people who consider themselves scientists are so scared of questioning dogmas. That’s what science should be all about. Questioning should be encouraged.
    Let’s take evolution for example. When the question is asked about what should be taught the answer is usually constrained as either A) Theory of Evolution alone or B) Theory of Evolution and ID (although perhaps some people think only Genesis should be taught). But both of those are the wrong answers. Nothing should be “taught”. Children should be exposed to the plentiful data (for example Darwin’s pigeon experiments) that could lead them to make up their own mind. I for one am pretty sure that more young people would both understand and appreciate the theory of evolution if this was done.
    Regarding HIV/AIDS I think if the same was done it would be rejected by many more people. Today, of course “HIV/AIDS” is “taught” as a series of “facts” without an analysis of the reseach that led to the elevation of a hypothesis to ossified dogma in only a couple of years in the mid 1980s.

  211. #212 Seth Manapio
    August 28, 2007

    “Nothing should be “taught”. Children should be exposed to the plentiful data (for example Darwin’s pigeon experiments) that could lead them to make up their own mind.”

    ————-

    Let me get this straight… you are suggesting that children, exposed to various tidbits of biological information and history, will invent the theory of evolution on their own? Sure.

    And if exposed only to similar evidence, I’m sure they will independently invent relativity too!

  212. #213 franklin
    August 29, 2007

    David,

    You maintain a list of scientists who you claim doubt the HIV-AIDS theory. You note that some people on the list “question only key parts of the HIV theory,” a theory your web page defines as having five key parts:

    1. That HIV causes AIDS.

    2. That HIV tests accurately diagnose HIV.
    3. That AIDS medicines extend life.
    4. That AIDS is heterosexually transmitted.
    5. That HIV and AIDS are decimating Africa and Asia.

    For those people who you claim “question only key parts of the Hiv theory,” you include a caveat in brackets to show “the limitations on their beliefs.” You point to Linus Pauling as an example of one of these individuals:

    This last category usually did not indicate full questioning of the HIV=AIDS=Death dogma so we put a caveat beside the name. Linus Pauling is a good example with the caveat “Said high dose Vitamin C can control Aids”.

    I can understand why the Denialists would want to invoke Linus Pauling as an ally, but I’m wondering just what “key part” of the HIV-AIDS theory you are trying to claim that Pauling questioned.

    Here is the abstract of a paper authored by Linus Pauling on the topic of vitamin C and HIV. (The full text is freely available on PubMed.):
    Harakeh S, Jariwalla RJ, Pauling L. (1990). Suppression of human immunodeficiency virus replication by ascorbate in chronically and acutely infected cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 87:7245-7249.

    We have studied the action of ascorbate (vitamin C) on human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), the etiological agent clinically associated with AIDS. We report the suppression of virus production and cell fusion in HIV-infected T-lymphocytic cell lines grown in the presence of nontoxic concentrations of ascorbate. In chronically infected cells expressing HIV at peak levels, ascorbate reduced the levels of extracellular reverse transcriptase (RT) activity (by greater than 99%) and of p24 antigen (by 90%) in the culture supernatant. Under similar conditions, no detectable inhibitory effects on cell viability, host metabolic activity, and protein synthesis were observed. In freshly infected CD4+ cells, ascorbate inhibited the formation of giant-cell syncytia (by approximately 93%). Exposure of cell-free virus to ascorbate at 37 degrees C for 1 day had no effect on its RT activity or syncytium-forming ability. Prolonged exposure of virus (37 degrees C for 4 days) in the presence of ascorbate (100-150 micrograms/ml) resulted in the drop by a factor of 3-14 in RT activity as compared to a reduction by a factor of 25-172 in extracellular RT released from chronically infected cells. These results indicate that ascorbate mediates an anti-HIV effect by diminishing viral protein production in infected cells and RT stability in extracellular virions.

    According to this paper, Pauling does not seem to question any key aspect of the HIV-AIDS theory. He states that HIV is “the etiological agent clinically associated with AIDS,” and he studies the ability of vitamin C to diminish “viral protein production in infected cells and RT stability in extracellular virions.”

    Pauling proposed that vitamin C might have a role in therapy of AIDS only because he found that vitamin C can inhibit replication of HIV in cultured cells.

    Pauling does not question any key aspect of the conventional view that AIDS is the result of infection by HIV. His work on AIDS is entirely based on the model that inhibition of HIV will be of benefit to AIDS patients. Based upon his cell culture experiments he drew the following conclusion :

    The ability of ascorbate to inhibit acute HIV infection and to suppress RT levels in chronically infected cells indicates that the compound acts at a different stage in the HIV life cycle and may, thereby, provide a rationale for developing more effective combination therapy with other anti-HIV agents.

    So Pauling doesn’t even suggest that vitamin C should be used by itself to treat AIDS, but that it be used in combination with other anti-HIV agents (of which he mentions AZT and interferon-alpha).

    Pauling’s views are entirely in line with the model that HIV infection is the cause of AIDS and that the key to treating AIDS patients is the inhibition of HIV replication.

    It is appalling that you have included Linus Pauling on your list of scientists who question the theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

    That you consider Linus Pauling to be “a good example” of the scientists on your list demonstrates that the list is a farce.

  213. #214 Chris Noble
    August 29, 2007

    A list is simply a list. You can make lists without the permission of every person whose name is on it.
    For example, the editors of the Wikipedia list “List of [famous] HIV-positive people” presumably did not ask everyone if they were okay being listed (especially the dead ones).

    The title of your list implies that the people on the list doubt the “HIV-AIDS” theory. Your readers typically understand this as doubting that HIV causes AIDS. Many of the people on your list do not doubt that HIV causes AIDS.

    The statements that people actually signed are rather vague.

    It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.

    and

    In science, no theory should be immune from challenge, and debate over an issue affecting millions of lives should never be declared over. I support South African President Thabo Mbeki’s intention to investigate the definition, causation, treatment and prevention of “AIDS”.

    A lot of people signing these petitions do not doubt that HIV causes AIDS.

    The request to remove people with caveats from the list of rethinkers is simply wrong. If someone has publicly questioned a portion of the HIV=AIDS=Death dogma we have a right to include them on the list as long as we accurately capture that caveat.

    There are many debates within the scientific community about details of how HIV causes AIDS and the best treatment for HIV infection. It would be hard to find a single researcher that hasn’t questioned some aspect of HIV science. The idea that researchers just blindly regurgitate dogma is a parody designed to impress the scientifically illiterate. It is dishonest to lump these people together with Denialists.

    Really I don’t think we even need to do that. If we put a caveat beside someone’s name like “Does not believe that sexual transmission is the cause of the AIDS epidemic in Africa” … and that person has said that publicly, then we probably would be justified in leaving the name there. However, we’re nice people so we have no desire to get into a fight over inclusion on the list.

    I guess you don’t get the irony of putting people that argue that HIV/AIDS is spread iatrogenically in Africa together with Duesberg who vehemently denies that HIV/AIDS is spread in this way at all? You don’t seem to be interested in a coherent alternative explanation only in Denial.

    The only difference between Gisselquist and the majority of HIv researchers is the relative weighting of sexual transmission and iatrogenic transmission. This hardly puts Gisselquist into the category of people who doubt that HIV causes AIDS.

    I think the big question is why so many people who consider themselves scientists are so scared of questioning dogmas. That’s what science should be all about. Questioning should be encouraged.

    Questioning is encouraged. Most new papers question part of the science. You don’t get published by just reproducing the same results time after time. The idea that scientists are just sheep is a common theme in all anti-science conspiracy theories. It is a form of cognitive dissonance that attempts to explain why the vast majority of scientists think you are cranks.

    Let’s take evolution for example.

    That’s a good example. The evolution deniers have a list.

    “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

    The text is suitably vague and weak. It doesn’t say that the people signing the petition themselves doubt evolution it simply asks for careful examination (with the implicit claim that careful examination hasn’t taken place). It’s like the HIV denial statements they simply ask for further investigation (again with the implicit assumption that this investigation has not taken place).

    If I remember correctly – somebody correct me if I’m wrong – there was a case where somebody complained that he had been put on the evolution denial liust without his knowledge.

    The evolution deniers have been claiming that “darwinism” is a failed paradigm for decades. They have an “ever growing” list. The list is primarily composed of mathematicians, engineers and others with no training in the relevant fields and certainly no direct laboratory experience.

    You would also recognise that evolution deniers do no research of their own. There entire activity involves quote mining and misrepresenting research done by real scientists. They don’t attempt to find evidence to support their own “alternative” theories. Instead they devote their time to finding “flaws” in the orthodox science. These “flaws” normally reflect their own scientific illiteracy rather than any problems with the orthodox science.

    The evolution denial list isn’t designed to convince scientists. They know the state of the science. It is designed to convince a lay audience.

    The correspondence between HIV denial and evolution denial is uncanny. An observer would swear that they are running on the same script. Perhaps Phillip Johnson has something to do with it?

  214. #215 Chris Noble
    August 29, 2007

    Evolving opinion of one man

    I got Davidson’s name off a list of 400 people with scientific degrees, provided by the Discovery Institute, who are said to doubt the “central tenets of Darwin’s theory of evolution.” Davidson, at 78 a UW professor emeritus, says he shouldn’t be on the list because he believes “the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming.”

    “I’m kind of embarrassed that I ever got involved with this,” Davidson says.

    He was shocked, he says, when he saw the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a “theory in crisis.”

    “It’s laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution,” he says. “There’s always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there’s no real scientific controversy about it.”

    “It just clicked with me that this whole movement is wrongheaded on all counts,” Davidson said. “It’s a misuse of science, and a misuse of religion.”

    Sound familiar?

  215. #216 Chris Noble
    August 29, 2007

    Has David Crowe emailed Stephen Caiazza to check whether he has changed his views since the 80s?

    Did “Marcel Girodian” do ask him whether he wanted to be included on the list?

    Why haven’t we heard anything from Stephen Caiazza for the last 17 years?

  216. #217 Chris Noble
    August 29, 2007

    1. That HIV causes AIDS.
    2. That HIV tests accurately diagnose HIV.
    3. That AIDS medicines extend life.
    4. That AIDS is heterosexually transmitted.
    5. That HIV and AIDS are decimating Africa and Asia.

    Which key point did Gisselquist’s group challenge?

    They estimated that 25-33% of HIV transmissions in Africa were through heterosexual sex. This is less than the figure commonly accepted by othe scientists but it is a far stretch from denying that HIV is spread through heterosexual transmission.

    Why won’t David Crowe admit that these people were included on the list without their permission or knowledge and that they do not support the claims made by HIV Denialists?

    (Shhhh, Adele. I know you know the answer. I’m waiting for a Denialist to answer)

  217. #218 ElkMountainMan
    August 29, 2007

    David Crowe,

    Thank you for explaining yourself, at least partially.

    On 20 June, in the “David Crowe beyond denial” thread, you accused Tara Smith of impropriety for mentioning you on this blog without informing you:

    Oh, and one more thing. It would have been nice when you started a blog entry to criticize my book if you had let me know so I could defend myself. That would have been really classy. It’s not like I’m hiding or anything.

    This is your “standard,” then, is it not? Yet how many of the “caveated” MDs and PhDs on your list did you “let know so they could defend themselves?”

    David, if you are willing to add a distinguished scientist such as Linus Pauling because he experimented with vitamin C (and, being deceased, is unable to defend himself), and other famous scientists simply because they defended Duesberg’s right to dissent (which few of us dispute), then may I suggest several more additions to your list?

    It appears to me that the entire aidstruth team, for example, should be added. Aids Truth states quite clearly their opinion that AZT should not be used as a monotherapy when other options are at hand. Surely this questions the “dogma,” does it not? The dogma as defined by you and Marcel Girodian? Please do not end with aidstruth, however; most doctors agree with them, and all deserve recognition.

    Another strategy: scour pub med for scientists who have researched IDU and progression to AIDS. Clearly, each of these men and women should be on your list, as their research is a public acknowledgment that drug use could, potentially, affect the course of disease. Is this not what you would call a “co-factor?” Why do these hundreds of researchers, thousands, more likely, not deserve a place of honor on your list alongside fellow dissident (and fellow non-signer, I presume) Robert Root-Bernstein?

    Next, there are scientists who test drug toxicity. Is this not an admirable stand against the “death-dispensing pharmaceutical juggernaut” that merits, at the least, a mention on your list?

    David, sincerely and with respect, you have set your sights far too low with a goal of 2500 by 2008. Allow me to suggest 25,000…by the end of this month. Pub Med will deliver that many “signatures” and more. Should you have difficulty finding that great treasure-trove of a web site, please do let me know.

  218. #219 carter
    August 29, 2007

    “AZT should not be used as a monotherapy when other options are at hand.”

    Yea, after they killed and nearly killed hundreds of thousands, which was dispensed along with “you have two years+/- to live!

  219. #220 jspreen
    August 29, 2007

    “AZT should not be used as a monotherapy when other options are at hand.”

    Ha ha ha!

    That’s the same thing as saying: Rat poison should not be used for health care when other options are at hand.

    How stupid can you get.

    Aids-thruther (scientist or not):
    “AZT should not be used as a monotherapy when other options are at hand.”

    Any normally intelligent person:
    “AZT should not be used as a monotherapy.”

  220. #221 Seth Manapio
    August 29, 2007

    “How stupid can you get.”

    ————-

    Well, there’s you.

  221. #222 Adele
    August 29, 2007

    Hi Chris!
    Shhhh, Adele. I know you know the answer

    Can I comment yet, Chris? :)

  222. #223 Chris Noble
    August 29, 2007

    That’s the same thing as saying: Rat poison should not be used for health care when other options are at hand.

    Sometimes even an idiot can say something intelligent – although not intentionally.

    When a safe, effective alternative to warfarin (rat poison) is developed then doctors will prescribe the alternative. Until then doctors will continue to prescribe warfarin as it is an effective anticoagulant.

  223. #224 Carter
    August 29, 2007

    Go head Adele… What do you need Chris for? It’s going to be hysterical anyway. Share with us your enlightened techy wisdom from the skewed notion HIV always causes AIDS.

  224. #225 Chris Noble
    August 29, 2007

    Go ahead carter, answer the question.

    Why won’t David Crowe admit that these people were included on the list without their permission or knowledge and that they do not support the claims made by HIV Denialists?

  225. #226 cooler
    August 29, 2007

    “Nobody is saying that mycoplasmas are harmless. Nobody is saying that ARVs are harmless” says noble.

    You and much of the medical establishment have repeatedly denied any link to mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans to AIDS/CFS/Fibromyaligia etc.

    YOuve dismissed LO’s animal model……..and catergorically echoed what the idiotic medical establishment has said, that they can only cause light pnuemonias, you rely on antibody testing, When DR. garth nicolson stresses the need to use the PCR bc the animals only had a weak antibody response when near death. When nicolson uses the PCR he has found it in CFS/GWI etc.

    Time for the mycoplasma deniers to be injected themselves,they should call up the Armed forces of pathology and ask Lo to inject them with m penetrans and m incognitus, the 2 novel mycoplasmas that killed monkeys/mice/deformed chicken embryos etc. Here are all the refrences.

    Lo’s animal model
    http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/1990/ATN09501.html

    Lo’s second animal model,chicken embryos killed /deformed by mfi, peer reviewed.

    http://iai.asm.org/cgi/reprint/64/8/3419.pdf

    Its time for Noble and the rest of the mycoplasma deniers to put up and do a Barry Marshall or shutup.

  226. #227 cooler
    August 29, 2007

    After reading those studies, you can see why Dr. Garth Nicolson claims it was part of the biological weapons program, a microbe that slowly kills every animal injected……….impossible to trace……………… read http://www.projectdaylily.com/ to find out how the mycoplasma was part of the biowarfare program……..and tested on americans.

  227. #228 DT
    August 29, 2007

    Cooler, I see that Lo hasn’t published anything about M. icognitus and AIDS for around 15 years. What happened? – did he die, or did his theory just fall apart when others tried to reproduce his work?

  228. #229 cooler
    August 29, 2007

    Stop lying, that second study I just posted where he inoculated chicken embryos and they all died/deformed was from 1996.

    Researchers from the university of Alabama confirmed it was a novel strain when they injected it into rats and they sickened while the ordinary mf didnt do much

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=8399932&ordinalpos=186&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

    Nobody debunked Lo, dont even try, you cant debunk somebody that has an animal model, go back to college and learn Kochs postulates. A group of scientists from the NIH (HEaded by tully, a mycoplasma expert who still supports his hypothesis) visited with Lo and were very impressed with his work and recommened further research, Fauci, the hack sabatoged it.

    Dr shyh ching Lo realized that in order to have a hypothesis be taken seriously it 1) has to be supported by a drug company or 2)has to have support from a high ranking politician/psuedoscientist like heckler/Fauci.

    As far as Lo’s studies being dated, well whats he supposed to do, keep publishing when the system is corrupt?

    Montagnier in is book Virus spends a great deal of time talking about Lo’s mycoplasma as a cause of human illness, and this was in the year 2000. Trust me DT, if merck got behind mycoplasma youd be telling everyone what a threat it was, take some sociology classes and learn about groupthink too see how easy it is to fool people like you.

    Luckily there are still some scientists who are not bought off by AIDs inc or the drug co’s that know the threat this microbe poses like Garth and Nancy Nicolson, Shyh Ching Lo md phd, montagnier Tully etc.

    Thanks for contributing to the epidemic of this infection, why dont you do a Barry Marshall and inject yourself if its so harmless?

    Lurkers should read http://www.projectdaylily.com/

    to see how it was part of the bioweapons program

  229. #230 Seth Manapio
    August 29, 2007

    “You and much of the medical establishment have repeatedly denied any link to mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans to AIDS/CFS/Fibromyaligia etc.”

    ————-

    Your statement is not a true statement.

    “We determined the relationship between the presence of Mycoplasma fermentans and Mycoplasma penetrans and the rate of progression of HIV-associated disease in a nested case-control study based on a cohort of 159 HIV-infected patients with different rates of disease progression.”

    Ainsworth JG, Hourshid S, Easterbrook PJ, Gilroy CB, Weber JN, Taylor-obinson D.; Mycoplasma species in rapid and slow HIV progressors., Int J STD AIDS. 2000 Feb;11(2):76-9.

    Dude, do you take any responsibility for what you say, or do you just parrot whatever you read on a denialist site, assuming that it is true? Have you noticed that every statement you have made about the literature is false?

  230. #231 cooler
    August 29, 2007

    HOw many AIDS/CFS patients are offered a mycoplasma incognitus test and antibiotics if they are positive if they see a doctor?……………..very few………..bc doctors usually get thier info from 2 sources the CDC and the Drug companies.

    Now if doctors saw the studies I posted, than it would be a different story. I agree when you do look in the peer reveiwed literature there is much more evidence that MFI is more dangerous to humans than HIV, simply bc it kills/sickens every animal injected while hiv doesnt. Just following Kochs postulates.

    See hiv fact or fraud.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6830231400057553023

  231. #232 Seth Manapio
    August 29, 2007

    “I agree when you do look in the peer reveiwed literature there is much more evidence that MFI is more dangerous to humans than HIV”

    —————

    How would you know? As far as I can tell, you haven’t given the literature even a cursory glance, because everything you say about it is wrong.

    Besides which, that statement goes directly against your previous statement that AIDS research ignores mycoplasmas or considers them harmless. You can’t actually believe both things at once. Do you alternate believes in a cycle, or do you just flip a coin?

    Try this on: any major pharmaceutical would be thrilled to reveal an effective AIDS treatment. They have just as much interest in AIDS being caused by mycoplasmas as by a virus, because EITHER WAY THEY CAN SELL EXPENSIVE DRUGS.

    In fact, if its not HIV, they get to sell brand new expensive drugs with brand new patents! Yippee!

    The idea that they would avoid a potentially profitable area of research is an extraordinary claim. Where is your extraordinary evidence? Why on earth would a drug company not be interested in selling drugs? Isn’t that what they do?

    I’ll tell you what is just twilight zone weird about your position: mycoplasmas are considered, by mainstream AIDS researchers, to be cofactors in the development of AIDS. Seriously. So you are about as wrong about the view of mycoplasmas in the research community as it is possible for a human being to be. Not only are they not considered harmless, they are considered to have a role in the development of AIDS.

    You should really try some fact checking when you read these denialist sites. Just give it a shot.

    BTW, you can debunk someone with an animal model. The animal may not be an appropriate choice, other researches may not be able to duplicate results, the controls could be wrong, the test substance contaminated, etc. etc. etc. Just having an animal test doesn’t confer 100% accuracy.

  232. #233 Chris Noble
    August 29, 2007

    http://iai.asm.org/cgi/reprint/64/8/3419.pdf

    Do you read the articles you cite?

    What does Dr Lo say?

    These AIDS-associated mycoplasmas may be cofactors in the progression of AIDS<

    The model they describe is not an animal model for AIDS. Nowhere in the paper do they suggest that mycoplasmas by themselves cause AIDS.

    The results also showed that the mortality rate was 10-30% for M. fermentans and 70-100% for M. penetrans.

    For something to be an animal model of AIDS it would have to cause AIDS. Mycoplasmas do not.

    By contrast SIV and SHIV cause AIDS in macaques.

  233. #234 cooler
    August 30, 2007

    the mortality rate varied between 30% to 100% but the deformity rate was like 100%. Lo never said mycoplasmas causes AIDS, he just saw flaws with the hiv theory and seems to embrace the multifactorial hypothesis.

    Lo, nicolson, montagnier,seem to think because every animal injected gets deformed/sickens/dies with mycoplasmas they feel it plays a causal role in many illnesses, especially since nicolson is finding it in in CFS/RA etc by pcr.

    HIv itself does nothing in animals, so relying on SIV is not the same thing when it only occurs in one species of monkey, is harmless in wild animals and the SIV lab animals didnt have 10 year window periods, and they had high titers. And the horrible scientists that did these SIV studies didnt have control animals, unlike the brilliant Dr. Lo did, to see if maybe the abusive lab conditions played a role.

    Of course all these things need further study, which is being sabotaged by AIDS inc.

  234. #235 jspreen
    August 30, 2007

    When a safe, effective alternative to warfarin (rat poison) is developed then doctors will prescribe the alternative.

    Ha ha ha ! I hoped some apologist would stand up to defend rat poison after my last cute little intervention. And yes, Noble nicely shows that apologist are ready to go to any lenght to defend their position.

  235. #236 Adele
    August 30, 2007

    “Here is a good contest!!”

    “We’re fast approaching cooler’s 500,000th mostly identical comment about projectdaylily.com. By submitting your email address with your reminder its just FICTION you will be entered in the 500,000th cooler laughaloud Contest. We won’t use your email for any other purposes except fund-raising for the vast pharmaceutical conspiracy and other cool zionist stuff.”

    “Want to ender but dont want to comment? Signing up for our brand new newsletter “The Last Five Stupid but Identical Comments of Cooler” is just as good! If you don’t want to enter at all you must be a AIDS apologist!! You’ll be missing out on alot of good FICTION thouh!”

  236. #237 Seth Manapio
    August 30, 2007

    “I hoped some apologist would stand up to defend rat poison after my last cute little intervention.”

    ———-

    You hoped nothing of the kind, of course, but are simply trying to cover up your ignorance with bullshit.

  237. #238 noreen
    August 30, 2007

    Did Dr. Noble ever give the definition for advanced AIDS? I suppose that with my CD4′s at 88, viral load greater than 100,000 and having this disease almost four years, would qualify. Whether one buys into HIV causing AIDS or not, certainly, there are numerous treatment option than strickly antiretrovirals such as supplements, ozone therapy, bio-electric medicine, DSMO, etc. My CD4′s climbed over 30 points while on a medically-supervised, bio-electric study. Although, personally, I do not place much significance on them in the first place.

  238. #239 noreen
    August 30, 2007

    Lest I forget, LDN, which is definetly preventing Opportunistic infections and helping to restore the patient’s immune system!

  239. #240 apy
    August 30, 2007

    Ha ha ha ! I hoped some apologist would stand up to defend rat poison after my last cute little intervention. And yes, Noble nicely shows that apologist are ready to go to any lenght to defend their position.

    Uhh, jspreen, are you arguing that warfarin is NOT a medicaly useful anticoagulant or that warfarin was NOT developed and used as rat poison?

  240. #241 carter
    August 30, 2007

    Thanks Noreen – as a reminder also, we certainly haven’t seen the apologists stepping up to defend or define the bogus “advanced HIV disease/HIV disease” mantra, which is so wildly used as a way to cajole and indoctrinate. And funny how nowadays it’s all about labeling it HIV/AIDS. Gone are the times when they meant two different things.

  241. #242 Adele
    August 30, 2007

    apy,
    He’s arguing warfarin’s just another poison made by the so-called jewish school-medicine to exterminate all non-Jews so the “talmudists” get to enter mesianic era. at least thats what his boss says and he doesnt have any problems with it.
    Weird, huh?

  242. #243 cooler
    August 30, 2007

    Hey guys, doesnt Adele remind you of the girl in stephen Kings movie “misery”? Shes always alone, totaly nuts, probabably fat, on these blogs 24/7, and has some marginal background in science (kathy bates was a nurse, while Adele lies about being a PCR tech).

    Thats what we all should call Adele now when she goes off on her Kathy Batesesque rants of lunacy…………..”misery women”…otherwise just ignore her or she might become your number one fan! LOL

  243. #244 Seth Manapio
    August 30, 2007

    “Of course all these things need further study, which is being sabotaged by AIDS inc.”

    ————–

    That is propaganda. The truth is that study continues into the role of mycoplasmas in AIDS and other diseases. Again: you should try to do a tiny amount of research into basic sources before you make claims that simply aren’t true.

  244. #245 Seth Manapio
    August 30, 2007

    Hey guys, doesnt Adele remind you of the girl in stephen Kings movie “misery”?

    ————-

    Not really, no. And Stephen King neither wrote nor directed the movie “Misery”, it was adopted by William Goldman from King’s novel of the same name.

    This sort of innacuracy is exactly what I’ve learned to expect from the HIV denialist movement. Even the most trivial amount of actual research is too much effort for you. Even in a poorly crafted, off target, and immature insult, you can’t manage to get your damn facts straight.

  245. #246 carter
    August 30, 2007

    Seth,
    Sounds like you have a boner for Adele, but I digress….. though interesting you refer to “denialist’s movement and what to expect, well, it only took one stones throw to bring down Goliath. I like the review of the book The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory on Amazon.com which brings to mind how seriously fast that stone is growing….

    “One of the most difficult things to write is a refutation of a massive fraud, especially a health fraud, in the face of media control and knowledge monopolies by financial powerhouses. Making it still more difficult is the possible threat of libel lawsuits from the powerful parties essentially accused of scientific misconduct at best and criminal negligence at worst. Following in the footsteps of Peter Duesberg, Robert Root-Bernstein, Neville Hodgkinson, Gordon Stewart, David Crowe, Linda Marsa and many others, Henry Bauer has produced a very readable explanation of why HIV does not cause AIDS, and whatever AIDS is, it has not caused an epidemic. His civility of tone is remarkable. Dr. Bauer’s conclusions are backed up by about 450 references, about 100 to primary medical journals. The book has a good index, 27 figures and 35 tables.

    Part I shows that HIV does not cause AIDS. Dr. Bauer makes it clear that “HIV positive” means a response to a test that shows little more than stress and immune system potentiation. Because of this, Dr. Bauer labels the prevalence or frequency of positive HIV tests “F(HIV)”. An actual virus has not been isolated. This is the main reason that no vaccine has appeared. People who test positive are usually not sick, will not develop AIDS, may spontaneously change so they are no longer HIV positive, and are not likely to infect anyone else by blood transfer or sex. The failure of F(HIV) to spread, and its steady incidence, with some decline, over 20 years contradict the scary warnings that permeate publications and TV programs. The % of people who show HIV-positive is dependent on race, sex and location, not their behavior. Some people who develop AIDS were not HIV positive. Further obfuscating the issue was a medical cabal confusing an outbreak of Kaposi’s sarcoma in the 1980s with AIDS. More confusion was sown by changing the definition of AIDS to merely being HIV positive, rather than a wasting illness from infections normally controlled by a healthy body. Many perfectly healthy people who were given AZT or mixtures of anti-retroviral drugs (triple cocktail) developed symptoms said to be AIDS that were actually drug side effects. In a sneaky way this “confirmed” the false premise that a positive HIV test indicated AIDS. Even now, healthy people who have a positive test are said to be “living with AIDS”, a false and destructive description, according to Dr. Bauer.

    Part II discusses other mistakes and scares in medical science. One sequence is on treatment of schizophrenics, who were infected with malaria, treated by electric shock, and then by lobotomy as supposed “cures” we see today as brutal and idiotic. The very common notion that high cholesterol levels cause atherosclerosis and heart attacks is also mentioned by Dr. Bauer as false. So was the resistance of orthodox medicine to admit that bacteria were the prime cause of stomach ulcers. Much of this resistance to the latter pair of ailments was said to be Big Pharma’s desire to maintain profits, which also applies to anti-retroviral drugs.

    Part III is the most wrenching to read, at times as hard as reading details of the Holocaust. The claim by Robert Gallo in the National Cancer Institute to have isolated “the cause of AIDS”, eventually named HIV. After his receipt of a sample of something in AIDS patients from the Pasteur Institute, he developed a test for antibodies to HIV. This was followed by a patent dispute between the NCI and the PI on who invented the test. Dr. Bauer noted that the PI probably did it based on the outcome of the patent fight. Dr. Bauer also noted that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention spread panic about the connection between F(HIV) and AIDS, exactly opposite to one of their mandated functions. Exact quotations from the CDC and others on HIV and AIDS were reproduced with explanations of internal inconsistencies or mutant statistics. Turns out that President Mbeki of South Africa was correct to refuse anti-retroviral drugs, and that there is no epidemic of AIDS or even F(HIV) in Africa. On p241 Dr. Bauer cites a WHO claim that 34,000,000 people worldwide were HIV positive in 2000, and that there were 470,000 AIDS cases. This is only 1.4%, of which many would be misdiagnoses. A gullible media, also prone to financial pressure by withdrawal of advertising revenues, gets some blame, with most reporters accused of going only to mainstream “experts”, and not taking the time to understand the field. The control of medical journals and failures and biases of peer-review are aired. (See my review of The Trouble with Medical Journals.) The difficulty of dumping the dogma is made only too clear as Dr. Bauer discusses the near-impossibility of having so many organizations recant, partly because of the record number of lawsuits that would arise.

    Buried under this exposé of brutal bureaucratic bungling and fraud, some really good news emerged from this book. In my opinion, if you test positive for HIV, relax, and refuse any treatment if you have no symptoms. If you have had “unprotected sex” at any time, relax, because transmission of whatever the test responds to is under 1/1000. Many people, babies especially, spontaneously become HIV negative. Of course, refuse to have the test if at all possible, and where you are forced to have the test, be ready to sign on to any class-action lawsuit for invasion of privacy, since transmission rates are so low, negating the excuse for invading privacy in the first place. Not in the book were promising results of treatment of AIDS patients with low levels of CD4 cells or with PCP by means of intravenous sodium ascorbate. (See pp92-102 and my review of: Levy TE (2002). Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins, Xlibris.com, Xlibris.)”

  246. #247 Seth Manapio
    August 30, 2007

    Carter,

    What is missing from your review is the statement: “I independently attempted to confirm a statement made by Dr. Bauer, and I found it to be correct.”

    Any fool can parrot what someone else says, and you do that very ably. But you haven’t shown any inclination to do any fact checking or independent analysis.

    Take your insistence that the HIV/AIDS connection is a “big pharma” profit driven lie. This makes no sense at all: big pharma can make money without selling anti-virals to AIDS patients by selling something else to HIV positives, something relatively benign. Why don’t they? Wouldn’t they be better off selling drugs that DIDN’T kill their customers? Wouldn’t that lead to higher profits?

    Bauer’s claims are not very accurate or reasonable.

    Instead of quoting other people, why don’t you sit down and really think about this yourself? Why do you believe one group over another? Are your reasons good reasons?

  247. #248 noreen
    August 30, 2007

    One thing is for sure, big Pharma only wants to sell antiretrovirals, that they have the patent rights too and can charge large sums for these drugs. They will not push LDN because it is too cheap a drug and would eat into their profit margin.

  248. #249 ap
    August 30, 2007

    Shes always alone, totaly nuts, probabably fat, on these blogs 24/7, and has some marginal background in science

    This means I’m probably fat too! NOOOOOOOOO!

    They will not push LDN because it is too cheap a drug and would eat into their profit margin.

    noreen, Merck developed and gave away the medication for river blindness *for free*. Various people in Merck are quoted as saying that if they did not do this, the scientists would have felt very disillusioned, since they were doing what they felt was right. Johnson & Johnson recalled all of their Tylenol after the 1980′s contamination, made public statements apologizing and introduced new temper-proof bottling. Compare this to Bristol Myers Squibb’s similar Excedrin tampering that they tried to sweep under the rug.

    No doubt there are some terrible people in big Pharma, but not all Pharmas are bad and not everyone in them are bad people. Unless you have some evidence that every single person from the salesman to the scientist developing AIDS treatments is a sadistic monster you need to get out of your hole.

  249. #250 noreen
    August 30, 2007

    I guess they are bad people as you put it when they continue to push drugs that have serious side effects when in fact, there is a better way. Who do you think they really care about, the stockholders and CEO’s or the unfortunate AIDS patient?

  250. #251 apy
    August 30, 2007

    noreen,
    Given the reaction to river blindness by the scientists that work at Merck, and considering *they* are the ones making the drugs, I think they care much less about the CEO’s pay check than about your health.

    You seem very quick to call out the faceless pharma companies and call them murderers and drug peddlers, but those companies do have scientists that are just as human as you and I doing the actual work. The CEO may only care about the bottom line (may being the key word there), but the scientists most likely do not. I gave you a real, quotable situation that Merck was part of and they made the decision to put helping people ahead of their bottom line. Johnson And Johnson did the same. These are recorded events in history. Do you have any evidence at all that everyone in big Pharma is the equivalent of Mr Burns? Old, rich, and evil? Even the scientists who are actually doing the work? Any evidence at all? A quote verifiable (and verified) quote from someone that works at these companies perhaps? And I’m talking about the type of evidence that is *real* not the fake junk Alive and Well makes up or carter does to make their position seem accurate when it is really BS.

  251. #252 carter
    August 30, 2007

    Seth
    “Instead of quoting other people, why don’t you sit down and really think about this yourself? Why do you believe one group over another? Are your reasons good reasons?”

    I quote others for they say it better than I do.

    Yes my reasons are good reasons because when NOTHING behind the theory of HIV=AIDS=DEATH adds up to make any logical sense, then that’s when smart people, even ones without advanced degrees, begin to question and then to the dismay of the ridiculously ranting and raving from the likes of you and your camp, how the unquestionable, almighty, mutating and invasive virus is the cause behind immune deficiency, well like I said before.. the science behind it is science fiction and I call it all hog wash.

    It’s not about which side! It’s about the truth!

  252. #253 Chris Noble
    August 30, 2007

    Here’s another entry in the ‘rethinkers” list.

    Bryan J. Ellison. Author, Molecular Biology grad student, Berkeley, California

    Ellison hasn’t been a grad student since the mid 90s when he had some sort of paranoid attack and accused Duesberg and Phillip Johnson of being servants of evil pharma.

    The Attempt to Censor the Ellison/Duesberg Book

    Read more about Ellison’s theories about the grand Amalek conspiracy that dates back to Esau in the Old Testament and produced the Knights-Templar, the Rosicrucians, the illuminati and the communists.

    Can we get him to debate Hamer? That would be a debate that I would pay to see.

    Just remember the rethinkers list.

    There you have it. No “handful of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists.”

  253. #254 DT
    August 30, 2007

    Did Dr. Noble ever give the definition for advanced AIDS? I suppose that with my CD4′s at 88, viral load greater than 100,000 and having this disease almost four years, would qualify.

    Noreen, someone has “advanced AIDS” when their immunodeficiency is severe enough for them to develop severe or recurrent opportunistic infections. It is not a term I would use personally as it is pretty open to misinterpretation.

    It is insufficient to have a low CD4 count in itself, as this is a laboratory parameter, not a clinical marker of advanced immune deficiency. It is possible for people without HIV to get transiently low CD4 counts without any clinical consequences. I realise a count persistently below 200 in the USA qualifies as AIDS, but not by the clinical definition which is the definition in force in the UK and elsewhere. For “advanced AIDS”, you would need to be sick with a pretty nasty OI. Your current VL is irrelevant to whether you currently have “advanced AIDS” or not. If you had a viral load of 2000, but had PCP, Toxo and recurrent fungal infection you would still have “advanced AIDS”. How long you have had HIV is similarly irrelevant.

    I guess 88 represents your CD4 nadir (so what is your usual/average level?) This is not severely depressed in HIV terms, where prior to HAART it was not unusual to see even asymptomatic patients with single figure counts. Of course anything below about 200 represents an increased risk in terms of infections, but not invariably so.

  254. #255 Chris Noble
    August 30, 2007

    Did Dr. Noble ever give the definition for advanced AIDS? I suppose that with my CD4′s at 88, viral load greater than 100,000 and having this disease almost four years, would qualify.

    Noreen, by your own words you were diagnosed with AIDS after coming down with several opportunistic infections.

    You took ARVs, recovered from th OIs and your CD4+ counts rose significantly. Since then your CD4+ counts have declined but you have not had any further OIs.

    My CD4′s climbed over 30 points while on a medically-supervised, bio-electric study.

    This is within the noise for these measurements. It is not significant whereas the improvement you saw on ARVs was.

    Ozone therapy and DMSO are potentially dangerous. Be careful. According to the Perth Group AIDS is caused by oxidative stress so ozone (a powerful oxidant) is the last thing you should be putting into your body.

  255. #256 noreen
    August 30, 2007

    So, according to USA standards, I am an AIDS person who hasn’t any illnesses. Why are AIDS persons slapped with this label for the rest of one’s life even without symptoms? Cancer patients are given a reprive after seven years. What is right about this? The only thing that I see is that this keeps the stats up.

  256. #257 apy
    August 30, 2007

    noreen,
    Are you going to answer my question?

  257. #258 Seth Manapio
    August 30, 2007

    “Yes my reasons are good reasons because when NOTHING behind the theory of HIV=AIDS=DEATH adds up to make any logical sense,”

    ————–

    In your own words, why does it not make logical sense that a virus which kills human immune system cells would be a central factor in the development of an immune deficiency syndrome? Why does it not make logical sense that immuno-compromised people would be at greater risk than the general population of dying from other diseases?

  258. #259 Chris Noble
    August 31, 2007

    Noreen, according to your own account you were diagnosed with full-blown AIDS when you were seriously ill with several AIDS defining illnesses and low CD4 counts. You took ARVs which you say saved your life and raised you CD4+ counts.

    I sincerely hope that you do not have further cases of opportunistic infections. I hope you have a permanent recovery.

    However, I don’t think that you believe you are completely healthy if you are trying a plethora of alternative treatments such as ozone therapy, DMSO and LDN.

  259. #260 carter
    August 31, 2007

    Seth
    Id like to think you’re a logical person, but since you’re here as a staunch supporter of HIV=AIDS, all I can believe, as is with your questions to me, which seemingly is coming from a place of do good is however conjured up to engage me as if I’m going to debate you on some sort of level.

    There is no debate. You guys have lost and are suffering from some serious mortal flesh wounds and you’re all here as a desperate attempt throwing enough subterfuge and spewing out your mantras from the AIDS pulpit as if people are going to continue to believe you.

    Do yourself some research Seth. Go to your local predominately gay AIDS healthcare organization and ask them to compare the number of walk-ins to get an HIV test in the last month as opposed to like two years ago. You’ll be surprised. Then ask them if their funding is in jeopardy or seriously cut back? Act as if you’re a true AIDS researcher, they’ll tell you.

    To at least answer you, there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is such a virus that does all that what it’s purported to do. HIV=AIDS is as far fetched an idea as if we’re going to go to Mars. Ok, right, science may have found some correlation (however weak) but the complete rest of it is seriously flawed and skewed to a one belief thinking. One cannot come to any other logical conclusion other then that a complete rethinking is overdue by 23 years. I would love see you guys put an end to slow toxification and poisoning by the prescribed anti-HIV regimes and death by liver failure until then. With this much controversy, wouldn’t you? Are you always going to see everything with rose colored AIDS glasses on?

  260. #261 noreen
    August 31, 2007

    I only take LDN and supplements, nothing else. However, many have had success with other alternative treatments. I do not feel the need for them or I would try less harmful avenues. Yes, I had symptoms when I was sick but like any other problems or sicknesses, one can recover and go on to lead a normal life, except with this unfair labeling. AIDS is one or more of 30 diseases, which we we know was on the planet prior to the 1980′s. People had been immune comprised prior to that time period, there just wasn’t a catch-all term for it.

  261. #262 Seth Manapio
    August 31, 2007

    “There is no debate. You guys have lost and are suffering from some serious mortal flesh wounds and you’re all here as a desperate attempt throwing enough subterfuge and spewing out your mantras from the AIDS pulpit as if people are going to continue to believe you.”

    ————

    Actually, I’m here because I’m bored at work and have some free time. I actually wouldn’t care at all if it turned out that AIDS was caused by… pretty much anything, actually. Or if it didn’t exist. I’m not invested in this personally or financially.

    Your bluster is meaningless. This isn’t a football game or a debate, it is a scientific question. If you actually look at the peer reviewed journals, you will see that many things you believe about the literature are untrue, including your recently acquired belief that you are carrying the day scientifically. You aren’t. Your hypothesis is not the most strongly supported by the evidence, which is why I believe it is incorrect.

    Most recently, we discussed mycoplasmas. You stated that research into them was being squashed by “AIDS, Inc” (whatever the hell that is supposed to be). This is not true, there is a lot of research into mycoplasmas and their pathology, including their relationship to AIDS. Given that you held that false belief, why do you continue to believe that your view of the literature is accurate? Why do you think that HIV has not been shown to damage immune cells, for example? Where does that information come from? Have you attempted to verify that source’s claims with a search of the literature?

    I ask these questions, not to draw you into a debate, but in an attempt to find out where you are getting your information and why you believe the things you do. I want to know why you believe you have strong reasons to think what you do. I’m also curious about what your actual beliefs are. For example, Do you believe in HIV?

    I was not swayed by your reasons in your previous answer. It just seems like more bluster. I’m really looking for a more specific answer, like: “I looked for a study that showed ‘x’ for reason ‘y’. I found two studies that showed not-x. QED.”

  262. #263 noreen
    August 31, 2007

    Dr. Noble, I have never stated that the antiretrovirals did not help me. They did, along with better eating habits, supplements, herbs, chelation therapy of minerals and hydrogen peroxide, steriods, B-12 shots and an antibotic. One thing is for sure, the AIDS drugs are so powerful that if they do not help then one can bend over and kiss their butt goodbye. I do believe that in some, desperate cases, they do have a useful purpose. Where I draw the line is the continuing use of these drugs, which has proven to cause other health problems to the patient. I believe that these drugs are not a long-term fix for basically, unhealthy living habits.

  263. #264 Adele
    August 31, 2007

    Seth, thanks. Let’s join weight watchers together although my hubby Dale might not like all the time we spend together haha. These people have good imagination any way!

    Noreen,
    I believe that these drugs are not a long-term fix for basically, unhealthy living habits.

    Well there you said something absolutely ever doctor agrees with. They aren’t a fix for unhealthy habits and they aren’t suppose to be, they’re a way to slow down a virus and they do it real well!

  264. #265 carter
    August 31, 2007

    Seth
    Oddly enough, if it is true you’re an atheist/skeptic and a lover of Bela Fleck (and not a fake persuader), where the heck is your’re unadulterated belief in western medicine and AIDS science coming from?

  265. #266 carter
    August 31, 2007

    “they’re a way to slow down a virus and they do it real well!”

    What a joke that is Adele…… like an assumed virus that takes ten or more years if never to manifest itself into a multiple of known illnesses needs to be slowed down by toxic chemo drugs ingested daily causing liver failure among other complications sometimes resulting in death. How freaking ludicrous is that?

  266. #267 Seth Manapio
    August 31, 2007

    “Oddly enough, if it is true you’re an atheist/skeptic and a lover of Bela Fleck (and not a fake persuader), where the heck is your’re unadulterated belief in western medicine and AIDS science coming from?”

    ————

    I’m sorry, I don’t see the connection between being a Bela Fleck fan and believing in the germ theory of disease. Could you explain that to me?

    To address your larger point, as a skeptic and an atheist, I don’t actually have any beliefs in the sense that a religious person does. I accept or reject hypotheses based on evidence. Western medicine–the germ theory of disease–does a lot of work to amass good evidence. Placebo controls, double blind studies, in vitro experiments, and a host of other methods exist for the sole purpose of finding things that work and understanding why they do.

    Based on my research into the literature, I find the HIV/AIDS hypothesis to be reasonably well supported. Several lines of evidence including epidemiological, in vitro, and therapuetic studies, support the conclusion that HIV is a primary cause of AIDS. Some researchers do believe that there are other factors, and they are not dismissed out of hand–they do get published–nor should they be. I am open to the idea that I could be wrong, but I have not seen a stronger hypothesis presented.

    The denialist or “rethinker” side does not present a coherent hypothesis. There are as many theories about AIDS as there are rethinkers. What they have in common, generally, are two things: misrepresentation of the literature (as we have seen) and a focus on grand conspiracy theories. For example, you live under the belief that there are “fake persuaders” who would lie about their music tastes in order to promote the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

    I don’t find misrepresentation of the literature or conspiracy theories persuasive, because neither one is evidence based. There is no evidence that I am aware of that supports the existence of a conspiracy of tens of thousands of researchers all over the globe.

    Why do you believe that there might be “fake persuaders” on the Aetiology blog? Do you have direct or even indirect evidence of this?

  267. #268 carter
    August 31, 2007

    Seth,
    “fake persuaders” do exist whether apparent on this blog or not. I’m double checking if you’re one or not.

    “I find the HIV/AIDS hypothesis to be reasonably well supported.” The difference is I do not and it’s from a collective analysis of both sides I have studied on a daily basis for 3+ years now.

    “conspiracy theories persuasive,”? There’s no conspiracy in HIV/AIDS. Its all about going about as business as usual. Maintaining the perception that AIDS is increasing and everyone is at risk has become necessary to maintain the business of HIV=AIDS. The thing is that the AIDS apologist people just spit blood if anyone dare suggest that people actually can live without medications or that HIV is not transmittable. With every other condition alternative health is perfectly acceptable, but the fury of public opinion be upon you if you suggest HIV isnt the cuase or can be managed or even purged from the system without meds.

  268. #269 carter
    August 31, 2007

    “Man’s most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.” Euripides.

  269. #270 Dan
    August 31, 2007

    The denialist or “rethinker” side does not present a coherent hypothesis

    Neither does the orthodoxy, Sethypoo.

    Anyway, it’s not up to the “denialists” to come up with another hypothesis to replace a sack of lies. Get it, pumpkin?

  270. #271 Dale
    August 31, 2007

    Anyway, it’s not up to the “denialists” to come up with another hypothesis Well yeah it is, Dan. That’s how science works. A hypothesis is replaced with another hypothesis when one comes along that better explains all the data. Dissidents/denialists/rethinkers have yet to come up with a hypothesis that better explains all the data.

  271. #272 Seth Manapio
    August 31, 2007

    “The difference is I do not and it’s from a collective analysis of both sides I have studied on a daily basis for 3+ years now.”

    ————

    But carter, I haven’t seen any evidence at all that you have so much as glanced at, much less studied, the literature on AIDS/HIV. Every statement you have made about what is being researched, and what is contained in that research, has been easily shown to be untrue. So I don’t believe that your opinion is particularly well informed.

    Its sort of like your belief in “fake persuaders”. I know that people are paid to advertise products in chat rooms, but I don’t know of any group paying people to advertise AIDS/HIV. Do you have evidence that such people exist?

    Most of what you say is simply not true. The HIV debate is not unique, there are people who are gentle in their rhetoric or harsh in it on every side of every issue known to man. You see it on this issue because you make a lot of claims that are not supported by evidence in a forum that values evidence. No one is spitting blood, in fact, most of the really exteme rhetoric, insults, and accusations are coming from the denialist camp.

    As I said before, the denialist camp has a counter-hypothesis, that is, they deny the hypothesis. But they have no reason to do so beyond the things I mentioned: a belief that tens of thousands of people are intentionally altering their research goals to serve a hidden lie (conspiracy theory) or misrepresenting the literature, as we have seen you do.

    It just seems odd that you can’t come up with a coherent answer to any question I pose about why you believe what you do.

  272. #273 Adele
    August 31, 2007

    The difference is I do not and it’s from a collective analysis of both sides I have studied on a daily basis for 3+ years now.

    What the heck is a collective analysis? You and a bunch of smarter deniosaurs sitting around drinking KoolAID?

    It’s like Deniosaurus Tex,
    and Deniosaurus Mex,
    And Deniosuarus Hex,
    all sitting around saying we don’t believe it!

    That’s Culshaw, Bialy, and the other one in case your wondering.

    I guarantee you carter i have read more denialist crap then you. AND I read at least one whole actual paper in a journal. Well more then that but who’s counting. Ummm that’s more than you too.

    Your an expert on where to find denialist websites and knowing David Crowe that’s it. Keep studying but don’t do it so collectively those deniosaurs have wallnut brains.

  273. #274 Dan
    August 31, 2007

    That’s how science works. A hypothesis is replaced with another hypothesis when one comes along that better explains all the data. Dissidents/denialists/rethinkers have yet to come up with a hypothesis that better explains all the data.

    Oh, my, Dale.

    You didn’t “get it”. Did you?

    The “denialists” or anybody else for that matter don’t need to come up with another crap hypothesis to answer for a mountain of bad science and wishful thinking.

    All your “data” is based on bad science. Best to simply call it what it is.

  274. #275 Seth Manapio
    August 31, 2007

    “All your “data” is based on bad science. Best to simply call it what it is.”

    ————

    That is an interesting perspective, Dan. Could you choose a specific, open access, peer reviewed article on HIV from 2007 and explain why it is bad science, with references? You did say “all”, didn’t you?

  275. #276 noreen
    August 31, 2007

    Too bad Gallo wasn’t required to have his work peer-reviewed before that infamous press conference to the world. I stumbled upon a group of quotes by AIDS rethinkers, who make some valid points, http://www.consumercide.com/hivquotes.html

  276. #277 Dale
    August 31, 2007

    No, Dan. Sadly, you’re the one who doesn’t “get it”. You are the one who engages in ‘wishful thinking’ but all the passionate rhetoric in the world won’t change reality.

  277. #278 Dale
    August 31, 2007

    Too bad Gallo wasn’t required to have his work peer-reviewed Despite what you seem to think, noreen, Gallo’s work has been peer reviewed. Over and over and over again.

  278. #279 Dan
    August 31, 2007

    Seth,
    let’s get down to the root…

    Why should I believe in HIV/AIDS?

    Make your case.

  279. #280 franklin
    August 31, 2007

    Noreen,

    You complain that:

    Too bad Gallo wasn’t required to have his work peer-reviewed before that infamous press conference to the world.

    I guess you didn’t read Professor Maniotis’s retraction of some of his lies about Dr. Gallo. On August 25, 2007, on Tara’s Intro to HIV Denialism Thread Professor Maniotis listed five inaccurate statements that he wished to correct. Here’s #5:

    5) That “Gallo’s work was not peer reviewed before being published”. The truth is that the work was reviewed, but did not appear before HSS Secretary Heckler’s press conference, but did appear a month later.

    As I stated before, I will endeavor to correct these perceptions and statements not only because I regret passing along this information, but because it is the right thing to do in order to get to the truth regarding the molecular signature of the isolates.

    So even Professor Maniotis admits that Gallo’s work was peer-reviewed before the press conference. Do you hve access to any facts that contradict Professor Maniotis’s correction?

  280. #281 ElkMountainMan
    August 31, 2007

    Not that Franklin’s statement needs any amplification, but the press conference you reference, Noreen, occurred after Dr. Gallo’s papers had undergone peer review.

    The experiments described in these papers were performed months before the press conference. Dr. Gallo and his colleagues had discussed this work informally with their peers. Dr. Gallo had presented this work. The work had then been written into articles. These articles had undergone formal peer review and been approved for publication. The publication date had been set. This is hardly “science by press conference.”

  281. #282 Dan
    August 31, 2007

    This is hardly “science by press conference”.

    I disagree.

    In my 40-some years, I’ve never seen anything else that comes close to it.

    It was quite the dramatic event. The public needs a dramatic event like this in order to be duped. It worked brilliantly!

  282. #283 Franklin
    August 31, 2007

    Dan,

    You ask us to make the case that HIV causes AIDS. This case has already been made. A long time ago.

    Here is an NIH web page that in less than a thousand words summarizes much of the early evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

    It cites about twenty papers–all of which were published more than twenty years ago.

    More recent evidence is summarized on this NIH web page, which uses less than a thousand words to summarize why HIV fulfills Koch’s Postulates.

    It cites a couple dozen or so papers, all of which were published more than 10 years ago.

    The citations for the references can be found here.

    These web pages and other concise summaries of much of the science underlying our understanding of HIV/AIDS, can be accessed from this NIH web page.

  283. #284 Franklin
    August 31, 2007

    Dan,

    Are you claiming that Gallo’s work did not undergo peer review before the press conference?

  284. #285 Dan
    August 31, 2007

    Frankie,

    I’m claiming that a dramatic press conference is a good way to get the public to swallow some tripe.

  285. #286 Darin Brown
    August 31, 2007

    I see you have about 2,000+ comments on HIV/AIDS “denial” over just the past 2 months at your blog now, Tara. Even with your minimal mathematical knowledge and capabilities, you should be able to figure that at roughly 30-40 comments PER DAY.

    And yet, you continue to claim the HIV posts are a minor part of your blog, and don’t get very many hits, after all.

    Tony the Paper TYGER must be PULLING HIS HAIR OUT… “That ***damn assistant prof! Doesn’t she know when to SHUT THE **** UP!! Geez!! KIDS NOWADAYS!!”

    I used to think Small Inquisitor JP Moore of Cornell Abbey was our greatest ally to date. Now however, I think the “QUEEN OF DIAMONDS” at Iowa Chapel — headmistress of the “Blog Un-Scientific Activities Committee” has earned that worthy distinction.

  286. #287 Seth Manapio
    September 1, 2007

    “I used to think Small Inquisitor JP Moore…”
    —————
    Um… the denialists are pretty much getting their asses handed to them here. I’m reasonably confident that any “powers that be”, if such delusions existed, would be thrilled at how poorly HIV denial shows on this blog.

    Let me put it this way: I was still on the fence until I started reading the comments here from other deniers. That convinced me that they were wrong.

    Take Dan, for example. He made a specific claim: all AIDS science is junk science. I asked him to clarify why he thinks this, by taking a specific piece of science and showing why it is junk science. His reply? He punts, to use a football metaphor.

    So, Dan, in answer to your question, there are a number of reasons I accept the AIDS/HIV hypothesis. A primary reason is that AIDS denialism, as a hypothesis, requires many unlikely things to be true. For example, tens of thousands of scientists would have to be intentionally producing bad studies. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, on non-HIV researchers would have to be keeping quiet about the disconnect between HIV research and all other biological research.

    I find this unlikely. And yet, if it is as obvious as most deniers claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV, this must be the case.

    In addition, there are specific claims made at specific denier sites about the literature, about what studies have and have not been done, and what the content of those studies is. Typically, I have found these claims to be false when I check them. Therefore, the people making the claims have no credibility with me.

    So, ultimately, to decide that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, as a non-biologist, I have to choose to believe untrustworthy people telling an absolutely incredible story without any evidence at all to back it up. On the other hand, the AIDS/HIV hypothesis has thousands of studies backing it up in multiple lines of evidence, and is being presented to me by people that I have found to be largely honest and ethical people. Really, there is no contest.

  287. #288 Dan
    September 1, 2007

    Seth,

    you didn’t answer my question.

    My question wasn’t why you should believe in “HIV/AIDS”. The question is why should I believe in “HIV/AIDS”.

    Are you going to make your case or not?

  288. #289 cooler
    September 1, 2007

    “So even Professor Maniotis admits that Gallo’s work was peer-reviewed before the press conference. Do you hve access to any facts that contradict Professor Maniotis’s correction?”

    NO why should we slobber over Gallo the fraud. When did the scientists of the world get exposed to Gallo’s bareley detectable, 1/1000 tcells no animal model partial correlation, a microbe that had a window period of 1 year that got extended to 10 when nobody got sick? Suddenly antibodies became a sign of doom, when most other viruses wreak the most havok before antibodies, thats why we get vaccines, so if there is a HIV vaccine we’ll all test positive!

    After the Press conference when it was set in stone in orwellian fashion is when scientists viewed his pathetic study, and theres nothing anyone could do about it bc thats where the funding etc was going to.

    Technically it might have been peer reviewed by the hacks at Science magazine privately, but true peer review is when any scientist can do a quick search and conduct expiremnts to verify claims, since the press conference there hasnt been one study designed to test gallo’s dubious hypothesis, they assumed it to be true.

    If I assumed a black man broke into my house, and all subsequent investigation was based on that assumption, it makes all the subsequent investigation irrelevent for not considering other hypothesis. So NObody confirmed gallo’s claims, how can you confirm something you beleive to be true already?

    See hiv fact or fraud lurkers.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6830231400057553023

    Read http://www.projectdaylily.com/ to find out about the mycoplasma biowarfare program

  289. #290 Seth Manapio
    September 1, 2007

    “My question wasn’t why you should believe in “HIV/AIDS”. The question is why should I believe in “HIV/AIDS”.”

    ————

    Oh, I’m sorry. Allow me to explain:

    So, Dan, in answer to your question, there are a number of reasons for anyone to accept the AIDS/HIV hypothesis. A primary reason is that AIDS denialism, as a hypothesis, requires many unlikely things to be true. For example, tens of thousands of scientists would have to be intentionally producing bad studies. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, on non-HIV researchers would have to be keeping quiet about the disconnect between HIV research and all other biological research.

    This is unlikely. And yet, if it is as obvious as most deniers claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV, this must be the case.

    In addition, there are specific claims made at specific denier sites about the literature, about what studies have and have not been done, and what the content of those studies is. Typically, these claims are false, as anyone can find by checking them. Therefore, the people making the claims should have no credibility with anyone who values honesty.

    So, ultimately, to decide that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, as a non-biologist, one must choose to believe untrustworthy people telling an absolutely incredible story without any evidence at all to back it up. On the other hand, the AIDS/HIV hypothesis has thousands of studies backing it up in multiple lines of evidence, and is being presented by people that are largely honest and ethical people. Really, there is no contest.

  290. #291 Dan
    September 1, 2007

    So, Dan, in answer to your question, there are a number of reasons for anyone to accept the AIDS/HIV hypothesis. A primary reason is that AIDS denialism, as a hypothesis, requires many unlikely things to be true. For example, tens of thousands of scientists would have to be intentionally producing bad studies.

    That’s hilarious, Seth!

    That’s not an answer!

    Start from the beginning, Seth, and tell me why I should believe in HIV/AIDS.

    C’mon. You can do it, can’t you?

  291. #292 franklin
    September 1, 2007

    Carter,

    You claim to have been studying both sides of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis for several years:

    “I find the HIV/AIDS hypothesis to be reasonably well supported.” The difference is I do not and it’s from a collective analysis of both sides I have studied on a daily basis for 3+ years now.

    If you have only been reading the posts on Tara’s blog for the past three months or so you will have encountered Professor Maniotis lying about:

    Dr. Gallo’s work (at least 5 lies that Maniotis admits to and has retracted)
    Dr. Montagnier’s work on apoptosis and HIV infection
    Dr. Barre-Sinousse’s statements on HIV vaccines
    The controls used in HIV culturing assays from the DIADS Manual
    The relationship between Total Lymphocyte Count and AIDS
    The autopsy findings on Eliza Jane Scovill
    The work of May et al (2006) on HAART
    Baruch Blumberg’s work on hepatitis B virus
    The polio epidemic in Nigeria
    The variable morphology of enveloped viruses

    And that’s just some of the points Maniotis has been lying about. He even has gone so far as to make up a fake “quote” from a paper written by other scientists. In other cases he quoted out of context or otherwise distorted/lied about the work of others. In many cases he repeated the same lie even after it had been debunked, until he finally just changed the subject. And Maniotis has done no work on HIV/AIDS in his own lab–his writing on HIV/AIDS is entirely based on distorting the work of other scientists.

    Carter, since you have been studying both sides of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis for so long, what is your explanation for the many lies and distortions in Professor Maniotis’s writing on HIV/AIDS.

    If the denialist position has any validity, why do you think that denialists such as Maniotis so frequently make arguments based on lies?

    Why do you think his made-up “quotes” go undetected for months on Denialist Web Sites? Does anyone who posts on the Denialist sites actually read the papers that Maniotis cites to form their own conclusions about the science?

  292. #293 franklin
    September 1, 2007

    Dan,

    I am glad that you realize that Dr. Gallo’s work passed through peer review before the press conference announcing their findings.

    I have posted an answer to your request for someone to make the case for HIV/AIDS, but it has several hyperlinks and needs to get through the spam filter. Hopefully it will appear in the morning.

  293. #294 Carter
    September 1, 2007

    Seth,
    I thought you’d be more careful then to fall into the conditioning HIV=AIDS – HIV=AIDS. The amount of volume pro establishment has no bearing on truth. You’re saying consensus makes something true. Have your read in their entirety the works of the dissidents? Bailey/Farber/Culshaw/Duesburg/ among others? No I bet you havent. Your betting your game on blog cites. Get real. I don’t have to prove to you or anyone why I believe what I do, but you have only so far demonstrated your one sided view, most likely skewed by the fact that you’re adhering to popular belief of HIV/AIDS and have been your whole life. And you call your self a skeptic? Please.

    Franklin,
    You needn’t pull full on frontal attack on me as a result of your disagreement and the twisted insidious rhetoric by you regarding Maniotis and your lies about EJ Scovil pure evil.

  294. #295 noreen
    September 1, 2007

    To me, there are many flaws in the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. I am speaking from the prospective of having the disease and not from some study or rethinker website, which many think is a crime to read. The crux of this mess, starts with the antibody test, which is not specific to HIV. The world relies on this test, even if it were specific to HIV, would only detect “antibodies” and not the VIRUS! I have many antibodies to many other viruses but no one hits the panic button about them nor do they insist that I go on more medicines for them. I do not understand why scientist have bought into this dumb way of thinking, which came about via the CDC. Basically, everyone jumped onto the HIV bandwagon and it is not politically correct to do otherwise.

    I do not see how it is a sexual disease, especially when the majority of AIDS cases in the states is in the male population, yet our military recruites test positive, equally by sex. And in Africa, the statistics do not match ours. Quite frankly, my husband tests negative.

    The heart of AIDS is CD4′s and viral load tests. There again, many out here have low CD4′s and no symtoms, which are related to AIDS. In reality, do we need numbers to tell us how we should feel? Viral load of what? How can I walk around with >100,000 and it is not in my blood? This test is based on formulas and when the inventor of it is a rethinker too, who should I believe in the matter?

    Another issue are the drugs themselves. At first, they can work as a temportary immune system as many AIDS persons have very real problems. However, at some point they will cause the very thing that they are trying to prevent. Unfortunately, when this happens the doctors do not admit that this is a side effect of the drugs, most are never told that there are side effects. The classic line is that the “virus is mutating.” How do they know that? What test proves that? They don’t go there either, we are suppose to believers of the faith.

    All of the above does not add up and does nothing to convince me to believe in the mainstream’s viewpoint in the matter. Beside that, I am surviving quite nicely with my gameplan.

  295. #296 noreen
    September 1, 2007

    To me, there are many flaws in the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. I am speaking from the prospective of having the disease and not from some study or rethinker website, which many think is a crime to read. The crux of this mess, starts with the antibody test, which is not specific to HIV. The world relies on this test, even if it were specific to HIV, would only detect “antibodies” and not the VIRUS! I have many antibodies to many other viruses but no one hits the panic button about them nor do they insist that I go on more medicines for them. I do not understand why scientist have bought into this dumb way of thinking, which came about via the CDC. Basically, everyone jumped onto the HIV bandwagon and it is not politically correct to do otherwise.

    I do not see how it is a sexual disease, especially when the majority of AIDS cases in the states is in the male population, yet our military recruites test positive, equally by sex. And in Africa, the statistics do not match ours. Quite frankly, my husband tests negative.

    The heart of AIDS is CD4′s and viral load tests. There again, many out here have low CD4′s and no symp toms, which are related to AIDS. In reality, do we need numbers to tell us how we should feel? Viral load of what? How can I walk around with >100,000 and it is not in my blood? This test is based on formulas and when the inventor of it is a rethinker too, who should I believe in the matter?

    Another issue are the drugs themselves. At first, they can work as a temportary immune system as many AIDS persons have very real problems. However, at some point they will cause the very thing that they are trying to prevent. Unfortunately, when this happens the doctors do not admit that this is a side effect of the drugs, most are never told that there are side effects. The classic line is that the “virus is mutating.” How do they know that? What test proves that? They don’t go there either, we are suppose to believers of the faith.

    All of the above does not add up and does nothing to convince me to believe in the mainstream’s viewpoint in the matter. Beside that, I am surviving quite nicely with my gameplan.

  296. #297 carter
    September 1, 2007

    Noreen says, “All of the above does not add up…” I used the word collectively before. Collectively none of it adds up from a pure logical stand point.

    Here at Tara’s wonderful (cough) blog the proponents seem to think that since it’s called a science blog everything must adhere to the “studies” – the “literature” – the “consensus”… Inasmuch that 23 years ongoing with loosing the battle and with the vast devastation caused by meds as a combatant, still HIV reigns the almighty according to them. They absolutely refuse to give the societal/political aspects of the huge debacle one idoda, for if they did they’d loose face and possibly their livelihood. It’s health by text book to them and virtually nothing else. Furthermore, none of them have even considered the shill factor.

    [Seth, Go to shillfactor dot net.]

  297. #298 franklin
    September 1, 2007

    Carter,

    I am not attacking you. You claim to have spent 3+ years studying “both sides” of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. I simply want to know what your years of daily study have led you to conclude about Professor Maniotis’s propensity for making false statements and about the apparent inability of those who post on Denialist Web Sites to detect his falsehoods.

    What do you think about the false statements Maniotis has made concerning the work of Dr. Gallo, Dr. Montagnier, Dr. Barre-Sinousse, Dr. Stramer, etc.

    You claim that I have lied about EJ Scovill. Please back up this claim with evidence.

  298. #299 apy
    September 1, 2007

    Here at Tara’s wonderful (cough) blog the proponents seem to think that since it’s called a science blog everything must adhere to the “studies” -

    Then why bother to come here? I certainly don’t goto denialist websites and post on there. perhaps my otherpersonality and others do but if you think Tara’s blog is so bad then just don’t bother posting here (I would say don’t bother reading it but it seems pretty clear you don’t).

    I am speaking from the prospective of having the disease and not from some study or rethinker website

    Any statements about HIV and AIDS are taken from a sample of people and looking at what most of them experience. It has been told time and time again, noreen, that you cannot take your sole experience and apply it to 6 billion people. We know there are some people (the elite group I believe they are called) who do not experience symptoms and they are studied to see what is different so perhaps some how we can help those who are not asymptomatic. We know that people experience disease in different ways than oen another. If you do seem to be quite healthy a this point, then don’t conclude that because you are one of the lucky ones that the disease does not actually existst. That solipsist argument insults all those people that do suffer due to AIDS.

    In reality, do we need numbers to tell us how we should feel?

    No, but they certainly help. Study after study has shown that low CD4+ counts leave one open to diseases. If you disagree with this, please provide some evidence that CD4+ counts don’t provide some prediction as to the quality of a persons immune system and thus their openness to oportunistic infections.

    Your arguments seem to not only ignore a lot of scientific research that has been peer reviewed but also hinges on your own experiences as if they apply to everyone. If I very rarely, if ever, get sick, it would be completely foolish of me to assume that disease does not exist and nobody else suffers of sickness in the world. To think that your experiences some how bear any relevant meaning on the rest of the world is painfuly self-centered.

  299. #300 Darin Brown
    September 1, 2007

    Seth said,

    “…[T]here are a number of reasons for anyone to accept the AIDS/HIV hypothesis. A primary reason is that AIDS denialism, as a hypothesis,”

    “AIDS denialism” (whatever THAT is) is not a hypothesis. The HIV hypothesis is a hypothesis. The drug-AIDS hypothesis is a hypothesis. The oxidative stress hypothesis is a hypothesis. There is no such hypothesis called “the AIDS denialism hypothesis”.

    “…requires many unlikely things to be true. For example, tens of thousands of scientists would have to be intentionally producing bad studies.”

    No, no, no.

    You really haven’t read much philosophy of science (Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn, Feyerabend, etc.), have you??

    It is not the obvious bad science, in the sense of actual incompetence or extraordinary claims made from flimsy data, among AIDS papers (Gallo 1984 “isolation”, Ho/Shaw, etc.) that should most alert us to question HIV.

    No, no… it is the overwhelming preponderance of good science on HIV that should alert us that something is dreadfully wrong.

    You — like most scientific researchers — are still living under the delusion that the scientific process is a dry, mechanical application of “objectivity” where there are no subjective choices to be made.

    But no observation is completely “objective” — this is evident the moment one considers that the decision to make the observation itself is subjective.

    Subjectivity is absolutely mandatory for the advancement of good science — not the kind of irrational, illogical, arbitrary subjectivity often rightfully attacked on these types of science blogs. No, the subjectivity which guides us, tells us where to look, what questions to ask, what directions to go in, what points to ponder, and most importantly of all, what hypotheses to consider and to reject.

    I disagree with many dissidents — I don’t think the failure of HIV science is for the most part a result of deviation from good scientific standards. Yes, there are many outstanding examples of flagrant lying, misrepresentation, and fraud, esp. in the clinical trials and review articles. But I still feel the failure of the HIV hypothesis is precisely the result of an ADHERENCE TO THOSE GOOD SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS.

    When a hypothesis produces failed predictions over and over again (such as HIV hypothesis has done), do you keep adding more and more ad hoc hypotheses to explain everything, or do you consider alternative hypotheses? Dissidents often say the latter path is clearly more “scientific” than the former. I cannot find, however, any strictly objective reasons for choosing the latter over the former. Of course, I think the latter is the way to go. But my reasons are not scientific. They are subjective.

    And this is precisely the point. As Feyerabend said, “Diversity of thought is necessary for objective knowledge.” When all the subjective non-scientific decisions about which roads to travel down, which questions to ask, are determined by a totalitarian cultural ideology, you’re going to get mish-mash, not knowledge. And the mish-mash will be promoted and produced by well-intentioned researchers following GOOD scientific method. And that is exactly what has happened.

    “Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, on non-HIV researchers would have to be keeping quiet about the disconnect between HIV research and all other biological research.”

    Some are undoubtedly “keeping quiet”. For the vast majority, I think it’s just that they ASSUME that the anomalies they have found are themselves anomalous — they assume what other researchers say, and figure, “Well, all of this will be explained in due time.”

    Haven’t you read Bauer’s book??

    “This is unlikely.”

    It’s not only not “unlikely”, it’s happened before — SMON.

    “And yet, if it is as obvious as most deniers claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV, this must be the case.”

    Just as it was painfully obvious to Japanese virologists that SMON was caused by clioquinol. And yet… nothing was done then, either. According to your reasoning, this should have been impossible.

    You’re forgetting a basic truism — it will be terribly painful for the medical community to admit that they were unwitting assistants in the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of their patients.

    “In addition, there are specific claims made at specific denier sites about the literature, about what studies have and have not been done, and what the content of those studies is. Typically, these claims are false, as anyone can find by checking them. Therefore, the people making the claims should have no credibility with anyone who values honesty.”

    Typically, your rhetoric is vague (as anyone can find by checking your posts).

    “So, ultimately, to decide that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, as a non-biologist, one must choose to believe untrustworthy people telling an absolutely incredible story without any evidence at all to back it up. On the other hand, the AIDS/HIV hypothesis has thousands of studies backing it up in multiple lines of evidence, and is being presented by people that are largely honest and ethical people. Really, there is no contest.”

    Ah, yes… “HIV researchers are the ‘kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being[s] [I]‘ve ever known in [my] li[fe].’”

    Seth… why don’t you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?

  300. #301 Some guy
    September 1, 2007

    Seth said,

    “…[T]here are a number of reasons for anyone to accept the AIDS/HIV hypothesis. A primary reason is that AIDS denialism, as a hypothesis,”

    “AIDS denialism” (whatever THAT is) is not a hypothesis. The HIV hypothesis is a hypothesis. The drug-AIDS hypothesis is a hypothesis. The oxidative stress hypothesis is a hypothesis. There is no such hypothesis called “the AIDS denialism hypothesis”.

    “…requires many unlikely things to be true. For example, tens of thousands of scientists would have to be intentionally producing bad studies.”

    No, no, no.

    You really haven’t read much philosophy of science (Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn, Feyerabend, etc.), have you??

    It is not the obvious bad science, in the sense of actual incompetence or extraordinary claims made from flimsy data, among AIDS papers (Gallo 1984 “isolation”, Ho/Shaw, etc.) that should most alert us to question HIV.

    No, no… it is the overwhelming preponderance of good science on HIV that should alert us that something is dreadfully wrong.

    You — like most scientific researchers — are still living under the delusion that the scientific process is a dry, mechanical application of “objectivity” where there are no subjective choices to be made.

    But no observation is completely “objective” — this is evident the moment one considers that the decision to make the observation itself is subjective.

    Subjectivity is absolutely mandatory for the advancement of good science — not the kind of irrational, illogical, arbitrary subjectivity often rightfully attacked on these types of science blogs. No, the subjectivity which guides us, tells us where to look, what questions to ask, what directions to go in, what points to ponder, and most importantly of all, what hypotheses to consider and to reject.

    I disagree with many dissidents — I don’t think the failure of HIV science is for the most part a result of deviation from good scientific standards. Yes, there are many outstanding examples of flagrant lying, misrepresentation, and fraud, esp. in the clinical trials and review articles. But I still feel the failure of the HIV hypothesis is precisely the result of an ADHERENCE TO THOSE GOOD SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS.

    When a hypothesis produces failed predictions over and over again (such as HIV hypothesis has done), do you keep adding more and more ad hoc hypotheses to explain everything, or do you consider alternative hypotheses? Dissidents often say the latter path is clearly more “scientific” than the former. I cannot find, however, any strictly objective reasons for choosing the latter over the former. Of course, I think the latter is the way to go. But my reasons are not scientific. They are subjective.

    And this is precisely the point. As Feyerabend said, “Diversity of thought is necessary for objective knowledge.” When all the subjective non-scientific decisions about which roads to travel down, which questions to ask, are determined by a totalitarian cultural ideology, you’re going to get mish-mash, not knowledge. And the mish-mash will be promoted and produced by well-intentioned researchers following GOOD scientific method. And that is exactly what has happened.

    “Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, on non-HIV researchers would have to be keeping quiet about the disconnect between HIV research and all other biological research.”

    Some are undoubtedly “keeping quiet”. For the vast majority, I think it’s just that they ASSUME that the anomalies they have found are themselves anomalous — they assume what other researchers say, and figure, “Well, all of this will be explained in due time.”

    Haven’t you read Bauer’s book??

    “This is unlikely.”

    It’s not only not “unlikely”, it’s happened before — SMON.

    “And yet, if it is as obvious as most deniers claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV, this must be the case.”

    Just as it was painfully obvious to Japanese virologists that SMON was caused by clioquinol. And yet… nothing was done then, either. According to your reasoning, this should have been impossible.

    You’re forgetting a basic truism — it will be terribly painful for the medical community to admit that they were unwitting assistants in the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of their patients.

    “In addition, there are specific claims made at specific denier sites about the literature, about what studies have and have not been done, and what the content of those studies is. Typically, these claims are false, as anyone can find by checking them. Therefore, the people making the claims should have no credibility with anyone who values honesty.”

    Typically, your rhetoric is vague (as anyone can find by checking your posts).

    “So, ultimately, to decide that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, as a non-biologist, one must choose to believe untrustworthy people telling an absolutely incredible story without any evidence at all to back it up. On the other hand, the AIDS/HIV hypothesis has thousands of studies backing it up in multiple lines of evidence, and is being presented by people that are largely honest and ethical people. Really, there is no contest.”

    Ah, yes… “HIV researchers are the ‘kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being[s] [I]‘ve ever known in [my] li[fe].’”

    Seth… why don’t you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?

  301. #302 noreen
    September 1, 2007

    I am outspoken about my belief as you see, like many, I had full-blown AIDS with many of the accompanying diseases and nearly died. So all things considered, things don’t add up for me and many others too who have low CD4′s and are living quiet nicely without the meds after life-style changes. The argument is that it can be done but the mainstream does not believe this. If one choose to take the meds then thats fine but certainly it is not necessary to maintain health.

  302. #303 Darin Brown
    September 1, 2007

    Seth said,

    “…[T]here are a number of reasons for anyone to accept the AIDS/HIV hypothesis. A primary reason is that AIDS denialism, as a hypothesis,”

    “AIDS denialism” (whatever THAT is) is not a hypothesis. The HIV hypothesis is a hypothesis. The drug-AIDS hypothesis is a hypothesis. The oxidative stress hypothesis is a hypothesis. There is no such hypothesis called “the AIDS denialism hypothesis”.

    “…requires many unlikely things to be true. For example, tens of thousands of scientists would have to be intentionally producing bad studies.”

    No, no, no.

    You really haven’t read much philosophy of science (Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn, Feyerabend, etc.), have you??

    It is not the obvious bad science, in the sense of actual incompetence or extraordinary claims made from flimsy data, among AIDS papers (Gallo 1984 “isolation”, Ho/Shaw, etc.) that should most alert us to question HIV.

    No, no… it is the overwhelming preponderance of good science on HIV that should alert us that something is dreadfully wrong.

    You — like most scientific researchers — are still living under the delusion that the scientific process is a dry, mechanical application of “objectivity” where there are no subjective choices to be made.

    But no observation is completely “objective” — this is evident the moment one considers that the decision to make the observation itself is subjective.

    Subjectivity is absolutely mandatory for the advancement of good science — not the kind of irrational, illogical, arbitrary subjectivity often rightfully attacked on these types of science blogs. No, the subjectivity which guides us, tells us where to look, what questions to ask, what directions to go in, what points to ponder, and most importantly of all, what hypotheses to consider and to reject.

    I disagree with many dissidents — I don’t think the failure of HIV science is for the most part a result of deviation from good scientific standards. Yes, there are many outstanding examples of flagrant lying, misrepresentation, and fraud, esp. in the clinical trials and review articles. But I still feel the failure of the HIV hypothesis is precisely the result of an ADHERENCE TO THOSE GOOD SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS.

    When a hypothesis produces failed predictions over and over again (such as HIV hypothesis has done), do you keep adding more and more ad hoc hypotheses to explain everything, or do you consider alternative hypotheses? Dissidents often say the latter path is clearly more “scientific” than the former. I cannot find, however, any strictly objective reasons for choosing the latter over the former. Of course, I think the latter is the way to go. But my reasons are not scientific. They are subjective.

    And this is precisely the point. As Feyerabend said, “Diversity of thought is necessary for objective knowledge.” When all the subjective non-scientific decisions about which roads to travel down, which questions to ask, are determined by a totalitarian cultural ideology, you’re going to get mish-mash, not knowledge. And the mish-mash will be promoted and produced by well-intentioned researchers following GOOD scientific method. And that is exactly what has happened.

    “Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, on non-HIV researchers would have to be keeping quiet about the disconnect between HIV research and all other biological research.”

    Some are undoubtedly “keeping quiet”. For the vast majority, I think it’s just that they ASSUME that the anomalies they have found are themselves anomalous — they assume what other researchers say, and figure, “Well, all of this will be explained in due time.”

    Haven’t you read Bauer’s book??

    “This is unlikely.”

    It’s not only not “unlikely”, it’s happened before — SMON.

    “And yet, if it is as obvious as most deniers claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV, this must be the case.”

    Just as it was painfully obvious to Japanese virologists that SMON was caused by clioquinol. And yet… nothing was done then, either. According to your reasoning, this should have been impossible.

    You’re forgetting a basic truism — it will be terribly painful for the medical community to admit that they were unwitting assistants in the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of their patients.

    “In addition, there are specific claims made at specific denier sites about the literature, about what studies have and have not been done, and what the content of those studies is. Typically, these claims are false, as anyone can find by checking them. Therefore, the people making the claims should have no credibility with anyone who values honesty.”

    Typically, your rhetoric is vague (as anyone can find by checking your posts).

    “So, ultimately, to decide that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, as a non-biologist, one must choose to believe untrustworthy people telling an absolutely incredible story without any evidence at all to back it up. On the other hand, the AIDS/HIV hypothesis has thousands of studies backing it up in multiple lines of evidence, and is being presented by people that are largely honest and ethical people. Really, there is no contest.”

    Ah, yes… “HIV researchers are the ‘kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being[s] [I]‘ve ever known in [my] li[fe].’”

    Seth… why don’t you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?

  303. #304 apy
    September 1, 2007

    noreen,
    So all those people that died from oportunistic diseases before we even know what the cause was or had created AZT are fabricated?

  304. #305 Seth Manapio
    September 1, 2007

    “I don’t have to prove to you or anyone why I believe what I do, but you have only so far demonstrated your one sided view, most likely skewed by the fact that you’re adhering to popular belief of HIV/AIDS and have been your whole life. And you call your self a skeptic? Please.”

    ——————-

    Actually, I didn’t accept the AIDS/HIV hypothesis until after I started reading comments from people like cooler and dan, and comparing their claims to the content of the literature.

    Carter, the problem that skeptics like ourselves have, if we are not biologists, is that we aren’t actually competent to analyze the science on that level. That is why my response to Dan focused on a rational analysis of the claims being made. The claims I see are these:

    Rethinker: Tens of thousands of biologists are engaged in an intentional fraud that is killing millions. Hundreds of thousands are covering up for them.

    AIDS researcher: This virus, in culture, kills these cells. These people are dying from unusual diseases that manifest when the body has too few of those cells. We think there is probably a connection. We’ve tested this theory about 10,000 times in many different ways over 20 years, and so far it looks like we’re right.

    One thing I want you to notice about that characterization is that of course, most rethinkers don’t say that first bit out loud. But it is a necessary precondition for their actual statement–that there is no connection between HIV and AIDS–to be true. The second thing you should note is that the scientists are still testing the theory. Every HIV study tests the underlying assumption that AIDS and HIV are connected–another fact that makes a liar of guys like Kary Mullis.

    For example, if a petri dish study of HIV showed no connection between HIV and immune cell death, that would be odd under the current theory. The study confirms the original hypothesis if there is a difference between the HIV group and control. I can tell by reading abstracts that many researchers find differences between HIV groups and Control groups in such studies.

    So, are all the researches who do the studies lying? Is that a reasonable conclusion? I’m sure that “the shill factor” answers everything for you, but are you realy thinking about the number of people who would have to be shills?

    I don’t think so. There just isn’t a lot of money in being a biologist, first, and second, I know a lot of scientists. They like doing science. Lying wouldn’t be doing science.

    The pharmaceutical companies have even less incentive for a cover up than a researcher working for them. For one thing, if it came out (say, if one of these thousands blew the whistle) they would lose everything in the resulting class action suit. And its hard to keep someone quiet if they know that blowing the whistle will make them a national hero and an obscenely wealthy person. Do you imagine that there are no activist gay biologists working in pharmaceuticals? Why on earth would you think that?

    All I’ve got, carter, is my ability to critically analyze the claims made by both sides. Like I said, I’m not a biologist, I’m a bioinformatician, and barely even that. But the rethinker claim, the shill factor claim, is truly ridiculous, and the AIDS/HIV hypothesis is pretty straightforward.

    Its sort of like when I asked you WHY it was illogical to believe that a virus which has been shown repeatedly to damage immune cells would cause an immune system problem. Did you have an answer? Sure, you just denied that the studies showed what the authors say they showed: to whit, your response is that thousands and thousands of biologists, even ones with no HIV/AIDS funding, are all lying.

    Why are they lying? Because they are scared of a backlash from an industry with nothing to gain and everything to lose by acting the way you think it is acting. Which is only possible because not a single researcher in any pharmaceutical wants to become a wealthy hero to millions by revealing this massive plot.

    Tell me why that makes sense.

  305. #306 Seth Manapio
    September 1, 2007

    “Unfortunately, when this happens the doctors do not admit that this is a side effect of the drugs, most are never told that there are side effects.”

    —————

    Noreen, all prescription medications come with little booklets detailing the side effects of the medication. Furthermore, what you are describing, lying to patients and claiming that side effects of medication are actually something else, is a clearcut case of malpractice. You are claiming that most HIV/AIDS physicians engage in this malpractice on a regular basis. Can you cite a single malpractice case that I can research to support the extraordinary claim you are making?

  306. #307 apy
    September 1, 2007

    Doctors and nurses started noticing oddly increased incidents of karposi sarcoma and PCP. They began to realize that something odd was going on to cause all of these. They eventually discovered that the immune system of the people was being affected to allow these, previously rare and typically in old people and typically not nearly as pronounced, oportunistic diseases to get them.

    These people did not know about HIV or AIDS so they could not be under the stress of being told they had a death sentence. Many of them were just regular Americans like you and I. I don’t expect any denialists to give a logical and valid answer but that certainly seems to suggest the ‘stress’ of being told you have a death sentence theory is a bit bunk.

  307. #308 apy
    September 1, 2007

    Seth,
    Providing verifiable evidence of a statement that has large implications about the entire industry and character of everyone involved? HAH!

  308. #309 Chris Noble
    September 2, 2007

    Too bad Gallo wasn’t required to have his work peer-reviewed before that infamous press conference to the world. I stumbled upon a group of quotes by AIDS rethinkers, who make some valid points,

    Noreen, if you had read Gallo’s four back-to-back Science papers from 1984 you would have seen the word’s “accepted 19 April 1984″ on each of them. This means that Gallo’s work had been submitted and peer reviewed before the press conference on 23rd of April 1984.

    Anyone can go to a university library and read these articles. This is much better than regurgitating material from Denialist websites.

    People like Maniotis have no excuse for the lies that they spread.

  309. #310 Chris Noble
    September 2, 2007

    I am outspoken about my belief as you see, like many, I had full-blown AIDS with many of the accompanying diseases and nearly died. So all things considered, things don’t add up for me and many others too who have low CD4′s and are living quiet nicely without the meds after life-style changes.

    Noreen, you came down with full-blown AIDS before being diagnosed as HIV+. You recovered with ARVs. Since stopping ARVs your CD4+ counts have decreased and your viral load has gone up but you haven’t yet had any further opportunistic infections.

    There is nothing in your story that supports any of the “alternative” ideas about HIV.

    I support your rights to make your own choices about your own health. However, it is irresponsible of you to pretend that your individual case in anyway challanges the “orthodox” position.

  310. #311 noreen
    September 2, 2007

    I want to clarify two things. First, on my first infectious disease appointment I was told, we don’t know when, but the drugs will stop working due to the virus mutating. Later on, when I questioned why my blood work was worse on the meds than prior to taking them, I was told by the ID pharmacist that it was due to “my disease.” I don’t think so since my lab reports are so much better now.

    My individual case, along with many others, do challenge the paradigm as we do fine without the meds. Taking the meds only proves that the drugs are strong and will kill most things, including the patient, this doesn’t prove that HIV causes AIDS.

  311. #312 apy
    September 2, 2007

    noreen,
    Your medical history is your own of course, but you don’t seem to have a problem sharing, so would you mind providing some time indicators in there? You got sick when? How long after did you take ARV’s? How long after taking ARVs did your blood work suggest you were sicker? How long after that did you stop taking them and how long after that did you feel better and how long up until now?

    Also noreen, you seem to have a tendency to ignore questions I ask that involve explaining why, even when confronted with the fact that denialist websites are handing out lies, you continue to support them?

    The latest lie you have is that Gallo was not peer reviewed. If you go and validate this claim (which none of the people on the denialist side of things appear to ever do) you learn that this is an outright lie. Regardless of if HIV DOES cause AIDS, doesn’t this, at the very least discredit the websites you continue to use? Why do you continue to use them if they provably misrepresent the research and give you incorrect facts? Why don’t you start validating their claims? You claim that you do not just read the denialist lies and that you come to these conclusions on your own after reading the studies but this is obviously BS since you don’t seem to validate any of what you have said here and you quote studies as saying one thing when they actually say something completley different (you brought up Amy Justice after all correct?). So noreen, you are either lieing when you say you have come to your own conclusions or at the very least lazy. If you are as open minded as you’d like us all to think then how do you explain that you fairly consistently have been using propaganda from denialist websites that is provably wrong and even after Adele, Chris, franklin, Seth have completely discredited the claims you continue to view them as a valid source of information?

  312. #313 noreen
    September 2, 2007

    Apy, I read what both sides have to say and I find things that don’t add up on both sides. I have no agenda other than to get to the truth in the matter. As you must know, most rethinkers believed the mainstream’s viewpoint at first until we looked into the matter and numerous things just don’t add up. It’s easy for most of you folks because you don’t have a vested interest in the matter. AIDS persons do not have that luxury as our lives are at stake so whatever decision we come to is critical.

    To address some of your questions, I started getting sick in the early spring of 2003. I started the antiretrovirals at the end of January 2004, initially my labs improved but within a couple of months, my labs were worse. I actually stopped the meds twice, the first time approximately 15 months later for six weeks. Over a year later, I stopped again in Mar 2006, saw great improvements meaning normal CBC, liver enzymes levels and not any symptoms. I did start LDN two months prior to the second cessation of the drugs for a total of 20 months being only this drug.

    As individuals, we have to go by what physical evidence we see in our lives. If symptoms occur, then they should be addressed by the standard means. I feel in my case, I had problem after problem, which was not adequately addressed and I proceeded to go downhill. My advice is to stay on top of one’s medical records and don’t assume that all health care providers are competent.

  313. #314 Seth Manapio
    September 2, 2007

    Noreen,

    Do you feel your pharmacist and doctor lied to you about the side effects of the medication you were taking? Have you attempted to take any action on that? They aren’t allowed to lie to you, so this should be pretty straightforward.

    Who prescribed the Naltrexone? Why was it prescribed? If Naltrexone works better than anti-virals, how does this challenge the HIV/AIDS paradigm? Wouldn’t that only imply that HIV is inhibited by LDN?

  314. #315 noreen
    September 2, 2007

    Yes, I feel that the doctors were not straight-forward in telling me the facts about HIV, AIDS and especially about the side effects of the drugs. I probably would have a better case for all of the symptoms that were not addressed and for negative lab reports that I was not told about. In the long run is it worth the legal fees and the stress involved? I try to forget the past and move forward.

    Naltrexone is a prescription drug, which was prescribed by non-AIDS doctors. It doesn’t prove that HIV is real or not. It proves that it is a great immune enhancer and to me is a better option for AIDS patients since it works and without the baggage of side effects. Many have stopped the antiretrovirals and are fine. I believe that this brings up the question that if HIV is so deadly then how we we doing this?

  315. #316 Seth Manapio
    September 2, 2007

    “In the long run is it worth the legal fees and the stress involved?”

    “I believe that this brings up the question that if HIV is so deadly then how we we doing this?”

    ———–

    1: Legal fees? What legal fees? If you have a strong case against a doctor and a pharmacist, you wouldn’t have any legal fees. Some ambulance chase would take it for free. Anyway, since “most” doctors lie to HIV patients, shouldn’t you have tons of precedent on your side?

    2: Well, in your case, the hypothesis would be that Naltrexone is boosting your immune system, thus helping your body cope with the HIV, which is damaging your immune system. It sounds to me like you are promoting a specific treatment, not challenging the AIDS/HIV hypothesis.

    I mean, I have allergies, so I use fluticasone propionate (flonase). This is a cortical steroid, with side effects such as dry mouth, headache, etc. If I found an allergy medication that did not have these side effects, but did relieve my symptoms, would I be denying the existence of allergies in any way?

  316. #317 noreen
    September 2, 2007

    Yes, in most cases it is easy to sue but when you thrown in that I would be suing the government and many attornies will not go there plus add the fact that the case would not be before a jury but a federal judge, well you do the math.

    LDN does help the immune system but going by my good track record and other things, I am not convinced that HIV is harmful.

  317. #318 apy
    September 2, 2007

    How would you be sueing the government? Medical doctors, for the most part, are not government employees. If you are claiming they are at fault then that is an issue with the specific doctors and no the govt. I did the math, yours does not work.

    Do you ever notice, noreen, that you only answer questions that you can use to agree with your hypothesis that HIV is not real or whatever it is you think (I don’t even know at this point). You ignored my whole series of questions about if you validate what Alive and Well (but did answer the question about your medical history). You also seemed to have compelely ignored this post I made which asks you to explain why you believe in websites that have been proven over and over they are lieing and misrepresent studies.

    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/06/introduction_to_hiv_and_hiv_de.php#comment-534007

    If I did miss your response then I’m sorry please correct me. But are you just going to ignore this one too?

  318. #319 noreen
    September 2, 2007

    I don’t read Alive and Well and if you have a problem with them, then you need to address it with them as I cannot speak for them or anyone else for that matter. I would be suing the VA with their doctors and other health care providers who are employed by them.

  319. #320 Seth Manapio
    September 2, 2007

    “LDN does help the immune system but going by my good track record and other things, I am not convinced that HIV is harmful.”

    —————-

    I’m confused. Why take LDN at all if HIV is not harmful? What do you think is wrong with you that you need an immune booster?

  320. #321 noreen
    September 2, 2007

    As I have stated earlier, I base my feelings on what I see and how I feel, not necessary on what either side has to say. I am sorry that most of you just want to argue with each other and won’t accept things that don’t fit into your scheme of things. I see no use in contiuning this conversation at this point. However, in three months when my latest lab reports are available, I will stop back by and some of you can continue to tell me that I am ******- up even though, I will continue to be quite healthy!

  321. #322 noreen
    September 2, 2007

    Seth, you asked me a question before I last posted. LDN is used to help persons who have/had immune diseases to boost the body’s own ability to prevent these and other immune deficient problems. Having had cancer and AIDS, my doctors and I, believe that is a great asset to my health. I find that it certainly has been.

  322. #323 apy
    September 2, 2007

    noreen,
    Then where did you get the misinformation about Amy Justice? You obvioulsy didn’t read the studies? Are we to believe that the opinions you pasted on them were your own even though they match the misinformation on various denialist websites?

  323. #324 Seth Manapio
    September 2, 2007

    “Having had cancer and AIDS, my doctors and I, believe that is a great asset to my health. I find that it certainly has been.”

    ——————-

    Okay… I’m still confused. You were sick. You took antivirals for about a year. Then you went off the antivirals onto a maintenance drug that boosts your immune system. How is this inconsistent with you having a viral infection that was damaging your immune system? And why would you counsel other AIDS patients not to follow the same path you did, if that path worked so well for you?

  324. #325 Chris Noble
    September 2, 2007

    I don’t read Alive and Well and if you have a problem with them, then you need to address it with them as I cannot speak for them or anyone else for that matter.

    You may not be reading the Alive and Well website but you are getting your “information” from Denialist sources.

    You’ve already repeated several myths such as that Gallo received a presidential pardon and that Gallo’s press conference was held before his papers were peer reviewed.

    You obviously haven’t gotten these ideas by reading scientific papers.

  325. #326 Chris Noble
    September 2, 2007

    Well, in your case, the hypothesis would be that Naltrexone is boosting your immune system, thus helping your body cope with the HIV, which is damaging your immune system. It sounds to me like you are promoting a specific treatment, not challenging the AIDS/HIV hypothesis.

    The promoters of LDN claim that it slows progession to AIDS by reducing HIV viral load to undetectable. Not only are the claims about LDN consistent with HIV causing AIDS they are dependent upon HIV causing AIDS.

    However, Noreen’s high viral load is hardly indicative of the alleged efficacy of LDN.

  326. #327 carter
    September 3, 2007

    Noreen and I have said plenty of times things just dont add up. Same thing with Rebecca Culshaw, someone whom you read Seth.

  327. #328 jspreen
    September 3, 2007

    Noreen, you came down with full-blown AIDS before being diagnosed as HIV+. You recovered with ARVs.

    Noreen, why do you discuss with people who have only one thing in mind: Talk you into their story of disease, of HIV, AIDS and ARVs? It’s their story, Noreen, they make a living out of it, their lives depend on that story. They want you to have full-blown sickness, they can’t live without it.
    It all just doesn’t add up, you wrote that down very clearly, but they won’t give in one millionth of a millimeter. For them it all adds up absolutely perfectly and it always will add up simply because it must add up.

  328. #329 jspreen
    September 3, 2007

    Him: *rant about how HIV is all a money scheme*
    Me: I make $20,000 a year. How much do you make?
    silence

    That’s all? Silence?

    Let’s try again:

    Me: HIV is all a money scheme.
    You: I make $20,000 a year. How much do you make?
    Me: Who cares how much I make? The point is that you make only that because you’re simply a lackey in the scheme. You’re a simple worker, a soldier. Comparable to the US-soldiers who went to Iraq, who risk a lot but don’t make much money. Others do make fortunes, but they’re not the soldiers. They’re the leaders of dumb “I believe everything I see on tele” sheep.

  329. #330 apy
    September 3, 2007

    I’m not trying to talk noreen into HIV = AIDS, I’m asking her why, if she claims to be so indepenent, basically everything she says is A) wrong B) off a denialist website. She says she doesn’t read alive and well and looks at both sides but she continually spouts easily disprovable lies that if she took the time to validate would see for her self. So I want noreen to tell us why, if she says one thing, her actions seem to suggest she does get her information from denialist websites.

  330. #331 jspreen
    September 3, 2007

    basically everything she says is A) wrong B) off a denialist website.

    There it is. If you don’t agree with HIV=Aids anti-science, everything you say is wrong and/or denialist talk which of course are two different names for the same thing as far as apologists are concerned.
    In other words, a person who dares to criticize the HIV=Aids paradigm, tells exclusively easily disprovable lies which, if he took the time to validate, he would easily recognize himself.

    Thus, as long a denier doesn’t recognize that he exclusively tells lies, he simply has not validated. Validated what? Only Heaven knows.

  331. #332 Franklin
    September 3, 2007

    jspreen,

    Many Denialist claims have been shown to be lies on this very blog.

    Just in the past several months on Tara’s Blog Professor Maniotis has been caught lying about:

    Dr. Gallo’s work (at least 5 lies that Maniotis admits to and has retracted)
    Dr. Montagnier’s work on apoptosis and HIV infection
    Dr. Barre-Sinousse’s statements on HIV vaccines
    The controls used in HIV culturing assays from the DIADS Manual
    The relationship between Total Lymphocyte Count and AIDS
    The autopsy findings on Eliza Jane Scovill
    The work of May et al (2006) on HAART
    Baruch Blumberg’s work on hepatitis B virus
    The polio epidemic in Nigeria
    The variable morphology of enveloped viruses

    We do not assume that Denialist claims are false, a priori, but again and again we prove them to be false–often by simply reading the sources Maniotis, himself, cites.

  332. #333 jspreen
    September 3, 2007

    We do not assume that Denialist claims are false, a priori

    Of course you do assume just that, and I can very easily prove it.

    The simple fact that you call any claims that go against the HIV=Aids paradigm Denialist claims suggest that you start from

    (HIV=Aids) = Reality

    But it’s not reality, it’s just an assumption, however strong you may think it is.

    One can only deny or confirm something that is undiscutable, real and objective. I can deny or confirm that there’s a tree in my garden or that I have no garden at all. I can deny or confirm that I drank a coffee or a beer this afternoon. But to deny or confirm that Bach was the greatest composer ever, that God exists, that the universe started with a Big Bang some 4 billion years ago, or that HIV causes Aids, makes no sense.

    If so-called scientists call a Critic’s claim a Denialist’s claim, they pretend to know The Truth and they assume a priori said claims are false. But since they can definitely prove nothing at all their diatribes against the “Denialists” sound like an angry dog barking at the moon.

  333. #334 apy
    September 3, 2007

    I am only interested in what noreen has to say in response to my question.

  334. #335 franklin
    September 3, 2007

    jsprren says:

    One can only deny or confirm something that is undiscutable, real and objective.

    Professor Maniotis claims:

    Even Barre-Sinoussi (one of Montagnier’s original group) has “come out of the closet,” so to speak, with her AIDS denialism. At the Toronto International AIDS conference, she said at the conference:

    “It is not clear if therapeutic vaccines might be useful, since 15 trials to date have not demonstrated definitive evidence of improved outcomes.”

    In “The ABC’s of AIDS Denialism” Maniotis provided the following reference for the “quote”: http://www.aids2006.org/PAG/PSession.aspx?s=653

    Following that link takes us to the program of the XVI International AIDS Conference, and although the quoted sentence appears on the web page, it was not written or spoken by Barre-Sinoussi. Instead, it was written by Cheryl Baxter, a “Rapporteur” who summarized the day’s talks for the web site. Her blurb on Barre-Sinoussi’s talk included some more information that Maniotis chose to omit:

    It is not clear if therapeutic vaccines might be useful, since 15 trials to date have not demonstrated definitive evidence of improved outcomes. However, one recent ANRS study did show that vaccinated HIV-infected patients were half as likely to initiate ART as those who did not receive the vaccine. So, she remains optimistic that therapeutic vaccination will come to play a useful role.

    It is “undiscutable, real and objective” that Professor Maniotis claimed that Cheryl Baxter’s words were spoken by Dr. Barre-Sinoussi. It is also “undiscutable, real and objective” that Dr. Barre-Sinoussi did not speak those words, since the complete audio of her presentation can be accessed from the above web page.

    Maniotis makes claims about real scientific data and those claims are easily proven false. We do not assume they are false, a priori, but simply checking the references that Maniotis provides makes his lies obvious.

  335. #336 jspreen
    September 3, 2007

    “It is not clear if therapeutic vaccines might be useful, since 15 trials to date have not demonstrated definitive evidence of improved outcomes.”

    I read and reread your post, but it still seems to me that it is “unquestionable, real and objective” that Dr. Barre-Sinoussi spoke those words. OK, in reality those words where followed by some vague loop introduced by the word however, but what difference does that make? If one always had to include in a quotation everything the quoted person has ever said, nobody would ever have quoted anybody.

    Anyway, WTF. You know, franklin, a post like yours, in French we call that “Enculer les mouches”. Cut out the silly details and get back to what really matters man. (HIV=Aids)=Reality?
    Nope. It’s an assumption. And a stupid one by that if you ask me. But that is only my opinion, of course

  336. #337 franklin
    September 3, 2007

    J Spreen says:

    I read and reread your post, but it still seems to me that it is “unquestionable, real and objective” that Dr. Barre-Sinoussi spoke those words.

    My post clearly says:

    the quoted sentence appears on the web page, it was not written or spoken by Barre-Sinoussi. Instead, it was written by Cheryl Baxter, a “Rapporteur” [emphasis added]

    Professor Maniotis quotes a press blurb about Barre-Sinoussi’s scientific presentation, but attributes the words of the reporter to the scientist.

    The full audio of the scientist’s talk is available on the web page–and if you listen to the talk you will know that it is “indiscutable, real and objective” that Barre-Sinoussi never spoke those words in her talk, despite Maniotis’s claim to the contrary.

    Maniotis is lying, and Spreen is engaging in the typical doublethink of the denialists, averting his gaze from Maniotis’s obvious lie.

  337. #338 Seth Manapio
    September 3, 2007

    We should all bear in mind that jspreen is the mindless tool of a german serial killer named Hamer, who has killed 130 people or more with lies about cancer and disease. Spreen spreads the ridiculous and ignorant notion that cholera is mankinds little helper, cleaning up after a psychologically induced cancer. If desperate people hadn’t died as a result of listening to the excrescence, he would merely be pitiable. As it is, he is despicable.

    The idea that this disgusting caricature of a man might have anything to say about the ethics of other people is a joke. He is a creep, a ghoul, a scoundrel; the souless dupe of a madman.

  338. #339 Chris Noble
    September 3, 2007

    I read and reread your post, but it still seems to me that it is “unquestionable, real and objective” that Dr. Barre-Sinoussi spoke those words.

    This tells us a lot about a) your ability to read and understand and b) your definition of “unquestionable, real and objective”.

  339. #340 carter
    September 3, 2007

    Franklin, you say, ” I simply want to know what your years of daily study have led you to conclude about Professor Maniotis’s propensity for making false statements….What do you think about the false statements… [I don't believe there absolutely 100% false and for you to think so is quite far fetched.. Youre grabbing at straws.] You claim that I have lied about EJ Scovill. Please back up this claim with evidence.” [You shall find your answers @ the website justiceforEJ... and Christine invites anybody to look at the slides showing no pneumonia and try to find anything.]

    APY, you say, “Then why bother to come here? [I come here to show you guys you have more to fear than you believe, that you plainly cant take the fact there's information refuting your convoluted arguments, your ideals are killing people for no reason and that its time to stop the diabolical nonsense you're hell bent on supporting.] I certainly don’t goto denialist websites and post on there. perhaps my otherpersonality and others do but if you think Tara’s blog is so …. [I think you should. Try it out on groups/msn Aidsmythexposed.] ….bad then just don’t bother posting here. [This aint so bad. It's training ground for people like me and you people make me laugh. I just cant get why you people are just so evil.]

    Seth, you say, “Rethinker: Tens of thousands of biologists are engaged in an intentional fraud that is killing millions. Hundreds of thousands are covering up for them.” This is a common misperception among Aids supporters. [It's not that, its business as usual and everyone plays along.....follow our one and only lineal line of thinking, for you too can have a prosperous career, just believe everything we say.] AIDS researcher: This virus, in culture, [notice; in culture, which means stimulants and supernatants specifically used to bring about a reaction. Seth, ask your new found buddies where the whole infectious virus was isolated from AIDS patients without the use of supernatants, the pure particle used as standard reference. Then do a word count in those studies, I.E. In vitro - supernatant - culture - coculture - stimulation, etc.] kills these cells. These people are dying from unusual diseases that manifest when the body has too few of those cells. [unusual diseases? -- not that much is unusual on the list, and even so are there own cures or remedies. The list includes... Herpes simplex, bronchitis, pneumonitis, Pneumonia Salmonella Tuberculosis]. We think [think, I.E., hypothesize] there is probably [maybe] a connection. We’e tested this theory about 10,000 times [which is pure insanity, the definition of doing something repeatedly hoping fof a better result] in many different ways over 20 years [and still nothing] and so far it looks [looks can be deceiving] like we’re right. [Yea, in their minds. Seth, you should really start reading between the lines.] One thing I want you to notice about that characterization is that of course, most rethinkers don’t say that first bit out loud. But it is a necessary precondition for their actual statement–that there is no connection between HIV and AIDS–to be true. [correct, because underlying the whole crux of the matter is the rethinker's asking where's the validation and there is none. Can you find the validation Seth, look hard please, there's 50K for you from Aliveandwell if you can] The second thing you should note is that the scientists are still testing the theory. [and around and around we go.. Lets have another 20 years and 100 billion later] for Every HIV study tests the underlying assumption [still an assumption] that AIDS and HIV are connected [correlation does not equal causation]–another fact that makes a liar [really?] of guys like Kary Mullis. For example, if a petri dish study of HIV showed no connection between HIV and immune cell death, that would be odd under the current theory. The study confirms the original hypothesis if there is a difference between the HIV group and control. I can tell by reading abstracts that many researchers find differences between HIV groups and Control groups in such studies. [controls? since the validation is no where top be found?] So, are all the researches who do the studies lying? [no, they're following assumptions built upon assumptions] Is that a reasonable conclusion? [no, Seth, you are way off base and allowing preconceived notions to rule your mind] I’m sure that “the shill factor” answers everything for you, [no, it's part of the collective] but are you really thinking about the number of people who would have to be shills? [not necessary because it all starts at the top of the chain, and this tells me you could care less who controls it all and how deeply they are influenced] All I’ve got, carter, is my ability to critically analyze the claims made by both sides. [and youre doing a piss poor job of it] Like I said, I’m not a biologist, I’m a bioinformatician, and barely even that. But the rethinker claim, the shill factor claim, is truly ridiculous, and the AIDS/HIV hypothesis is pretty straightforward. [not by a long shot, maybe yea for those who believe the one answer to be HIV and those that allow it to be true just because everyone else thinks it true, it's called group think and you're not immune to it. You're become part of it, the collective group trance that everything must evolve around (bad) science] Its sort of like when I asked you WHY it was illogical to believe that a virus which has been shown repeatedly to damage immune cells would cause an immune system problem. [not illogical if it were true] Did you have an answer? Sure, you just denied that the studies showed what the authors say they showed: to whit, your response is that thousands and thousands of biologists, even ones with no HIV/AIDS funding, are all lying. – [I doubt I said those exact words, I probably said they're following and supporting the beginning fundamental lie. They're not lying to themselves if they truly believe the assumptions built up over 20 something years and can get paid for their belief and in turn think they're doing something important but in reality they're supporting a failed camp and do not know any better] Why are they lying? Because they are scared of a backlash from an industry with nothing to gain and everything to lose by acting the way you think it is acting. Which is only possible because not a single researcher in any pharmaceutical wants to become a wealthy hero to millions by revealing this massive plot. You’re the one extrapolating it to be conspiracy theory here. Not me, and your massively incorrect at that. There’s no consensus among rethinkers that it is. Tell me what a “bioinformatician” is?

  340. #341 Seth Manapio
    September 3, 2007

    “Noreen and I have said plenty of times things just dont add up. Same thing with Rebecca Culshaw, someone whom you read Seth.”

    ———–

    Right. And Culshaw has been addressed elsewhere on this blog and others. She does not make a strong case.

    There are a number of foundation beliefs of HIV/AIDS denialism, things that must be true in order for the HIV/AIDS denial paradigm to be true. For example:

    1. Every AIDS researcher in the world is either incompetent or a scoundrel.
    2. Every other biologist in the world (save about .3% or so) must also be either incompetent or a scoundrel.

    This is only one of many necessary conditions for HIV/AIDS denial to make sense. Can you defend this belief? Why do you think that this is the case?

  341. #342 Seth Manapio
    September 3, 2007

    Bioinformatics is a field of computer science. Basically, this can range from neuron simulation, to analyzing protein folding, to working on better methods of analyzing DNA, and so forth. All problems in biology are hard problems, so bioinformatics is a good field to be in. However, my thesis work is on Ad Hoc networks, which I see as a related field but the relationship is non-obvious.

    What I notice about your reply is that first, you presented no evidence or analysis. Basically, your response to my analysis is that I am being infected by group think. Which is sort of ironic, because you are basically just cutting and pasting other people’s thoughts together and calling it a post.

    Here’s the thing about reading between the lines, Carter. What you see is what you want to see, because you are the one creating the information there. You actually need to read the lines themselves if you want to learn anything new.

    And you deny that you need a massive conspiracy, in the same exact post where you detail a massive conspiracy being run by a small cadre of powerful people. Dude, the biologists–all of them–have to be in on it for what you are describing to work. Otherwise, there would be a constant stream of invective from non-HIV researchers, tens of thousands of them, claiming that the whole field of HIV research was bunk.

    There isn’t. Why not? Because, according to you, those people either are lazy or don’t want to rock the boat: IE, they are aware of the problem and they choose to cover it up. That makes them part of the conspiracy, now numbering in the millions.

    Wake up, dude. That makes no sense.

    Carter, try this: abstract out your thoughts from the inline, unreadable mess you created and try to see it as a coherent whole. Try to figure out what you even think is going on, because it isn’t clear from your writing that you know what you believe at all.

    Lets take the AliveandWell 50K challenge as an example. We know that those presenting the challenge disagree with Duesberg about the existence of HIV, based on their FAQ. If these people cannot be convinced of a simple biological fact by the analysis of perhaps the most well known, best credentialed, and frequently cited HIV denier in the world, why on earth would you think that their “prize” could be won by anyone with any evidence, no matter how convincing or scientifically sound?

    Really, your post is just bizarre. You are pretending that the most basic methods of biology, running controlled studies, testing hypothesis from multiple angles, analyzing different lines of evidence, and so forth, somehow become invalid when applied to HIV.

    And apparently, everyone who disagrees with you is just another stooge. I should learn to “read between the lines.” I guess so that I can be smart like you, and basically just write down whatever other people say without trying to put it in perspective or question it.

    Denialism requires that a lot of people, tens or hundreds of thousands, simply are pretending to do research while equal numbers pretend not to notice. This includes graduate students with nothing to lose and everything to gain by crashing the paradigm, gay activists who have lost loved ones to AIDS, mothers, fathers, homophobes, republicans, democrats, a huge number of people who have nothing at all in common except a degree in biology. You are claiming that all of these people are blinded by a single press conference on this one topic, or controlled by some evil power in this one area, in direct contrast to how they act about every other topic in the entire sphere of human knowledge including every other disease known to man.

    How the hell does that make any sense?

  342. #343 carter
    September 3, 2007

    An error can never become true however many times you repeat it. The truth can never be wrong, even if no one hears it.
    - Mahatma Gandhi

    Take a`look at how it’s defined Seth,
    AIDS by definition has none of its own symptoms it relies entirely on the certainty that each case is infected with HIV. A serious side-effect of this definition is that it excludes AIDS without HIV by definition, creating the tautology “HIV causes AIDS because all AIDS cases are HIV-positive

    Now if Seth would like to go directly to two studies and answer these questions I have been wondering for a longtime and haven’t had the opportunity to ask; Why have improvements in virological responses” (VL and CD4 counts) to HAART not translated into decreased clinical progression to AIDS and death [1]? AND among HAART patients, why do “grade 4 events” (the very serious/life-threatening events associated with drug toxicities) occur 2X more as often as “AIDS events do [2]? Could it be the Rodriguez study [3] is profoundly correct in that all that is purported to be “life saving’ is not and all that is HIV, which is measurably figured by out loads of your camps crap shoot science to be the case of AIDS if false? This time don’t let your preconditioned ideas that HIV=AIDS get in your way of analytical thought, please.

    1. May, MT et al, 2006. “HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and North America in the first decade of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis”, Lancet. 2006 Aug 5;368(9534):427-8, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16890831

    2. Reisler RB, et al, 2003. “Grade 4 events are as important as AIDS events in the era of HAART”, J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003 Dec 1;34(4):379-86, 33, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14615655

    3. “Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline only minimally in untreated persons. Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection. Rodriguez B et al. Predictive Value of Plasma HIV RNA Level on Rate of CD4 T-Cell Decline in Untreated HIV Infection. JAMA. 2006 Sep 27;296(12):1498-1506
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/12/1498.

  343. #344 Franklin
    September 3, 2007

    Carter,

    The evidence that EJ Scovill died of Pneumocystis pnuemonia is amply documented in the Coroner’s Report. As I have previously explained, the Coroner’s diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia is based upon standard pathologic methods, and the pictures posted on EJ’s mother’s web site provide no reason to doubt the diagnosis.

    The value of those pictures hinge upon whether they are representative of the pathologic changes in EJ’s lungs. If they are not representative of the lesions, then they are of no value whatsoever in determining the pathologic basis of EJ’s illness.

    Pictures demonstrating the Pneumocystis pneumonia were broadcast on national television. Unfortunately, if you would like to see them for yourself you will have to purchase a tape of the ABC Prime Time episode, since EJ’s mother apparently lacks the courage to post them on the web site she has dedicated to her daughter’s case.

    The diagnosis of pneumonia does not require that every air sac in the lung be affected by the infection. So even if the photographs posted on EJ’s mother’s web page are authentic, they prove nothing. Simply finding an uninvolved region on a lung slide does nothing to change the significance of the lesions present in the lung–the lesions that EJ’s mother chooses to ignore.

    The diagnostic pictures are those that show the pathology, the ones taken by the anatomic pathologists responsible for determining the cause and manner of EJ’s death, and shown on ABC Prime TIme.

    I have not lied about EJ Scovill’s death. On the other hand, publishing photographs that are not representative of the pathologic changes in EJ’s lungs and claiming that they prove she didn’t have pneumonia, well many people would probably consider that to be lying.

  344. #345 franklin
    September 4, 2007

    Carter,

    You say that your years of daily study of Denialist writings have led you to the following conclusion regarding the many false statements made by Professor Maniotis:

    I don’t believe there absolutely 100% false and for you to think so is quite far fetched.

    You say you study “both sides” of HIV/AIDS. If so, please listen carefully to the talk given by Dr. Barre-Sinoussi at the Tornto conference:“Dynamics of HIV/AIDS Vaccine Research: From Dream and Nightmare to Reality and Hope”.

    Report back to tell us where in the talk she speaks the words attributed to her by Maniotis:

    Even Barre-Sinoussi (one of Montagnier’s original group) has “come out of the closet,” so to speak, with her AIDS denialism. At the Toronto International AIDS conference, she said at the conference:
    “It is not clear if therapeutic vaccines might be useful, since 15 trials to date have not demonstrated definitive evidence of improved outcomes.”

    How is that statement less than 100% false? Either she made that statement at the Toronto International AIDS conference or she didn’t.

  345. #346 carter
    September 4, 2007

    There are a number of foundation beliefs of HIV/AIDS denialism, things that must be true in order for the HIV/AIDS denial paradigm to be true.

    WTF! HIV/AIDS denial paradigm?

    Read above post:
    “AIDS denialism” (whatever THAT is) is not a hypothesis. The HIV hypothesis is a hypothesis. The drug-AIDS hypothesis is a hypothesis. The oxidative stress hypothesis is a hypothesis. There is no such hypothesis (or Paradigm)called “the AIDS denialism hypothesis/paradigm”.

    “And apparently, everyone who disagrees with you is just another stooge.//1. Every AIDS researcher in the world is either incompetent or a scoundrel. 2. Every other biologist in the world (save about .3% or so) must also be either incompetent or a scoundrel.”

    I need my high top rubbers again for your line of bull crap… Its business as usual and the preservation of AIDS Inc for it must survive at all costs… award the do gooders with research grants, money for care givers and all that whilst defending the Hypothesis tooth and nail against all others. Now thats outragious.

  346. #347 carter
    September 4, 2007

    Nice try Franklin but im not going to watch a 1,75 hour long of propaganda on how damn hard its for you guys to get a vaccine. I sat through a lacky of yours, Eric Daar’s (see shillfactor dot net)full presentation years ago. It made me sick. Here I got the same feeling within 3 minutes of it.

  347. #349 Chris Noble
    September 4, 2007

    Nice try Franklin but im not going to watch a 1,75 hour long of propaganda on how damn hard its for you guys to get a vaccine.

    And you wonder why you are labelled Denialists?

  348. #350 Chris Noble
    September 4, 2007

    When I pointed out that he had copied and pasted from somebody using the pseudonym “Robert Gallo” Maniotis responded with:

    How do you know it is a pseudonym?

    Because you (“Bob Gallo”) said it was a pseudonym.

    Forgive me for using the pseudonym (Robert Gallo), but my family and I have been targetted here in Chicago by folks who have gone to long lenths to ruin me, and for all intents and purposes, have not yet succeeded, although my tenure was denied at my University on the basis for my views and lectures against the “HIV-AIDS” insanity (yes, I really am a sort of famous scientist that can’t spell). But they have not shut me up, or put my science out of business, although I am barred at the University from teaching medical students (they still allow me to have graduate students and post-docs). So please forgive my caution.

  349. #351 carter
    September 4, 2007

    John -opps I meant Franklin,
    Hows about pointing me to the video of the proven without a doubt whole infectious HIV virus from AIDS patients free from culture and without in vitro stressors, supernatants and contaminates or other cellular debris. I’d love to watch that even if was for several hours long.

  350. #352 jspreen
    September 4, 2007

    What you see is what you want to see

    Spreading the BS too, Seth? You should read this about seeing what you want to see. Enjoy!

    He is a creep, a ghoul, a scoundrel; the souless dupe of a madman.
    You sure are an angry little boy, Seth. Ever wondered why?

  351. #353 jspreen
    September 4, 2007

    I have not lied about EJ Scovill’s death.

    You have not lied? You have not lied? You brought it up, you goddamn son of a bitch. You try to use the death of a baby against that baby’s mother. You cannot possibly fall into a deeper black hole of pure evil.

    What? Yeah, that makes me angry and I can’t think of a better reason to go beserk, you scumbag.

  352. #354 Seth Manapio
    September 4, 2007

    “You sure are an angry little boy, Seth. Ever wondered why?”

    ————-

    I’m not angry about you being a digusting cretin, spreen, its just that you truly creep me out. Knowing you exist in the world makes my skin crawl.

  353. #355 Seth Manapio
    September 4, 2007

    “You cannot possibly fall into a deeper black hole of pure evil.”

    ————-

    Well, he could be like you, and counsel people to ignore cancer while the flesh rots off their bones. That would be more evil. He could become the mindless sycophant of a murderer, like you have. That would be a deeper black hole of pure evil.

  354. #356 jspreen
    September 4, 2007

    Well, he could be like you, and counsel people to ignore cancer while the flesh rots off their bones.

    HA HA HA HA !!

    You sure do have some curious impression of Hamer’s New Medicine, my boy.

    Were did you get that from? I mean, I’ve discussed the subject with many people among whom quite some doctors in medicine etc., and, apart from some rare exceptions, they all agree that Hamer’s approach makes a lot of sense.

    How come you’re so incredibly agressive? Just because of that two and a half pages of mud-throwing you read on the Internet?

    You should really try to read this and stay calm while reading. Try it, just once. I swear to you, each word stands as a rock.

  355. #357 Seth Manapio
    September 4, 2007

    “There is no such hypothesis (or Paradigm)called “the AIDS denialism hypothesis/paradigm”.”

    ————-

    Actually, there is. A paradigm is merely a view of reality. The AIDS denialism paradigm is the view of reality created when all the things that must be true in order for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis to be false are put together. What I am trying to get you to do is to evaluate and understand that paradigm and consider whether it is reasonable.

    For example, when I say that your belief system requires this big conspiracy, your response has been to deny that this is true. Then you detail the conspiracy.

    I need my high top rubbers again for your line of bull crap… Its business as usual and the preservation of AIDS Inc for it must survive at all costs… award the do gooders with research grants,

    You are describing a conspiracy in which people at the top knowingly reward bad science, punish good science, and the majority of scientists just ignore that situation. But you replace the word “conspiracy” with “AIDS Inc” or “business as usual.”

    But is that really business as usual? Do most diseases get treated this way, or is it just AIDS? If it is most diseases, then how do you explain the success of new antibiotics, flu vaccine, and so forth? If just AIDS, why is this behavior only profitable for AIDS and only tolerated when it comes to AIDS?

    And of course, in order for your “business as usual” to take place, tens or hundreds of thousands of biologists have to aware that it is taking place, all over the world, and either ignoring it or playing along, right?

    So where is the bullcrap bit? I find the conspiracy unlikely, you apparently find it certain, but we both agree that it must be going on, right? So why are you certain that biologists behave like this?

    Lets take another example: you bring up the AliveandWell 50K challenge fairly often. The idea being, I suppose, that if I really knew that HIV caused AIDS I could go get my money and be done with it, right?

    Here’s the thing: if you believe the evidence is strong that HIV exists at all, you know that no one can collect that money.

    If you don’t, then you have to drop Duesberg as a credible scientist. He’s a dupe, because he says that HIV certainly exists. He says that it has been shown to exist by the strongest methods known to science, in fact.

    Well, if the strongest methods known to science won’t persuade Maggiore and her crowd, I’m not going to be able to sway her with science, am I? So your 50K challenge is revealed as nothing more than a chunk of PR crap.

    Try this: write down what you actually believe. Why do you think that HIV does not cause AIDS? Make a list.

    That’s one thing I did a few years ago. And what I found was that I kept having to cross things off the list that just weren’t true or reasonable. You might not find that, but you might. Do you dare risk it?

  356. #358 Seth Manapio
    September 4, 2007

    You sure do have some curious impression of Hamer’s New Medicine, my boy.

    ————–

    Really?

    “Hamer persuades her, that she must stop the chemo therapy.”

    And you are still laughing. You make me sick.

  357. #359 jspreen
    September 4, 2007

    “Hamer persuades her, that she must stop the chemo therapy.”

    Her? Who’s she? What’s the story behind that picture? Why do you accusingly slap people with that kind of pictures? You know, one can find thousands of pictures like that on the Internet and say: “You want scalpels, chemo and radiation? Here, that’s what regular cancer treament does to people.”

    You’re a silly boy, Seth. Many people today started to doubt regular cancer treatment, most of whom have no idea about Hamer’s New Medicine. Here, watch this and stop eating your liver.

  358. #360 carter
    September 4, 2007

    Try this: write down what you actually believe. Why do you think that HIV does not cause AIDS? Make a list.

    Partial list… each catagory has subcatagories making it to much to list

    harpers-OutOfControl-farber
    charlestoncitypaper
    groups-msn-com/aidsmythexposed
    livingwithouthivdrugs
    newaidsreview
    healaids
    theperthgroup
    healtoronto
    helpforhiv
    barnesworld blogs
    Etienne de Harven
    Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society
    AIDS Wiki – AIDS Wiki
    Liam’s World
    ACTUP San Francisco
    notaids-com
    aliveandwell-org
    YOUTUBE – Lee Evans
    shillfactor
    Podcast Pickle: Aids Propaganda
    Matt Irwin HIV Science
    VIRUSMYTH
    science sold out
    Padian Paper
    Harvey Baily
    Rodreguez Et al

    Plus the hundreds of stories from HIV positives who are living longer without mainstream interventions and Anti-HIV drugs

  359. #361 Dale
    September 4, 2007

    Curious, carter. Of your list of ‘reasons’ for your belief, only two are scientific papers; neither of which contains data that would support your belief. I think you are exhibiting a fine example of the behaviour that leads many to refer to many of those who share your beliefs as denialists.

  360. #362 Seth Manapio
    September 4, 2007

    Carter, you misunderstand me. I’m not asking for your list of sources. I’m asking you to write down what YOU believe. For example, does HIV exist? If not, why do you think people say it does, are they lying, misguided, stupid, what?

    What do you, personally, think is going on?

  361. #363 jspreen
    September 4, 2007

    only two are scientific papers; neither of which contains data that would support your belief.

    Of course. Would they support “denialist” “beliefs”, you wouldn’t call them scientific anymore.

    That’s the bottom line of main stream science today, didn’t you know? Either one agrees with the herds of nerds and the label “Science” stands, either one doesn’t and the label “Science” falls.

  362. #364 Seth Manapio
    September 4, 2007

    “Her? Who’s she?”

    ———-

    Her name was Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert, and she died on the 12th of November, 2005. She was murdered by Geerd Hamer, who convinced her that she would recover from breast cancer without drugs or surgery.

    You help Hamer convince people not to seek chemotherapy or surgery. You are an accomplice to murder, someone who revels in the deaths of others and treats it like some big joke.

  363. #365 carter
    September 4, 2007

    Ah, but you fine dear folks fail to realize there are many statements/concepts/essays/comments and all the like contained within the wealth of information from the above list. Doesn’t make a difference if they’re websites or whatever.. You’re asking for where’s my belief is coming from and you got it. Measure as you like. Call it as you like.

  364. #366 jspreen
    September 4, 2007

    Her name was Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert

    Yeah. And her death was used by some crazy journalists at the newspaper Der Hamburger Morgenpost who set up a campaign of hate against Dr Hamer in order to make sure that all the sheople of the Earth would never refuse chemo torture from hell as the ultimate live-saving killer treatment.
    Seth, you’re really a silly man to only spend time reading hate campaigns. Might that be the reason why you’re so incredibly angry?

  365. #367 Dale
    September 4, 2007

    Of course. Would they support “denialist” “beliefs”, you wouldn’t call them scientific anymore.

    That’s the bottom line of main stream science today, didn’t you know? Either one agrees with the herds of nerds and the label “Science” stands, either one doesn’t and the label “Science” falls.

    So what you appear to be saying jspreen is that “HIV does not cause AIDS” is belief based on something other than science… perhaps the ‘statements/concepts/essays/comments and all the like ‘ referred to by carter?

    As one of those who spent a fair amount of time looking for a scientific basis for ‘rethinking AIDS’, I certainly wouldn’t argue with that.

  366. #368 apy
    September 4, 2007

    fail to realize there are many statements/concepts/essays/comments

    Well nobody is arguing that, but do any of those statements/concepts/essays/comments have any experimental evidence behind them?

  367. #369 Seth Manapio
    September 4, 2007

    “And her death was used…”

    —————-

    Well, whoever used her death, she was still murdered by Hamer.

    An act that you approve of, which is why I find you such a disgusting person.

  368. #370 Seth Manapio
    September 4, 2007

    “You’re asking for where’s my belief is coming from and you got it.”

    ————–

    No, I’m asking what you believe. I’m asking you to write down what you believe about AIDS/HIV. You know, in your own words. I didn’t ask for a list of rethinker resources, I’ve already got one. I’m asking you for your actual thoughts about this. For example, do you think that HIV exists? Why do you think AIDS science is special, or do you think that the lack of standards you insist exists in AIDS research extends to all biological research?

  369. #371 jspreen
    September 4, 2007

    Well, whoever used her death, she was still murdered by Hamer.

    Poor Seth, you miss the elementary logic which, if you simply had some courage to use your own brain, would allow you to understand that those who used her death want to make you believe that she was murdered by the man they taught you to hate.

  370. #372 apy
    September 4, 2007

    At this point I would probably make a clever remark about logic and jspreen and how funny that is. Unfortunately it would be completely lost o jspreen and the people who would find it funny are already thinking it.

    Although I guess saying that is about equal to making the remark.

  371. #373 Seth Manapio
    September 4, 2007

    Hamer convinced Michela to stop chemo and not to have surgery. Without treatment, her cancer ate her alive. She died in horrible pain, with the flesh rotting off of her bones.

    Spin it how you want. Hamer is a murderer.

  372. #374 carter
    September 5, 2007

    No, I’m asking what you believe.

    How’s about this Seth? I don’t need to write a list. My thoughts mirror what is contained therein with the biggest store houses being the recent books publised by Bailey/Culshaw/Farber. Lists- Smists. Obviously you think you’re being persuasive, which you’re not. so cut the rhetoric.

    Well, if the strongest methods known to science won’t persuade Maggiore and her crowd, I’m not going to be able to sway her with science, am I? So your 50K challenge is revealed as nothing more than a chunk of PR crap.

    The real point here is that even with a cash incentive you aren’t answering the question. Instead you actually avoid it by creating an argument that has nothing to do with whether there’s a validation study published in the mainstream’s medical literature showing that tests for HIV surrogates accurately identify HIV infection. By not stepping up to the plate you’re supporting a failed paradigm.

    Let’s say Seth you were to put your mouth where the money is and submit the evidence necessary to collect?. Why would you let the alleged disparity between Duesberg and the Perth Group stop you from collecting $25k in cash? And in doing so help starving Africans with another $25K a charity gift??

  373. #375 Chris Noble
    September 5, 2007

    How’s about this Seth? I don’t need to write a list. My thoughts mirror what is contained therein with the biggest store houses being the recent books publised by Bailey/Culshaw/Farber. Lists- Smists. Obviously you think you’re being persuasive, which you’re not. so cut the rhetoric.

    The various HIV denialists have mutually exclusive beliefs. None of their various “alternative” theories are coherent or complete. The only thing that unites HIV denilaists is a dogmatic belief that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS (or if it does ARVs are worse than vitamin C etc).

    Like other pseudosciences such as evolution denial it is all negative.

    Let’s say Seth you were to put your mouth where the money is and submit the evidence necessary to collect?. Why would you let the alleged disparity between Duesberg and the Perth Group stop you from collecting $25k in cash? And in doing so help starving Africans with another $25K a charity gift??

    I’ve been asking a simple question for a long time. If Duesberg and the Perth Group are serious scientists that are attempting to uncover the truth then why can’t they convince each other about whether HIV exists? Duesberg says that HIV exists but doesn’t cause AIDS. The Perth Group says that if HIV exists then it causes AIDS. They both claim to be following the same evidence. Why do they make radically different conclusions? You can try as hard as you can to ignore this rift but it is there.

    At least one of them (and more likely both) are being dogmatic and will never admit that they are wrong. They have both invested to much to ever admit to being wrong. No amount of evidence will convince them of anything.

    Maggiore is the same

  374. #376 carter
    September 5, 2007

    Tara’s spam catcher disallowed the following posted last night for reasons of long web links to the studies. Thev’ve been ommited here.

    SETH:
    “An error can never become true however many times you repeat it. The truth can never be wrong, even if no one hears it.
    - Mahatma Gandhi

    Take a`look at how it’s defined Seth,
    AIDS by definition has none of its own symptoms it relies entirely on the certainty that each case is infected with HIV. A serious side-effect of this definition is that it excludes AIDS without HIV by definition, creating the tautology “HIV causes AIDS because all AIDS cases are HIV-positive

    Now if Seth would like to go directly to two studies and answer these questions I have been wondering for a longtime and haven’t had the opportunity to ask; Why have improvements in virological responses” (VL and CD4 counts) to HAART not translated into decreased clinical progression to AIDS and death [1]? AND among HAART patients, why do “grade 4 events” (the very serious/life-threatening events associated with drug toxicities) occur 2X more as often as “AIDS events do [2]?

    Could it be the Rodriguez study [3] is profoundly correct in that all that is purported to be “life saving’ is not and all that is HIV, which is measurably figured by out loads of your camps crap shoot science to be the case of AIDS is false?

    This time don’t let your preconditioned ideas that HIV=AIDS get in your way of analytical thought, please.

    1. May, MT et al, 2006. “HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and North America in the first decade of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis”, Lancet. 2006 Aug 5;368(9534):427-8,

    2. Reisler RB, et al, 2003. “Grade 4 events are as important as AIDS events in the era of HAART”, J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003 Dec 1;34(4):379-86, 33,

    3. “Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline only minimally in untreated persons. Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection. Rodriguez B et al. Predictive Value of Plasma HIV RNA Level on Rate of CD4 T-Cell Decline in Untreated HIV Infection. JAMA. 2006 Sep 27;296(12):1498-1506

  375. #377 Chris Noble
    September 5, 2007

    Carter, have you read any of these papers?

    What does table 4 in reference 2 (Reisler RB, et al, 2003. “Grade 4 events are as important as AIDS events in the era of HAART”, J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003 Dec 1;34(4):379-86, 33,) show and what does it mean?

  376. #378 carter
    September 5, 2007

    Dear Sir Noble:
    Can you answer the f__king question? If you didnt understand it here it is again:
    Why have improvements in virological responses” (VL and CD4 counts) to HAART not translated into decreased clinical progression to AIDS and death [1]? AND among HAART patients, why do “grade 4 events” (the very serious/life-threatening events associated with drug toxicities) occur 2X more as often as “AIDS events do [2]?

  377. #379 Chris Noble
    September 5, 2007

    Carter, has it ever occurred to you that the answers to your questions may lie in the papers which you have not read?

    All you have done is copy and paste some text from a Denialist website. You haven’t read the articles that you insist we read. You are bluffing.

    Why can’t you tell we what table 4 in Reisler RB, et al. shows?

  378. #380 carter
    September 5, 2007

    Dear Sir Noble,
    Again with your stinking subterfuge! Shut up and answer the question!

  379. #381 Chris Noble
    September 5, 2007

    Again with your stinking subterfuge! Shut up and answer the question!

    There is nothing unreasonable about expecting you to read the paper that you cite.

    Why can’t you tell we what table 4 in Reisler RB, et al. shows?

    The data in this table is extremely relevant to your rhetorical question.

    You are a model Denialist. You pretend to get your information from scientific studies but in reality you rely on Denialist websites. You are just parroting what you read. You understand none of it.

  380. #382 Kooky
    September 5, 2007

    HIV was actually ENGINEERED by Big Pharma under supervision of the CIA. It spreads by WATCHING TV. Lots of PEOPLE have it now, but of course the tests won’t show it. Once in your brain, it INJECTS your DNA with LSD. This is why people saw PLANES crash into the TWIN TOWERS. This is why George Bush got RE-ELECTED.

    As for AIDS, it’s GOD’s punishment for those who don’t agree with the WAR ON TARA and want North Korean nuclear missiles to be given away to AL QAEDA. It spreads by drinking latte, eating sushi and driving FOREIGN CARS.

  381. #383 carter
    September 5, 2007

    Bull Shit Noble

    You can’t answer the question!

    Furthermore, here’s a tidbit I find and very typical of most all the Mainstream studies. [from the RB et al: last paragraph of Discussions] “Better evidence is needed to determine how much of this morbidity is directly due to HAART.”

  382. #384 jspreen
    September 5, 2007

    Without treatment, her cancer ate her alive.

    The usual crap addressing people who never got away from those fairy tales that scared them shitless when they wher a kid.

  383. #385 Chris Noble
    September 5, 2007

    Carter,
    what does table 4 in the Reisler et al study show? What does it mean?

    If you want somebody to answer your questions then demonstrate that you can read and understand the paper? In fact if you could read and understand the paper you would be well on your way to answering your own question.

    All you have done so far is shown that you can copy and paste from a Denialist website.

  384. #386 jspreen
    September 5, 2007

    HIV was actually ENGINEERED by Big Pharma under supervision of the CIA.

    It’s quite remarquable how sheople can only imagine this kind of crappy conspiracy version of the HIV=Aids story when facing a critic they call a “Denialist”.

    But there is no conspiracy. It’s just a story of scientists who lost all touch with reality. Of people who got too implied in trying too hard to find an answer to the wrong question. They’ve been watching too long too close, now their eyes hurt so much they can’t possibly look elsewhere for answers to the right questions. The right questions, one of which would be: “Do we really know what is disease?”

    (HIV=Aids)=Science gone mad

  385. #387 Seth Manapio
    September 5, 2007

    Carter, I already know that your thoughts are merely a mirror for denialism. That’s sort of my point. I don’t think you have ever tried to put together the various sources into any kind of coherent whole.

    There are no rhetorical tricks here. I’m asking you an honest question: what do you believe about HIV/AIDS?

    On the topic, by the way, of the “alleged” difference of opinion between Duesberg and the Perth Group, I offer the following:

    I will argue that HIV exists, and has been properly identified as a unique retrovirus on the grounds that (i) it has been isolated – even from its own virion structure – in the form of an infectious, molecularly cloned HIV DNA that is able to induce the synthesis of a reverse transcriptase containing virion, and (ii) that HIV-specific, viral DNA can be identified only in infected, but not in uninfected human cells.
    -Peter Duesberg, Continuum, vol 4 (2) pages 8-9, July/August 1996

    There are three ways to resolve this debate:

    The first is to perform isolation experiments to prove whether or not a retrovirus HIV truly exists in AIDS patients or in anyone.

    –Front Page Perth Group Website (theperthgroup.com)

    This is not an “alleged” seperation of opinion, Carter, it is a public, stated, absolute, unquestionable, definite separation of opinion. Of of these groups is correct, the other is incorrect, and this is not a minor point, it is the central point.

    So, if Peter Duesberg can’t convince Maggiore or the Perth group that HIV exists at all, why would I bother to try myself? What, exactly, would be the point of trying where the most educated and respected member of their own damn movement had failed?

    Basically, your “what about the challenge” response is a red herring. You are assuming that AliveandWell have reasonable standards of evidence, but the entire debate is about whether AliveandWell has reasonable standards of evidence. So it is just a distraction, a meaningless rhetorical trick.

    So, what do you believe about HIV/AIDS? Is there a virus? Does that virus harm people? Why do people think it does? What do you believe?

  386. #388 Seth Manapio
    September 5, 2007

    Carter,

    To the point of the contents of the studies you are pointing out: I don’t know the answer to your question. I don’t even know whether your question is relevant to the contents of the studies, because like you, I haven’t read those papers.

    I know that a 2006 study did show that deaths from HIV/AIDS dropped between 1996 and 2007, concurrent with the introduction of HAART. (J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006 Sep;43(1):27-34.)

    Maybe the answers to your questions could be found by looking up different papers somewhere other than a rethinker site? Because there are a lot of studies that address mortality and HAART.

  387. #389 David Crowe
    September 5, 2007

    Chris Noble has a very strange view of science, that the most important thing is consensus. Of course rethinkers disagree with each other on some issues. They actually think individually about science, not as a herd of science sheep!

    If consensus was so important then solving mathematical conundrums would be very simple. Is postulate X solvable? Let’s see, 100,000 mathematicians say No, and only 1 says yes. But what if he’s the one with the proof?

    Rethinkers will continue to vigorously debate. Their disagreements are a sign that they do not allow the majority view (not even the majority of rethinkers) to sway their beliefs until they’ve perhaps reconsidered the evidence.

    When you get right down to it, the issue of whether HIV does not exist at all, or whether HIV exists, but only in tiny amounts and without pathogenic, does not change the fundamental argument that HIV does not cause AIDS, that it’s not sexually transmitted etc. There is plenty of evidence to support those contentions even if HIV does exist. If it doesn’t, of course, then a lot of elements of the HIV=AID$=Death dogma fall apart somewhat more quickly…

  388. #390 apy
    September 5, 2007

    David, you give yourself away with your own example. If that one person has proof then they can show the evidence to the other 100,000 and if his proof is valid they will agree and reach a consensus. Unfortunately people like carter and noreen have done nothing but paste information from more denialist websites. They do not contain proof of anything other than their lack of reading skill combined with their inability to verify the actual statements. If any of then were really interested in progress they would actually read the studies and answer questions Dale, Adele, Chris Noble, and others have presented them with, but rather every one of them responds with “that is just what I would expect you to say, pushing the religious HIV=AIDS orthodoxy”. If you and your goons are really so scientifically minded and concerned with the general public, I would expect you to read the studies you misrepresent, or at the very least explain why you aren’t reading the studies.

  389. #391 Seth Manapio
    September 5, 2007

    “When you get right down to it, the issue of whether HIV does not exist at all, or whether HIV exists, but only in tiny amounts and without pathogenic, does not change the fundamental argument that HIV does not cause AIDS, that it’s not sexually transmitted etc.”

    —————-

    Not really. If HIV does exist, it is possible for it be do something. If it doesn’t exist, than it cannot do anything.

    The amount of evidence needed to support other “fundamental” arguments about the relationship between HIV and AIDS is completely different under each assumption. Supporters of the two hypothesis must have completely different standards of evidence and acceptance of basic methodology. So, if you actual think about it that minor difference represents two completely incompatible world views.

  390. #392 Dale
    September 5, 2007

    When you get right down to it, the issue of whether HIV does not exist at all, or whether HIV exists, but only in tiny amounts and without pathogenic, does not change the fundamental argument that HIV does not cause AIDS, that it’s not sexually transmitted etc. There is plenty of evidence to support those contentions even if HIV does exist. If it doesn’t, of course, then a lot of elements of the HIV=AID$=Death dogma fall apart somewhat more quickly…

    It changes the fundamental argument substantially. Because the ‘evidence’, such as it is, that might support one of those contentions doesn’t support the other. A valid scientific hypothesis must explain all the available data.

  391. #393 noreen
    September 5, 2007

    Why do I need to let studies convince me of how I feel when I have great health? People, like myself, do not fit into the mainstream’s view of AIDS. Yet, you folks contiune to push your theories down our throats. As I have asked the question before, if HIV is so deadly, then how are so many living normal lives without the antiretrovirals?

  392. #394 apy
    September 5, 2007

    I haven’t questioned your health in any way noreen. But you are the one that said Gallo was pardoned by Clinton, that brought up Amy Justice’s paper, and have spilled a whole bunch of other outright lies. I’m questioning your ability to take the time to verify any of the information that you have given us here. I’m also questioning your claims that you have come to these conclusions on your own without reading denialist websites. The reasoning for questioning that should be pretty obvious: you have been pasting claims from denialist websites. So noreen, you either have not read the denialist websites and come to your conclusions on your own, which some how reflect the misinformation on pages such as Alive and Well, or you lied and you do read denialist websites and are not coming to conclusions on your own and are just pasting junk from those pages.
    I’ve asked you twice now to explain your line of reasoning, once in reference to Amy Justice and once having to do with the other denialist website information you have pasted here and you haven’t answered either. Is the third time the charm?

  393. #395 Adele
    September 5, 2007

    Hahaha David Crowe thinks scientists are a herd of sheep!!

    He should come to our lab meeting sometime.

    Scientists fight like cats David about stuff like is this kindof immune cell really in this part of the body or is this reall a receptor we’re looking at and what about this Hep drug and HIV. Well you don’t know any scientists so I guess you don’t know that.

    Scientists don’t have a diversity of opinion or whatever FULL PROFESSOR DRAIN BWORN said on stuff like, does the sun exist and does malaria have part of its cycle in mosquitos and is there water in the Pacific Ocean. They’re always disagreeing on other stuff like things we don’t know so well.

    If the great western yellow bellied crow is thinking numbers don’t matter and I agree there then why doesn’t he come clean with his fraud list of people who didn’t sign it. cowardly and inconsistant.

  394. #396 noreen
    September 5, 2007

    You can attack me all you want but I have AIDS, have low CD4′s, high viral load but I am healthy as a horse. So, you tell me who is wrong in one’s beliefs? Imagine, people can live without antiretrovirals drugs for the rest of one’s life, wow, what a concept!

  395. #397 apy
    September 5, 2007

    Are you even reading my messages noreen? I, in no way, stated you were unhealthy, or that you had to go on ARV’s. I never even stated that HIV causes AIDS. I purely asked why you say one thing and act in another way. Are you able to answer this question?

  396. #398 Chris Noble
    September 5, 2007

    Chris Noble has a very strange view of science, that the most important thing is consensus. Of course rethinkers disagree with each other on some issues. They actually think individually about science, not as a herd of science sheep!

    This is a classic strawman argument. The important thing in science is the process in which a consensus is established. In healthy science people with different opinions do research and then present their evidence to convince their colleagues that they are correct. This is what has happened in “orthodox” AIDS science. Their are still differences of opinion on many issues but these scientists continue to do research and continue to debate their colleagues. Over time these differences are ironed out and new debates emerge.

    Contrast this with “dissident” AIDS science. Their has been no progress at all in resolving the major conflicts between competing “alternative” theories. This is because “dissident” scientists a) do no research and b) there is a tactical alliance against “orthodox” science and all diferences amongst the denialists are glossed over.

    If consensus was so important then solving mathematical conundrums would be very simple. Is postulate X solvable? Let’s see, 100,000 mathematicians say No, and only 1 says yes. But what if he’s the one with the proof?

    If that mathematician has proof then he will eventually be able to convince his colleagues. The process of obtaining the consensus is the important point. The consensus is formed by the presentation of evidence. Inventing conspiracy theories, crying censorship and pretending that all scientists are sheeple is not the way to convince your colleagues.

    Rethinkers will continue to vigorously debate. Their disagreements are a sign that they do not allow the majority view (not even the majority of rethinkers) to sway their beliefs until they’ve perhaps reconsidered the evidence.

    But the rethinkers do not vigorously debate each other. In the last 20 years the same rethinkers have had the same conflicting theories and they have made no progress whatsoever. They are still stuck in their own dogma. Why can’t Duesberg and the Perth Group resolve their differences? Where are the “dissident” conferences where they try to convince each other? Real scientists have conferences and they have vigorous debates. In contrast there is a silent nod nod wink wink agreement between the various “dissidents” to ignore their differences and concetrate upon their common “enemy”.

    When you get right down to it, the issue of whether HIV does not exist at all, or whether HIV exists, but only in tiny amounts and without pathogenic, does not change the fundamental argument that HIV does not cause AIDS, that it’s not sexually transmitted etc. There is plenty of evidence to support those contentions even if HIV does exist. If it doesn’t, of course, then a lot of elements of the HIV=AID$=Death dogma fall apart somewhat more quickly…

    When you get right down to it you are being deceptive.

    The Perth Group state: If one accepts that “HIV” and “HIV” antibodies exist, then one has no choice but to also accept that Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled which means that HIV is the cause of AIDS

    If HIV exists then it causes AIDS. This cannot be reconciled with Duesberg’s view that HIV exists but cannot cause AIDS because it is a normal retrovirus.

    You would expect Duesberg and the Perth Group to vigorously debate each other but they don’t. If Duesberg and the Perth Group were honest scientists who objectively analysed the evidence and were open to honest debate then you would expect that eventually one group would be able to convince the other that they were rioght and the other was wrong. This hasn’t happened. The only possible conclusion is that at leats one of them is not being objective. In my opinion both of them are dogmatically clinging to their own pet theories and will never change their minds no matter how much evidence is presented to them.

  397. #399 Chris Noble
    September 5, 2007

    If the great western yellow bellied crow is thinking numbers don’t matter and I agree there then why doesn’t he come clean with his fraud list of people who didn’t sign it. cowardly and inconsistant.

    The same thing strikes me with the people who question whether AGW is taking place. They spend a lot of effort attempting to show that there is not a scientific consensus on the issue but at the same argue that the consensus opinion is not important.

  398. #400 Seth Manapio
    September 5, 2007

    “Imagine, people can live without antiretrovirals drugs for the rest of one’s life, wow, what a concept!”
    ————-
    Noreen, the only thing I don’t like about your story is that you would counsel other people, with your same problem, not to follow the route that got you feeling healthy as a horse, as opposed to dead.

    Your story, basically, is that you were very sick. You took medicines. You started feeling better but the side effects of the medicine was very severe, so as soon as you could manage without you started taking a different medicine with fewer side effects and have felt okay ever since. Inspiring? Sure. A case against antiretrovirals? No.

  399. #401 carter
    September 5, 2007

    Where’s The Great Sir Noble’s answer on the question I had? Can’t you answer it with all your infinite wisdom and knowledge? Or are you going to skirt around issues that are terribly unsettling to you then forget about it?, huh? Come on I’m waiting…

    However, your subterfuge accounts for nothing whatsoever, because I know these studies from before and I went through the Reisler one over again out of curiosity. Funny how it is you want me to look at co-infection by Hep b/c there. What for? Explain that in addition to being proof drugs designed for HIV are completely worthless, the science behind this one is grabbing at nothing concrete? Because when you actually look at it (figure four); what it’s saying is, so… even under the assumption that each liver event was caused by Hepatitis that leaves 77% Grade four events unanswered/cant be explained when you do the math and grade four events are still out numbered by AIDS events anyway. This claims liver related events are caused by hep b/c but that’s a correlation only. Do most people with hep C ever get sick with hepatitis? Then again may I remind you of the anti-HIV drugs side effects of liver toxicity?

    While we’re on the subject of explaining figures; refer to Figure 1. Tell me something Chris Noble, to you, why the curve for Grade 4 events rises twice as high as the AIDS curve?

    Now Sir: I’ve done what you asked (further exposing your convoluted science) and even gave my reason why I think these papers demonstrate HAART as completely useless and a serious health threatening device and which further undermines the HIV=AIDS theory.

    NOW it’s your turn Noble. Answer my question (s). Unfortunately Seth bowed out of it, for I was hoping for someone to answer without HIV=AIDS rose colored glasses on, but even he can do that, he’s allowed that 23 year old group trance of yours to cloud his psyche.

  400. #402 Seth Manapio
    September 6, 2007

    “he’s allowed that 23 year old group trance of yours to cloud his psyche.”

    ————

    Well, I just have this pesky habit of researching claims, you know? I’m just not naive and trusting like you, I’m not willing to just be a parrot for a point of view I don’t understand and can’t articulate.

    I did point out at least one study that comes to different conclusions than they ones you are claiming for the study you are citing… have you looked at studies that you found through pub med or web of science, and not off a denialist web site?

    Speaking of bowing out, are you ever going to address the question of what you think is going on with HIV/AIDS? Does HIV exist? Is it harmless? Why do people think it is harmful? Etc.

    What do you believe?

    You seem really uncomfortable addressing that, so much so that you are playing a stupid distraction game with Chris Noble instead of answering. You are even being quite abusive. Why do you think you are so uncomfortable explaining the contents of a belief you hold so passionately?

  401. #403 Seth Manapio
    September 6, 2007

    Tell you what, Carter, go to this web site, read the paper there, check the sources, and then get back to me. Most of your answers about liver problems and HAART seem to addressed there, with many references.

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/418925

    Especially telling is that patients taken off HAART, given a limited course of a different treatment, and then placed BACK on HAART did not have liver problems recur. So it is pretty unlikely that the HAART is causing the liver problems.

    Not that you care about the answer.

    Its all a ruse to avoid having to explain your position. Somehow, you seem to believe that actually stating your position will somehow make it weaker. That isn’t a good sign. Science is like cryptography, If you need to keep your algorithm secret, your security sucks, and if you need to keep your position secret, your argument sucks.

  402. #404 Chris Noble
    September 6, 2007

    Carter copied and pasted his questions from here
    20 ‘unanswerable’ questions

    As to ‘unanswerable’ all I can say is: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Despite Carter’s protestations there is no evidence that he had read or understood the paper.

    He makes conclusions that cannot be drawn from the study itself. Both the Reisler et al study and the May et al study only look at patients on HAART.

    By comparison the study that Seth cited compares pre-HAART with HAART.

    Even then Carter has to ignore Reisler et al “Nonetheless, it is reassuring that these rates are much lower than rates seen in a similar cohort that received dual nucleosides. 72 Thus, although more effective ART is associated with decreased morbidity from both grade 4 and AIDS events, significant morbidity remains.” and “In summary, morbidity and mortality for patients with HIV infection have been substantially reduced with HAART. However, morbidity remains high in the era of HAART. Better evidence is needed to determine how much of this morbidity is directly due to HAART.”

    There are numerous studies that demonstrate that HAART reduces both morbidity and mortality. A large proportion of the liver disease is related to coinfection with hepatitis B and C.

    As HAART reduces AIDS related mortality and morbidity the relative proportion of non-AIDS related mortality and morbidity will increase. Some of this morbidity is due to toxicities of the drugs.

  403. #405 ben gorman
    September 6, 2007

    Upthread Dale wrote:

    A valid scientific hypothesis must explain all the available data.

    How does the viral hypothesis of AIDS explain HIV-negative AIDS? (Moore et al, Lancet 1992)

  404. #406 carter
    September 6, 2007

    Dear Noble, et al. What does AIDS, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and the common cold have in common?

    They all reflect a state of diminished resistance to infection, in other words a state of lowered immunocompetance due to a weakened immune system and reduced vitality. They are all lifestyle-related problems insoluble by traditional medicine.

    Therefore I believe immunocompetence depends on the maintenance of homeostasis, balance (aniline/alkaline status) within the body, and as homeostasis in turn depends on correct diet and other lifestyle factors, I see it clearly that these health problems are not caused by germs or viruses. these viruses associated with those above do reside quite nicely within the bodies of everyone all the time, in a form which is harmless. I reveal and unlike you, have little faith in western medicine. Etienne de Harven says there has been no retrovirus ever to cause disease. Why HIV? Why now? If indeed its been truly isolated and the jury is still out on that, why have you idiots not been able to figure it out and cure a single actual person with the acronym AIDS? No you say, this HIV thing is so invasive and mutating, cant find it, so after 2 decades of crap and billions spent…. what do we have. Nothing! Nothing other than death by liver failure for all those who belive in the almighty HIV. You, Seth and the others are wrapped up in it. It’s so engrained into your being that you’re trapped and can’t see.

    Ask yourself this.. what do you think the benefit of those same dollars put into organic farming in the States and sustainable communities in Africa would have done for us over two decades? Less disease overall? Certainly we’d have no AIDS. And you guys would be out of a job and most likely working in something like waste managment science….

  405. #407 Chris Noble
    September 6, 2007

    Here I was expecting Carter to outline his brilliant alternate explanation of AIDS! What do we get?

    Therefore I believe immunocompetence depends on the maintenance of homeostasis, balance (aniline/alkaline status) within the body, and as homeostasis in turn depends on correct diet and other lifestyle factors,…

    That’s it? That’s all?

    Is it too much aniline or too little?

    I personally try to avoid food with too much aniline in it.

  406. #408 noreen
    September 6, 2007

    Seth, do not twist things around like some of the others do. I stated for the “rest of one’s life.” The meds have their place in fatal conditions but to dispense them like candy is another story. I would suggest that those who believe that the drugs are not so harmful on the liver to actually talk to and see the medical records of the patients for a truer picture.

    Carter is not so off-base in his viewpoint of the importance of a balanced PH. Germs are always with us and will get a foothold when the PH is to acidic. Diet does play a major role into all of this. His explantion of AIDS is simple, that’s why most won’t listen but if one will clean up one’s act and live a healthy life-style, then AIDS and other mysterious illnesses will cease to exist.

  407. #409 Seth Manapio
    September 6, 2007

    “Seth, do not twist things around like some of the others do.”

    ———-

    I’m trying, really, to untwist them. It seems to me that you refer to yourself as a rethinker, but that actually you believe that HIV causes AIDS, AIDS is a real disease, and that your main debate is that you think most doctors are too aggressive with HAART treatment and don’t focus enough on overall good health. Is that about right?

  408. #410 Seth Manapio
    September 6, 2007

    “I reveal and unlike you, have little faith in western medicine.”

    ———

    I don’t have any faith at all in western medicine. Fortunately, my “faith” is not required in order for western medicine to work.

    But I’m curious: what do you mean by that? Do bacteria and viruses cause disease? Can they be fought with vaccination and antibiotics?

    What I have so far from you is this: You believe that HIV does not cause AIDS because you think the following things are true:
    1. You think that the Jury is still out on HIV even existing.
    2. You think that no retrovirus has ever caused a disease in the past.
    3. You think that, even given 1&2, the lack of a cure indicates that HIV does not cause AIDS.
    4. You deny that any progress at all has been made in AIDS treatment.

    What you do think causes AIDS (a catastrophic, total collapse of the immune system) is improper pH balance.

    Does that about sum it up?

  409. #411 noreen
    September 6, 2007

    Seth, I “DO NOT” believe that HIV causes AIDS. In fact, I believe that AIDS is a disease that was invented on paper just like any other board game. Today, you and I could take a collection of non-related diseases and give them a new meaning. However, I do agree that the term AIDS in some cases, tells the world that the person has or has had serious health issues in the past. So I do not argue about the term AIDS but I do have heartburn with saying that HIV is the culprit.

    Yes, I believe that doctors are prescribing these serious drugs to soon and in cases where the patient doesn’t have symptoms based on bogus numbers and antibodies instead of an actual virus.

  410. #412 apy
    September 6, 2007

    noreen,
    Again you post without answering my question. How do you expect us to believe what you say when you simply ignore questions about your credibility that you don’t want to answer?

  411. #413 Adele
    September 6, 2007

    Noreen says on this thread September 2
    I don’t read Alive and Well

    Introduction to denial thread she saaid
    Matt Irwin on the virusmyth.net site and on alive and well site mention this plus this is only one reference to it

    Thats when I aksed her where she got a totally bad information about a study.

    Noreen doesnt know if she does or not read alive and well website.

  412. #414 noreen
    September 6, 2007

    My credibility is that I had full-blown AIDS, what more do I have to justify? Many nonprogressors and persons like myself have rebuild our health naturally. Doesn’t this fact make you question the validity of HIV being a killer?

  413. #415 noreen
    September 6, 2007

    Adele, in the past I have glanced at many traditional and rethinker sites but after I made up my mind on who I believed, I no longer need to view either. If some of you would research what the rethinkers have to say, then maybe you would learn something instead of spouting the party line.

    You seem to pick and choose what studies you believe. Did you read the study that says only 6 to 9% of viral load and CD4′s tests were an indicator of who would progress to AIDS? What about no conversions to HIV-positve on the Padian study? Lest we forget the grade 4 events. As I have stated before, some things don’t add up on both sides of the fence. You all can read all the studies that you want but the proof is in the pudding as the saying goes.

    I live with the label of AIDS everyday and I certainly know what works whether you agree with me or not!

  414. #416 Adele
    September 6, 2007

    No it doesn’t Noreen you are an exception and I’m glad for you but your using up patience when you come here and lie about studies and even what web sites you read when you don’t even know what a antibody is.

    Your losing credibility if you ever had it. See usually someone proves your wrong and you say sorry I was wrong. But you don’t. You don’t say sorry I lied I do read alive and well. You pretend you come up with this crap yourself. Then you’re like well I can say whatever I want lie as much as I want because it cant hurt my credibility.

  415. #417 Adele
    September 6, 2007

    And noreen now your saying you made up your mind so nothing changes it. Rock of Gibralter or something right.

    I do read denialist stuff all the time. If a denialist actually do an experiment some day and it proves AIDS is caused by drugs or aliens or getting bit by a cat and its convincing I’ll give it a chance.

    Thing is, Noreen every thing I read by these liars is a lie just like most of the stuff you repeat from them because you want it to be true.

    I don’t htink your a bad person noreen like most of these idiots, you just brainwashed yourself because denial’s a normal thing for us when we have a disease or hardship. Please think about staying healthy instead of using other peoples lies so other people stay off medicines that can help them more than you.

  416. #418 jspreen
    September 6, 2007

    Noreen doesn’t know if she does or not read alive and well website.

    So what the heck man, what difference does that make? Are you the Inquisition or what?

    Ah, Torquemada is your name. Shiiiiiiiiiiit ….

    Beg your pardon, sir, please. Yes sir, you’re right, sir, people shouldn’t read those web pages from hell. What, I excuse too late? What? Too little too late? I will burn in hell with all the other heretics and there’s nothing I can do. Shiiiiiit….

    Merde alors. Moi et ma grande gueule…
    (enfin, ça c’est juste pour Adèle, qui a lu et apprécié “Le Petit Prince”)

  417. #419 jspreen
    September 6, 2007

    it proves AIDS is caused by …. I’ll give it a chance.

    Ha ha ha ha !

    Adele will give something a chance after it’s proved!

    No risk, huh ?

  418. #420 carter
    September 6, 2007

    APY – Get it through you thick skull! Noreen is NOT the exception. But what do you know? You know only your beleif in the death and dying HIV=AIDS cult.

  419. #421 noreen Martin
    September 6, 2007

    Adele, if I am brainwashed then others maybe need to be so too! Why do you think that I am so healthy? It certainly is not because I listen to the mainstream’s lies. Why does AIDS have to have one cause? Cancer, a worse killer has numerous causes defending upon the particular type so does encehphalitis, pneumonia and other diseases. Yet AIDS has to be 100% due to HIV. Since you are so into studies, what study proves that having antiboies to HIV equates to having an active case?

  420. #422 Adele
    September 6, 2007

    Sure noreen just keep belieiving in santa claus I won’t get in your way.

  421. #423 apy
    September 6, 2007

    APY – Get it through you thick skull! Noreen is NOT the exception. But what do you know? You know only your beleif in the death and dying HIV=AIDS cult.

    What does this have to do with anything carter? My question was specifically about things noreen has said NOT about her health.

    Here I ask noreen if she has any evidence at all that everyone involved in making AIDS drugs are seeking nothing other than money. Note I ask for EVIDENCE not her opinion.
    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/08/post_44.php#comment-551234

    Here i ask her simply to explain her line of thinking and why she posts data from websites she claims she does not read. Again, I don’t challenge her health nor do I claim she should go on ARVs or the likes.
    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/08/post_44.php#comment-553661

    Here I point out she hasn’t answered any of my questions asking her to describe how she comes to conclusions and why she pasts information on websites she claims she doesn’t read. I also paste a link to the first time i asked her tehse questions which, again, do not challenge her health nor do I even argue that HIV causes AIDS or the likes, my question is purely about how she comes to her conclusions.
    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/08/post_44.php#comment-553827

    Here I finally get a response but it is compeltely meaningless. She claims one thing that her actions seem to contradict. Again, I do not challenge that she has AIDS, or HIV, nor do I claims HIV causes AIDS.
    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/08/post_44.php#comment-553878

    Here again is the same line of questioning, I even point out that I am not challenging noreen on if HIV causes AIDS but purely asking her to explain herself.
    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/08/post_44.php#comment-554390

    Here noreen claims I am attempting to persuade her against HIV causing AIDS and claims I am stating her experiences are meaningless. Again, I explain that I have in no way questsioned her health I have only asked how she has come to conclusions.
    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/08/post_44.php#comment-556621

    Here she gives me the same junk responses back and I ask her if she is reading what I am asking because she appears to be making up the questions she is answering.
    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/08/post_44.php#comment-557040

    Same thing as above, yet again.
    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/08/post_44.php#comment-557670

    So before you comment on this sub-thread carter, please actually pay attention to what is going on.

  422. #424 noreen Martin
    September 6, 2007

    Why are you arguing with someone who had AIDS and now has perfect health? Why do you believe that it cannot be done? Let me explain how. AIDS is a collection of many diseases, many of which are not life-threatening and when the person eliminates the problem, then AIDS doesn’t exist anymore. The only bad thing left is the bogus HIV test, which has ruined the person’s life. Do you believe that it is right for one to forever labeled with AIDS even though they are quite healthy?

  423. #425 jspreen
    September 6, 2007

    Santa Claus, Le Petit Prince….

    Adele jumps back to the shelter of childhood when she runs out of arguments.

  424. #426 apy
    September 6, 2007

    I compiled a rather complete response to carter but apparently links to the aetiology blog are considered spam so it has to get approved. Completely ruining my momentum of awesomeness!

  425. #427 apy
    September 6, 2007

    The only bad thing left is the bogus HIV test, which has ruined the person’s life.

    This does not explain all the people that died before HIV tests were created so they could not be told they had a disease. People started coming in to hospitals with karposi sarcoma and PCP at rates and degrees of illness not common, that is what tipped people off that something was happening.

  426. #428 jspreen
    September 6, 2007

    Santa Claus, Le Petit Prince….

    Adele jumps back to the shelter of childhood when she runs out of arguments.

  427. #429 jspreen
    September 6, 2007

    This does not explain all the people that died before HIV tests were created so they could not be told they had a disease.

    People never had the disease you refer to, neither before nor after the silly HIV test, can’t you understand? AIDS as it is defined today is a label that is allways erroneously glued on somebody, tested or not.

  428. #430 Adele
    September 6, 2007

    Noreen when did I say a person can’t recover from AIDS illnesses? You did. You got the right meds and you took them until you got better. Now you stopped and I hope you stay healthy.

    And yes I have the right argue with someone with AIDS when I think they’re wrong. especially when they’ve been lying.

    Like its from alive and well
    then
    I don’t read alive and well.

  429. #431 Adele
    September 6, 2007

    Noreen
    you’re like a poor person who wins the lottery and then goes around and says poverty isn’t real. No one should be poor! Hey look, I did it anyone can. Everyone should just invest all there money in lottery tickets and theyll be rich like me.

    When someone argues with you you say You have no right to argue with someone who was poor and is rich now.

    When someone says statistics say most people don’t win the lottery you say How dare you argue with me I was poor now I’m rich. Ha.

    When someone catches you in a lie you say my credibility isn’t about lying or not lying its about me being poor and then rich. I can say anything I want because I was poor and now I’m rich.

  430. #432 apy
    September 6, 2007

    People never had the disease you refer to, neither before nor after the silly HIV test, can’t you understand? AIDS as it is defined today is a label that is allways erroneously glued on somebody, tested or not.

    That response makes no sense. What disease are you refering to? PCP or karposi sarcoma? If you talk to doctors and nurses in the 80′s they will tell you more people came in with those disease then usual, leading to an investigation and resulting in this current discussion. Are you saying none of those events happens and all the nurses and doctors imagined people coming in with these diseases?

  431. #433 Seth Manapio
    September 6, 2007

    “Many nonprogressors and persons like myself have rebuild our health naturally.”

    ————

    Naturally, in this case, meaning “with about 20 months of antiviral treatment”.

    Noreen isn’t like someone who won the lottery and then tells people to play the lottery. She’s like someone who got rich through investing in mutual funds telling people NOT to invest in mutual funds. It’s just weird.

  432. #434 jspreen
    September 6, 2007

    When someone says statistics say most people don’t win the lottery you say How dare you argue with me I was poor now I’m rich. Ha.

    I think you’re injust with Noreen and I tell how you should alter you comparison if you want it to hold.

    It’s not Noreen saying “Hey, I’m rich, poverty doesn’t exist” but it’s you and your mates saying “Hey, you poor people of the world, don’t look around, ignore the shit you’re living in, don’t look at the rich, believe in me and stay where you are.

    OK, it’s not a very bright comparison, I agree. But you must admit that one can hardly do better given your initial idea.

  433. #435 apy
    September 6, 2007

    jspreen, could you please answer my question?

  434. #436 Seth Manapio
    September 6, 2007

    What disease are you refering to? PCP or karposi sarcoma?

    ————-

    I’m just going to channel spreen, here.

    Hah hah, apy, you are so dumb, no, hiv doesn’t cause the disease, it is part of the recovery, but of course you can’t see that because you are blinded by 200 years of pasteur’s lies. Read bechamp and my [completely incoherent] letter to the swiss sheepherders.

    The jspreen automata should be ready any day now.

  435. #437 Adele
    September 6, 2007

    Seth good correction noreen is like someone who gets rich with mutual funds and tells everyone else to avoid mutual funds and play the loterry instead.

  436. #438 Adele
    September 6, 2007

    And spreen is like someone who says you don’t need mutual funds or banks becuase you can always win the lottery if you feel safe and happy. If you don’t win its because theres something wrong with you you aren’t being germanic enough.

  437. #439 jspreen
    September 6, 2007

    jspreen, could you please answer my question?

    Yes, of course, it’s my pleasure. You wrote:

    This does not explain all the people that died before HIV tests were created so they could not be told they had a disease.

    Now, which disease you can’t tell people they have if you don’t have the HIV test? You know the answer, don’t you? No, you don’t? Then I tell you:

    Before the HIV test was created, people couldn’t tell other people they suffered (or where going to suffer) from AIDS.

    I think the “You have AIDS” message doesn’t make sens at all, whether a person did a HIV test or not, but that opinion is strictly personal. You can tell a person he or she has immunity disorder, whatever that means, but that you can also tell to most people who just had a chemo treament, for example.

  438. #440 Carter
    September 6, 2007

    People started coming in to hospitals with karposi sarcoma and PCP at rates and degrees of illness not common, that is what tipped people off that something was happening.

    And that’s precisely the time when the lifestyle theory was abandoned for the more lucrative retrovirus theory. Everybody jumped on the wrong bandwagon. Why? Because thats where the money was. Nobody gave a flying rats ass about anything else. It had to be a virus and then all the virus chasers now were gainfully employed, scrambling to find something that isnt even there..Then somehow surrogate markers became the rage thanks due to Gallo, et al.. al..

  439. #441 Seth Manapio
    September 6, 2007

    “You can tell a person he or she has immunity disorder, whatever that means, but that you can also tell to most people who just had a chemo treament, for example.”

    “Before the HIV test was created, people couldn’t tell other people they suffered (or where going to suffer) from AIDS.”

    ————-

    for those of you wondering what THIS cryptic shit means, jspreen also doesn’t believe in the immune system itself. Because it would have no purpose, because pathogens are actually beneficial.

    The second quote is just a total denial of history as well. Its just a historical fact that AIDS predates the discovery of HIV, and the HIV test. But hey… what’s a fact, compared to spreens poorly written rhetoric?

  440. #442 Seth Manapio
    September 6, 2007

    “It had to be a virus and then all the virus chasers now were gainfully employed, scrambling to find something that isnt even there..Then somehow surrogate markers became the rage thanks due to Gallo, et al.. al..”

    ————-

    So in the history according to Carter, first the virus theory was formed with no epedemiological reason to do so. Then Gallo literally made up a virus that doesn’t exist. Since then, millions of scientists have continued to believe in that virus, including HIV dissident Peter Duesberg.

    Are there any facts that could be shown that would dissuade you from that belief?

  441. #443 apy
    September 6, 2007

    Before the HIV test was created, people couldn’t tell other people they suffered (or where going to suffer) from AIDS.

    I think the “You have AIDS” message doesn’t make sens at all, whether a person did a HIV test or not, but that opinion is strictly personal. You can tell a person he or she has immunity disorder, whatever that means, but that you can also tell to most people who just had a chemo treament, for example.

    jspreen, this does not actually answer my question. I asked how you could explain this influx of diseases that, normally, people do not have. The degree of the disease was also a lot greater. Karposi Sarcoma, for instance, is generally some growths on the legs of old people, but young people in there 20′s, for no apparent reason, come in with it on their lungs. They did not have stress of being told they were going to die. You run a fairly strong campaign of criticism against the current medical community, so could you please inform me of your theory on how, out of seemingly nowhere, AIDS came from? Could you also include studies (meta-studies are acceptable here) that you have conducted which validates this claim? More specifically: could you produce a bit of evidence that can be confirmed by a independent party that agrees with your theory of AIDS, whatever that theory may be?

  442. #444 carter
    September 6, 2007

    Seth,
    Epidemiology means revealing unbiased relationships… Nothing in HIV/AIDS in unbiased. It’s all one sided only looking for and at the germ/virus side of it. Never anything else, or if it is, it’s discredited for the funding advantage. Western medicine/big Pharma wants nothing but their impositions, research and dogma to be tantamount to all others. You got it wrong and you refuse know any better because you’ve been swayed by consensus.

  443. #445 apy
    September 6, 2007

    Nothing in HIV/AIDS in unbiased. It’s all one sided only looking for and at the germ/virus side of it.

    That’s a complete lie. We have the faithful dissidents looking at other alterna—-oh, nope, I’m sorry, that’s right, none of you actually look INTO alternative theories, don’t do any research, don’t do any experiments, and don’t even read any of the current research on it.

  444. #446 Seth Manapio
    September 6, 2007

    “Western medicine/big Pharma wants nothing but their impositions, research and dogma to be tantamount to all others.”

    ———–

    Okay. So again, you think that Gallo literally made up a virus that doesn’t exist, and that every scientist who has worked with that virus since is making up their results, at the behest of pharmaceutical companies.

    My question: How have they fooled Duesberg into believing that HIV exists? And what facts could exist to convince you that HIV exists?

    Just as a side note, have you explored the connection to condom manufacturers? Because it seems like they are the real winners here, with the huge emphasis on using latex condoms. If you’re going to do a conspiracy theory, you may as well do it right.

    In fact, the latex manufacturers probably paid Gallo to do his press conference, and the pharmaceuticals only responded when it became clear that condom usage was cutting into their birth control sales. Hence the need to sell anti-virals, although why they want them to be toxic is a mystery… you’d think they’d want them to be habit forming and produce mild euphoria…

    Of course, that would be harder to slip by the federal regulators, but since the federal regulators all accept the existence of the non-existent virus they have to be in on this anyway. WAIT… I know. I can see it now. The heads of big pharma made the drugs toxic because that covers up the conspiracy! Who would believe that they would kill off their own customers!? It makes so much sense now.

  445. #447 factician
    September 6, 2007

    Seth,

    You forgot the Illuminati. I’m sure they’re involved in there, somewhere…

  446. #448 jspreen
    September 6, 2007

    I asked how you could explain this influx of diseases that, normally, people do not have.

    There you are.

    Diseases people normally don’t have

    What exactly do you mean, apy? I mean, diseases people normally don’t have, what’s that? What’s normal? You can’t tell.

    Karposi Sarcoma, for instance, is generally some growths on the legs of old people, but young people in there 20′s, for no apparent reason, come in with it on their lungs.

    So what? What causes Kaposi sarcoma? HIV? Then where did it come from on your old peoples legs?

    Medicine today has specialised in relabeling old diseases. There are no new diseases, there are only new ways of looking at the same things. With an electronic microscope you can see things people never saw before, but what does it help when you have no idea of the overall thing you’re looking at? You can only come to wrong conclusions.

    Scientific research, you guys are filled with the idea. But did it ever occur to one of you that what you do is just REsearch, all so proud of looking around in the same places where everybody else is looking around too ?

    Maybe you researchers should just drop the RE. Try to be original, go off the beaten path, just once.
    I’ll write the name down again, maybe one of you has the guts to dive in some other pool than the one ye all know sooooooo well. Antoine Bechamp. There’s an ocean of new and exciting stuff to discover beyond that name, I swear there is.

  447. #449 noreen
    September 6, 2007

    What some of you are failing to comprehend if that I am not saying that the drugs never work but rather why should one stay on chemotherapeutic drugs for the rest of one’s life? Would a cancer patient be given radiation and chemotherapy forever, not hardly. Yet, this is what is expected of AIDS patients for no logical reason rather to line many pockets with money.

  448. #450 apy
    September 6, 2007

    There you are.

    Diseases people normally don’t have

    What exactly do you mean, apy?

    I mean that, prior to what we call HIV becoming wide spread, diseases such as Karposi Sarcoma were rarely seen at that magnitude and rarely seen in people of the age groups that were coming in with them. This is why the medical community started to wonder what was going on.

    So what? What causes Kaposi sarcoma? HIV? Then where did it come from on your old peoples legs?

    That is the question I’m giving to you jspreen. You already know what I think the cause is. I’m asking how you explain the increase in these diseases. Specifically I’m also asking if you have any evidence, at the very least a study (and I allowed you to perform meta-studies).

    You seem to be confusing ‘science’ with the ‘scientific community’. Science is a method of obtaining an answer, you do not have to be part of the scientific community in order to perform science, so why don’t you perform a study? Your favorite person, Bechamp, was a scientist and attempted to produce hypothesis and test them, why don’t you? Bechamp at least published papers, where are yours?

  449. #451 carter
    September 6, 2007

    Seth
    What are you? Nucking Futs? Go ahead make up your own reality and misconstrue points and what I never said or intended to say. Your spewing crap again.

  450. #452 apy
    September 6, 2007

    What some of you are failing to comprehend if that I am not saying that the drugs never work

    noreen, if what you tell us is accurate about your medical history. The timeline looks like:

    - Noreen sick
    - Noreen gets on ARVs
    - Noreen stops ARVs due to side effects
    - Noreen feels better
    - Noreen gets on LDN, continues to feel better

    If I have made a mistake there, please correct me but if that is the timeline, there is not enough information there to claim the ARVs did not work for you. There is also not enough information to claim they did. But rather than state the information is ambiguous, you claim that ARVs did not help and it is the LDN that is helping you. Is there something else that makes this information unambiguous?

  451. #453 Seth Manapio
    September 6, 2007

    “What are you? Nucking Futs? ”

    ———-

    Hey man, I’m not the one who claims that Gallo made up a virus that doesn’t exist. I’m not the one claiming that hundreds of thousands of biologists didn’t notice or are intentionally hiding this from the public. That theory belongs to you.

    I’m just asking why you’ve never followed the money to the condom makers, the one group with the most to gain. Why does that sound crazy to you? What is the distinction between the rubber industry and pharmaceuticals, that one is a reasonable location for a conspiracy and one not?

    Look, if you aren’t actually claiming that Gallo made up a virus that doesn’t exist, that’s fine. Does that mean that you think HIV exists? I don’t really see another option. Maybe you can explain how what Gallo did, if he didn’t make it up, but it doesn’t exist. I’m all ears.

  452. #454 Seth Manapio
    September 6, 2007

    “There’s an ocean of new and exciting stuff to discover beyond that name, I swear there is.”

    ————

    Okay… just to make sure I’ve got this straight. Spreen wants us to do original research by reading the papers of a man who has been dead for a few hundred years.

    Okay. That makes sense.

    Now, because I believe that pearls of wisdom can be found in pig shit, I actually did a little digging on Bechamp. There really isn’t much there. Yes, Bechamp was brilliant. But he was unable to accept that he was wrong about bacteria, and so he formed the very, very odd idea that bacteria form from some other, tiny micro-organism that is the REAL cause of the disease.

    This is at odds with the work of Hamer, of course, but why should we expect consistency from a crazy person like spreen?

    Simpl to list all the discoveries that have proved Bechamp wrong would, and has, taken entire libraries full of biology texts and journals. A few examples of counterproofs would be the epidemiology of every disease outbreak in history, Tara’s infected mice, the history of smallpox, the discovery of viruses, the existence and eficcacy of antibiotics and the discovery of the DNA molecule.

    What is notable on the official bechamp.org site is a “news” story about a historical figure named Rife. Supposedly, rife created a wonder machine that could destroy any microbe, thus ending all disease. Predictably, even back in 1920, big business crushed his discovery. We could have the cure to every disease including cancer, except for that.

    This is on a site dedicated to Antoinne Bechamps theories. Remember, Bechamp taught that microbes don’t cause disease.

    These same patterns emerge: deniers, people like spreen and carter don’t really examine what they believe. They don’t really know what the content of their beliefs is, or what it entails. They only have a sense of fellowship with people on “the right side”, but they don’t care what the content of those people’s ideas are. The important thing is to deny the orthodoxy, whatever that may be. In fact, carter gets quite upset if you try to find out what his beliefs are, the idea of trying to create a coherent response seems to make him really uncomfortable.

  453. #455 apy
    September 7, 2007

    Supposedly, rife created a wonder machine that could destroy any microbe, thus ending all disease. Predictably, even back in 1920, big business crushed his discovery. We could have the cure to every disease including cancer, except for that.

    This is on a site dedicated to Antoinne Bechamps theories. Remember, Bechamp taught that microbes don’t cause disease.

    So Seth, on a website about someone who claimed microbes DID NOT cause disease is a story, showing how evil big pharma is, about a man who supposedly created a machine to destroy all microbes and thus end all disease but was crushed by big pharma. So microbes don’t cause disease but this machine that kills microbes could cure all disease and that why big pharma is so evil.

    Such obvious contradictions go to show you that some people aren’t simply in denial, but they are completely delusional. This is probably the result of mental institutions being shutdown by states and letting their people roam free.

  454. #456 noreen
    September 7, 2007

    “Deniers don’t know the content of their belief or what they believe” Not true, at least deniers have open minds to things that are not necessary currently mainstream.

    Microbes cause disease but Bechampe and his followers believed that the germs go through pleomorphic changes and this can be due to the unhealthy PH in the body. There happen to be present day believers of this too, such as Dr. Robert Young, Dr. Dennis Myers and Gaston Naessens. Some from the past were Almquist, Bergstrand and Enderlein.

    And yes, Dr. Royal Rife was real and he was jailed numerous times for curing cancers. In fact, for a good 50 year period, bio-electric medicine was used quite frequenty in this country. You may not know that this man was given a testimonial dinner by his peers for his great cures. Then his lab, reports, etc. were distroyed, Dr. Milbank Johnson, who was the president of the Southern California American Medical Association was poisoned, Dr. Morris Fishbein attempted to buy Rife’s rights, the lab that was verifying his work, Burnett Lab, was destroyed, and Dr. Nemes, who supported his theories died in a fire along with his research papers.

    I have numerous, original medical books on the treatment of diseases using electric energy. Present day scientists on the matter were Robert Beck and his machines in which I own one. I was enrolled in a study using a multi-wave ossicillator, which was the principal brainchild of Nekola Tesla and George Lakhovsky. All of these machines are quite legal and may be used for personal research.

    In 1990 at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Dr. Kaali and Dr. Lyman found that they could suppress HIV (for those who believe in it) by using electrical current. This is what the patent stated, “provide electric current flow through the blood sufficient to render the bacteria, virus, parasites and/or fungus ineffective to infect or affect normal, healty cells while maintaining the biological usefulness of the blood or other fluids.” This brings up the question as to why did this not make front-page news and why is this not being used to treat patients? Could the drug industry or someone else have an influence to keep this quiet? Why isn’t the public told that there are other forms to treat diseases?

  455. #457 Seth Manapio
    September 7, 2007

    “Microbes cause disease but Bechampe and his followers believed that the germs go through pleomorphic changes and this can be due to the unhealthy PH in the body.”

    —————
    Bechamp believed that bacteria were the RESULT of disease, not the cause. Therefore Rife’s machine should be useless. Like I said, you don’t know what you believe, because your beliefs are just inconsistent with each other.

    Lets pretend there is a machine that cures cancer. Two scenarios, either it needs a doctor to run it or it doesn’t.

    If it doesn’t, don’t even bother claiming that it cures cancer. Just say that people who use the machine report feeling healthier and sell it on late night tv with no health claims. It wouldn’t take many cures for people to catch on. In fact, the best strategy would be to deny that you have a cure for cancer, often, loudly, and publically.

    If it does, you just set up a “meta-health” clinic, again making no health claims for your device, and use it as a “diagnostic tool” or something. Franchise this. Ten years, tops, before you take over the world.

    Oh… I forgot. The illuminati will shut you down and burn down your lab.

    That seems needlessly complicated. Have you considered the alternative hypothesis that maybe the reason electromagnetic medicine hasn’t caught on is that it just doesn’t work?

  456. #458 apy
    September 7, 2007

    You may not know that this man was given a testimonial dinner by his peers for his great cures. Then his lab, reports, etc. were distroyed,

    Then how do you know?

    Microbes cause disease but Bechampe and his followers believed that the germs go through pleomorphic changes and this can be due to the unhealthy PH in the body.

    No, this is not what they believe. jspreen in particular has already stated multiple times that microbes do NOT cause disease. Apparently jspreen got this idea from Bechamp.

    You’re own statements justify the very quote you are claiming to invalidate.

    Also, I would like to see a piece of data that shows the internal PH of the body is disrupted to cause this (I would also like you to tell me the PH of the various parts of the body and which way they go to cause disease).

    Not true, at least deniers have open minds to things that are not necessary currently mainstream.

    Open minds? That sounds rather laughable coming from you. I have asked you almost a half dozen times to explain your conflicting statements to us and you completely ignore them. Open minds? How many times do you have to be asked the study that you claim states the opposite of what it actually does? Open minds? You are shown time, and time again, that studies that YOU bring up show ARVs work as expected, they do NOT have the mortality or morbidity you claim it does and what do you do? Ignore the study that YOU brought up. How is that an open mind? You ignore evidence that goes against what you believe. You can speak harshly about Seth’s attitude but he actually looks up your claims to see if there is any truth to them. You attack him for being critical but he is simply coming back with what the studies actually claim. Adele and Noble have shown consistently that your views do not reflect the studies that you reference and that most of what you and other denialists say can be found word for word on denialists websites. How does that show your open mind? By repeating what others say and when their claims are shown to be fraudulent, ignore the evidence? You’re mind isn’t open noreen, that’s a joke.

    In 1990 at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Dr. Kaali and Dr. Lyman found that they could suppress HIV (for those who believe in it) by using electrical current.

    Did you verify this at all? Or is this another one of your copy and paste jobs that you stole off some website that you claim not to read and took it at face value? Please noreen, your credibility is completely shot, you have shown that you have not only lied but a poor liar at that (Gallo being pardoned by the president? Completely trivial to verify and you failed).

  457. #459 noreen
    September 7, 2007

    You might check the U.S. patent office for yourself instead of judging others. What do you know about bio-electric medicine other than what you read on the internet. Have you read books about it, have you tried it, not hardly, yet you are so fast to condemn it. You people are a joke, a bunch of programmed robots!

  458. #460 carter
    September 7, 2007

    deniers, people like spreen and carter don’t really examine what they believe. They don’t really know what the content of their beliefs is, or what it entails.

    Oh, I seriously doubt that Mr Seth. Maybe if I was 19 you might be right. The fact of the matter is what you think of me is none of my business. Another fact of the matter is HIV doesn’t and cannot explain all that you guys/mainstream purport. HIV existent as a collection/measurement of antibodies? YES. As an sexually spread virus resulting in ill health and death? NO… There’s no proof only weak correlation. Long term toxic water down AZT and other meds used as combatant (for life) are down right fucking ludicrous. When you come to a better understanding without the preconceived ideas planted in you skull by the establishment, no one in their right mind could ever possibly believe in HIV as a cause of death, even you Seth. I bet you have absolutely no understanding what people go through when they’re told they have HIV…the voodoo hex of it, have you? Do you know that alone is enough to cause illness resulting in death? I bet you could give two shits about that, right? The only thing you’re firm about is your fucked in the head mental acuity of belief in the “ALL THOSE” people must be right syndrome.

  459. #461 apy
    September 7, 2007

    What do you know about bio-electric medicine other than what you read on the internet.

    I know absolutely nothing about it, I haven’t even read about on the internet. But you didn’t even read my statements correctly. I did not attack bio-electric medicine, I never claimed your quote was incorrect, nor did I attack your belief in it. I asked what you have done to verify it and I asked where you got your information. Not only can you not provide this for me but you have to make a straw-man argument out of what I said. That is pathetic.

    Have you read books about it, have you tried it, not hardly, yet you are so fast to condemn it

    At the time of writing that you have no idea if I have any experience with it. I could have created the dam thing for all you know. Any statements I make about you I qualify with evidence from previous discussions and I ask you to correct me if I am wrong. For someone who claims everyone who disagrees with you is part of AIDS, Inc, and thus a scoundrel you don’t seem to give anywheres near the same respect you are offered from the side that you have no problem bad-mouthing. And like I said above, if you actually read and comprehended my post you would see that I, in no way, attacked the claimed bio-electric medicine, yet you are so fast to condemn.

    You people are a joke, a bunch of programmed robots!

    …says the person who has failed to answer any of my questions about her sources of information and claims to not read Alive and Well shortly after claiming to read Alive and Well.

  460. #462 Seth Manapio
    September 7, 2007

    “Oh, I seriously doubt that Mr Seth.”

    ————-

    Okay. You doubt that you don’t know what your beliefs are. Great! Did Gallo make up HIV or did he not make up HIV? Is there such a virus?

    Right now, I’ve got no idea what you believe. Its like static, or white noise. When you are pressed, yoQQu sort of short out, start flailing around.

    Read your previous post… its this weird sort of ad hominem attack on my humanity. But you don’t clarify what you believe at all. Why do you think that is?

    You apparently believe that Gallo did not make up HIV. There really is a virus. But, that virus is not sexually transmissable or harmful to humans.

    Essentially, Gallo picked a random, harmless virus and declared it the cause of AIDS. Everyone else was so taken by this, or terrified of the pharmaceutical companies, or whatever, that they have been playing along for a quarter century. Of the hundreds of thousands of people needed to play along in a game of this magnitude, not one person has stepped out of the industry to blow the whistle.

  461. #463 carter
    September 7, 2007

    not one person has stepped out of the industry to blow the whistle..

    That’s bull shit Seth,

    Dr. Jonathan Fishbein is one of the highest-ranking drug whistleblowers in American history. He was Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office for Policy in Clinical Research Operations when he exposed a series of unethical and improper medical problems within the NIH’s drug safety clinical trials program, specifically their AIDS Prevention Program. (wkipedia.org)

  462. #464 apy
    September 7, 2007

    What criticisms did Dr Fishbein have, carter?

  463. #465 Carter
    September 7, 2007

    Seth,

    Gallo and Gallo’s error:

    “Early January 1993; The US. Department of Health and Human Services released a report last week concluding that government AIDS researcher Robert C. Gallo committed scientific misconduct in connection with his codiscovery with French scientists in 1984 of the virus that causes AIDS. The report found that Gallo misrepresented his laboratory’s ability to grow the virus from a sample donated by the French, a move that had the potential to obscure the significance of the French contribution to the discovery of the cause of AIDS.

    The report – produced by HHS’s Office of Research Integrity (ORI) – adds fuel to an eight-year-old international controversy over the lucrative patent rights to blood tests for AIDS that use pieces of the Aids-causing virus to detect antiviral antibodies in infected individuals. It also prompts questions about Gallo’s future as director of the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology, one of the largest federal biomedical laboratories.”

    “At a 1994 meeting held in Washington sponsored by the US National Institute of Drug Abuse, Gallo admitted “We have never found HIV DNA in the tumor cells of KS…In fact we have never found HIV DNA in T-cells”.174 Data which has come to light since 1984 suggest that Gallo’s and his colleagues’ alternative explanation may be a fact: (a) at present there is ample evidence showing that normal human DNA contains sequences related to HTLV-I and HTLV-II apparently, up until 1993, Gallo was unaware of the existence of endogenous human retroviruses, which means that by “virus distantly homologous to HTLV-III” they could have meant none other than the exogenous retroviruses Gallo claimed to have discovered earlier, that is, HTLV-I and HTLV-II.” Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F.Turner, John M. Papadimitriou, David Causer

    The Gallo team attempted what they called HIV isolation from 72 AIDS patients. Again, they cultured cells and detected particles and reverse transcriptase in unrefined culture fluids, and observed some protein/antibody reactions, but also added a fourth category, transmission, by which was meant finding particles or reverse transcriptase in bone marrow and other cells cultured with fluids, but not purified banded, photographed fluids, from one of the 72 starting cultures. What is enigmatic about the second paper is that HIV isolation was defined merely as detecting at least two of any of these four phenomena. The same criticism applies as in the first paper. Nothing was isolated and detection of unspecific phenomena is not surrogate isolation of a retrovirus. Even it were, this peculiar definition leads to some rather bizarre possibilities, for example, instances of virus isolation without the need to see particles or measure reverse transcriptase, for a retrovirus about as convincing as trying to sell a car without a body and an engine. Even so, loose as these criteria were, isolation was successful in only 26 of the 72 patients, that is, in only 36%. And, in case you think things have improved, there is a recent, international cooperative study reported by the World Health Organisation. In this study, by HIV isolation was meant detection of a single protein, p24, in culture fluids using a single antibody. Not only is p24 not specific for HIV (Agbalika et al., 1992; Mortimer et al., 1992), but from 224 HIV positive individuals, the success rate was a mere 37%, not significantly better than Gallo’s figures a decade earlier. (WHO, 1994)” Val Turner

    Now explain to me how this is not a grave error?

  464. #466 carter
    September 7, 2007

    APY

    What criticisms did Dr Fishbein have, carter?

    Out of control: AIDS and the corruption of medical science, Farber

    “On August 8, 2003, Jonathan Fishbein, who had recently taken a job as the director of the Office for Policy in Clinical Research Operations at DAIDS, wrote an email to his boss, DAIDS director Ed Tramont, alerting him that “there was a fulminant liver failure resulting in death” in a DAIDS trial and that it looked like “nevirapine was the likely culprit.”

  465. #467 Seth Manapio
    September 7, 2007

    “there was a fulminant liver failure resulting in death” in a DAIDS trial and that it looked like “nevirapine was the likely culprit.”

    “Now explain to me how this is not a grave error?”
    ————-

    Two and a half decades of supposed total cover up of the non-existence of a virus, and one adverse drug reaction is your idea of whistle blowing? You have got to be fucking kidding me. Where’s the guy going: HIV isn’t sexually transmissable and we ALL KNOW IT.

    Because that is what you are claiming, not that there can be an adverse reaction to a drug. So… where is your whistle blower?

    Second point: I don’t have the biology to follow the quote. Can you explain it to me? Specifically, how is this a grave error? An error about what, specifically?

  466. #468 apy
    September 7, 2007

    “At a 1994 meeting held in Washington sponsored by the US National Institute of Drug Abuse, Gallo admitted “We have never found HIV DNA in the tumor cells of KS…In fact we have never found HIV DNA in T-cells”.174 Data which has come to light since 1984 suggest that Gallo’s and his colleagues’ alternative explanation may be a fact: (a) at present there is ample evidence showing that normal human DNA contains sequences related to HTLV-I and HTLV-II apparently, up until 1993, Gallo was unaware of the existence of endogenous human retroviruses, which means that by “virus distantly homologous to HTLV-III” they could have meant none other than the exogenous retroviruses Gallo claimed to have discovered earlier, that is, HTLV-I and HTLV-II.” Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F.Turner, John M. Papadimitriou, David Causer

    The only reference to this quote I can find on line for this are direct reference to this Perth Group paper. Is there any evidence that this quote actually took place besides what the Perth Group says?

  467. #469 carter
    September 7, 2007

    SETH, — Gallo’s attempt at what they called HIV isolation from 72 AIDS patients — BUT was successful in only 26 of the 72 patients, that’s only 36%! Add his scientific misconduct and then what Luc Montagnier denied, in his own words: “We did not purify”.

    So tell me that is not a mistake and error, then everyone loves to jump bandwagon party afterwards? Huh? – Tell me where’s your logic?

  468. #470 Andrew Maniotis
    September 7, 2007

    Carter,

    You need to look up what Gallo actually did, and not just assume that the standard dissident writings about it are correct. The people who worked in Robert Gallo’s lab did not try to isolate virus from 72 patients and succeed in isolating virus from 26 of them.
    You are making a fool of yourself here.

    Andy

  469. #471 Andrew Maniotis
    September 7, 2007

    Carter,

    You need to look up what Gallo actually did, and not just assume that the standard dissident writings about it are correct. The people who worked in Robert Gallo’s lab did not try to isolate virus from 72 patients and succeed in isolating virus from 26 of them.
    You are making a fool of yourself here.
    See http://aidshiv.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/a-letter-to-robert-gallo/#respond

    Andy

  470. #472 Historian
    September 7, 2007

    Seth, I thought perhaps you might find this of interest.

    Yesterday you said the following to Carter, in seeming full disbelief of something he had told you:

    “So in the history according to Carter, first the virus theory was formed with no epedemiological reason to do so. Then Gallo literally made up a virus that doesn’t exist. Since then, millions of scientists have continued to believe in that virus, including HIV dissident Peter Duesberg. Are there any facts that could be shown that would dissuade you from that belief?

    Seth, the following may BLOW YOUR MIND, but then again maybe not. Carter is quite correct in telling you that first the virus theory was formed. It had already been formed and even repeatedly told to the general public in 1981 by the media, who certainly had no clue about anything. And it was formed right from the first mention of gays getting sick or dying, and was spread by the media when less than 100 peoples deaths had even been noted. My own local paper was calling it a virus when only a handful of deaths had been noted. The only evidence of proof of this that I can present to you that the media ran with the “viral theory” long before Gallo and Montagnier, is the following that is still online from the BBC.

    On December 10, 1981, the BBC, in their VERY FIRST mention of a new “disease” that was targeting homosexuals, DID INDEED CALL IT A VIRUS! And remember Seth, that this was a full TWO YEARS before Gallo and Montagnier had found LAV!

    An excerpt of the 12/10/1981 article is as follows:

    “Mystery disease kills homosexuals”

    “A mysterious epidemic, which has been discovered in homosexual men, is causing increasing concern in the United States.
    The unknown condition, which consists of two separate diseases – a form of pneumonia and skin cancer, has been found in 180 patients in 15 states since last July.

    It has claimed around 75 lives so far in the US and up to 92% of the victims are homosexual men.

    One death has been reported from the virus in London.

    You can still find the article online at the following address:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/10/newsid_4020000/4020391.stm

  471. #473 franklin
    September 7, 2007

    Historian,

    You criticize Seth for the following statement:

    “So in the history according to Carter, first the virus theory was formed with no epedemiological reason to do so.“[Historian's Emphasis]

    As evidence you point to a BBC broadcast from December 10, 1981.

    Can you provide a scientific reference??? Or is a news broadcast the best you can do?

    Four papers about a newly identified immune deficiency syndrome were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on December 10, 1981, and the clinicians reporting the cases of immune deficiency were acutely aware of history.

    Two major risk groups for the immune deficiency had been identified by Dec 10, 1981–male homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers. For example:

    Masur et al. (1981). An outbreak of community-acquired Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia: initial manifestation of cellular immune dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 1981 Dec 10; 305:1431-1438:

    Eleven cases of community-acquired Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia occurred between 1979 and 1981 and prompted clinical and immunologic evaluation of the patients. Young men who were drug abusers (seven patients), homosexuals (six), or
    both (two) presented with pneumonia. Immunologic testing revealed that absolute lymphocyte counts, T-cell counts, and lymphocyte proliferation were depressed, and that humoral immunity was intact. Of the 11 patients, one was found to have Kaposi’s sarcoma, and another had angioimmunoblastic lymphadenopathy. Eight patients died. In the remaining three, no diagnosis of an immunosuppressive disease was established, despite persistence of immune defects. These cases of pneumocystosis suggest the importance of cell-mediated immune function in the defense against P. carinii. The occurrence of this infection among drug abusers and homosexuals indicates that these groups may be at high risk for this infection

    Knowing the history and epidemiology of Hepatitis B, the clinicians advanced the hypothesis that the immune deficiency was caused by a virus that could be spread by sexual contact and by parenteral injection of blood–just like Hepatitis B Virus.

    One prediction of this hypothesis was that another risk group would be hemophiliacs who received Human Factor VIII. Another prediction was that cases would occur in the recipients of blood transfusions from infected donors.

    History has borne out both of these predictions about the epidemiology of the AIDS, as well as many other epidemiological and virological predictions based on the model of an infectious viral etiology.

  472. #474 Historian
    September 7, 2007

    Seth. You do understand the implications here? There were but 75 deaths. 92% of those afflicted were willing to admit to homosexuality. We do not know if the other 8% were closeted or bi or male prostitutes, or closet cases, or whatever. The 75 were not linked together by any of them having had sex together, they were only linked together by being almost all of the gay sexual persuasion.

    But do take note that the BBC said to the public in 1981:

    “One death has been reported from THE VIRUS in london.”

    Seth, how could the reporter at the BBC possibly have known at that time that there was or was not a single “virus” involved? How could he, and other reporters who claimed a virus at that point have possibly known what was behind it. Did he know poppers was huge at that time in the gay community? No. Did he know about the Live Hep B vaccinations targeting the gay communities in five US cities that was done in 1979? No. Was it the poppers? Who knows. Were there contaminants in the hep b shots? Who knows. Were there other factors? Who knows. Was it a combination of psych and health factors? Who knows. Certainly not you or any of us can ever know for sure.

    Nonetheless, the public and most health officials ran with the virus idea, and it had been claimed to be a single virus, and it had been drilled into the public mind to be a virus since long before Gallo and Montagnier, which is why they were even looking for a virus to be the sole cause.

    And it is certainly no wonder, therefore, that the dissidents are of such persuasions, or that the general community at large attributes these “AIDS” illnesses to a single virus theory.

    Interesting, no? What we are left with is unprovable beliefs one way or the other. Lots of evidence on both sides.

    What is the truth?

    To me, the greatest truth at the moment, and the most intelligent position that anyone could possibly take would be that they really do not know for sure one way or the other what the cause or causes of AIDS are.

    Why is that so difficult, if not absolutely impossible, for anyone and everyone involved in this debate to admit?

    “Nobody speaks the truth when there is something they must have.” ~ Elizabeth Bowen

    Be prepared for truth at all hours and in the most fantastic disguises. This is the only safety. ~ Christopher Morley, The Sun, 1/06

    Seek the company of those who seek the truth, and run away from those who have found it. ~ Vaclav Havel

    In order that all men may be taught to speak truth, it is necessary that all likewise should learn to hear it. ~ Samuel Johnson

    Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism. ~ Hunter S. Thompson

    Truth is the mother of joy. Truth civilizes, ennobles and purifies. The grandest ambition that can enter the soul is to know the truth. ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

    Candor is the only way I know how to do it. I’m way too old to change. At the end of the day, I believe the truth is stronger than any lie that’s out there. ~ C. Ray Nagin, Esquire, 1/06

    The truth is often a terrible weapon of aggression. It is possible to lie, and even to murder, for the truth. ~ Alfred Adler, Problems of Neurosis, 1929

    Truth was always but the daughter of time. ~ Leonardo Da Vinci

    Truth is the baby of the world. It never gets old. ~ Dick Gregory

    The truth is found when men are free to pursue it. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

    Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it’s not going to go away. ~ Elvis Presley

    I am searching for the truth. Somewhere, it’s in the music. ~ Paula Cole

    When you hear the truth you feel it in your gut; it vibrates in every cell of your body. ~ Bruce Luke Seaward, Stand Like Mountain

    Don’t think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed.~ Dwight Eisenhower

    Even under the most favorable circumstances no mortal can be asked to seize the truth in its wholeness or at its center. ~ George Santayana

    Fiction is the truth inside the lie.~ Stephen King

    The greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths. ~ William James

    There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it, fragment by fragment.~ Anais Nin

    One falsehood spoils a thousand truths. ~ Ashanti Proverb

    Truth has no special time of its own. Its hour is now– always. ~ Albert Schweitzer

    If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor. ~ Albert Einstein

    Utter truth is essential…and to get that truth may take a lot of searching and long hours. ~ Margaret Bourke-White

    There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic. ~ Anais Nin

    The unconscious wants truth. It ceases to speak to those who want something else more than truth. ~ Adrienne Rich

    Truth, however bitter, can be accepted, and woven into a design for living. ~ Agatha Christie

    Great is truth. Fire cannot burn it nor water drown it. ~ Alexandre Dumas

    I keep reading between the lies. ~ Goodman Ace

    Not Truth, but Faith it is that keeps the world alive. ~ Edna St. Vincent Millay, Interim

    There are two kinds of truth, small truth and great truth. You can recognize a small truth because its opposite is a falsehood. The opposite of a great truth is another truth.~ Niels Bohr

    Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth. ~ Ludwig Borne

    Truth hates delay. (Veritas odit moras.) ~ Sophocles, Oedipus

    Man has no nobler function than to defend the truth. ~ Ruth McKenney

    Truth always lags behind, limping along on the arm of Time. ~ Baltasar Gracián

    The naked truth is better than the best-dressed lie. ~ Ann Landers

    When a thing is funny, search it for a hidden truth. ~ George Bernard Shaw

    It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place. ~ H. L. Mencken

    The language of truth is unadorned and always simple. ~ Marcellinus Ammianus

    If you do not tell the truth about yourself you cannot tell it about other people. ~ Virginia Woolf

    A man that seeks truth and loves it must be reckoned precious to any human society. ~ Epictetus

    The truth is sometimes the funniest joke in the world. ~ George Bernard Shaw

    If you do not tell the truth about yourself you cannot tell it about other people. ~ Virginia Woolf

    Whatever games are played with us, we must play no games with ourselves, but deal in our privacy with the last honesty and truth. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

    I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me. ~ Isaac Newton

    Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently than the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience. ~ Albert Einstein

    Truth is the only safe ground to stand upon. ~ Elizabeth Cady Stanton

    Never, ever regret or apologize for believing that when one man or one woman decides to risk addressing the world with truth, the world may stop what it is doing and hear. ~ Robert Fulghum

    The truth, of course, is that a billion falsehoods told a billion times by a billion people are still false. ~ Travis Walton

    The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. ~ Niels Bohr

    A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. ~ Arthur C. Clarke

    Truth for authority, not authority for truth. ~ Lucretia Mott

    The most dangerous of all falsehoods is a slightly distorted truth.~ G. C. Lichtenberg

    Truth is great and its effectiveness endures. ~ Maxims of Ptahhotpe

    Truth is weirder than any fiction I’ve seen. ~ Hunter S. Thompson

    Truth is always exciting. Speak it, then; life is dull without it. ~ Pearl S. Buck

    Truth is meant to save you first. The comfort comes afterward. ~ Georges Bernanos

    Truth, like surgery, may hurt, but it cures. ~ Han Suyin

    How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. ~ Abraham Lincoln

    The mind, in discovering truths, acts in the same manner as it acts through the eye in discovering objects; when once any object has been seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition it was in before it saw it. ~ Thomas Paine

    Here the ways of men part if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe: if you you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. ~ Freidrich Nietzsche

    There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be. ~ Charles Sanders Peirce

    Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it. ~ Flannery O’Connor

  473. #475 Historian
    September 7, 2007

    Franklin. I consider you to be mistaken that I had “criticized” Seth. There was no criticism of Seth in the post at all. I merely brought to his attention that the BBC had called it a “Virus” three years before Gallo’s press conference on HTLV-III.

    I very much doubt that Seth is aware that in the public mind, as well as in the minds of many virologists, that a single viral theory was evident nearly from the beginning of doctors taking notice of gay mens poor health and unique health problems.

    Of course, that is not the only “unique” thing with gays. The live Hep B vaccination experiment was unique to gay men. Poppers as well was unique to gay culture. So was the sexual practices unique to gay men. Much of the lifestyle was unique to gay men. So were the psychological factors. After all, heterosexual men and the women they were with were likely not delving all that much into anal sex with multiple partners and a lot of drugs at the time.

    Franklin, you also said:

    “Knowing the history and epidemiology of Hepatitis B, the clinicians advanced the hypothesis that the immune deficiency was caused by a virus that could be spread by sexual contact and by parenteral injection of blood–just like Hepatitis B Virus.”

    Well, that is certainly understandable. Of course virologists and clinicians would have advanced a single virus theory. That is what they were taught and it is what they had experience in.

    You also said:

    “One prediction of this hypothesis was that another risk group would be hemophiliacs who received Human Factor VIII. Another prediction was that cases would occur in the recipients of blood transfusions from infected donors.”

    It is of course understandable that there would be great concern for hemophiliacs and transfusion patients. Such would be only a natural concern to extend from the hypothesis of a virus.

    However, Franklin, was not the rate of death in both of these groups quite high long prior to the 25 years of AIDS and long before illnesses in gay men were noticed?

    Had not all natural blood products as well as all transfusions and all transplantations been quite dangerous back in those days?

    Seems to me that it would have really been quite easy to completely misjudge what illness was surely attributed to what cause!

    I do not see anything certain or black and white in any of this that you hold to be proof, but to me, there are seemingly many shades of grey.

  474. #476 Historian
    September 8, 2007

    Franklin,

    Perhaps you had missed my question in my rather lengthy post. Had not all natural blood products as well as all blood transfusions and all transplantations been quite dangerous back in those days of the 60′s, 70′s, and 80′s?

  475. #477 Historian
    September 8, 2007

    There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be. ~ Charles Sanders Peirce

  476. #478 Franklin
    September 8, 2007

    Historian,

    Perhaps you failed to notice that by December 10, 1981, it was clear that the newly described immune deficiency syndrome was not limited to just gay men. Intravenous drug users had also been affected. This epidemiological link supported the hypothesis of an infectious etiology, as was well known from Hepatitis B Virus.

    You can be sure that the clinicians treating these young men who were dying in the primes of their lives had “a sincere desire to find out the truth.”

    Unfortunately, the Denialists lack this fundamental desire and therefore do not use “intelligent methods” to uncover the truth. They simply engage in rhetorical gimmicry to hide the truth.

    Again, I ask you to tell us what the scientific papers published on Dec 10, 1981, revealed about the AIDS epidemic–not what a news broadcast said.

  477. #479 carter
    September 8, 2007

    Franklin
    so why just those two groups in 81? Why not womem? Why not Blacks, the ones you indeed report now to be the fastes growing segments?

  478. #480 Seth Manapio
    September 8, 2007

    “Seth. You do understand the implications here?”

    ————-

    Well, yes, I do. I know how the AP works, you see. If one reporter, somewhere, interviews one person who says it is likely to be a virus, that line will spread to every news outlet in the world.

    But that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Gallo just made up the HIV virus. See, these are what is technically termed “seperate issues.”

    The big problem with deniers is that they bag all the issues together, shake them up, and draw draw shit out at random.

  479. #481 Seth Manapio
    September 8, 2007

    “so why just those two groups in 81? Why not womem? Why not Blacks, the ones you indeed report now to be the fastes growing segments?”

    ———–

    Well Carter, transmissable diseases start in poplulations and then spread from there to other populations. You may have noticed how one person in your office gets a cold, and then everyone gets a cold, and then their families get a cold? Only you have to share blood, not just air, to spread some viruses, so they just don’t spread as quickly.

  480. #482 noreen
    September 9, 2007

    Good Sunday morning fellow bloggers! Many have asked some of us what alternative theories do we have for AIDS. I believe that AIDS is due to many factors, including environmental hazards, diseases and illnesses, life-style isues, etc. of the person, which is cumulative over a lifetime. One issue that is not routinely tested for is one’s exposure to chemicals and heavy metals. I watched on medical mysteries series how one woman almost died before the right doctor discovered her problem. She was told that she had chronic fatigue to AIDS. In reality, she was dying from thallium exposure. Many suffer from chronic illnesses and yet the physicians cannot find their problem. Nevertheless, if one is diligent, the answer to the problem may be found.

    One area of concern to health is that one is not routinely, if ever, tested for exposure to heavy metals. Most doctors run the complete blood count, cholesterol and glucose tests with the infectious doctors throwing in the CD4′s and viral load tests. However, one is rarely tested for toxic loads of these harmful elements. One way to be tested is to have a few locks of hair snipped and analyzed by a laboratory, which is inexpensive.

    Metals stay in the body until they are chelated out via oral chelation means or I.V. treatments. Even as well as I have done, I have three toxic metals in my body, which will need to be addressed. Chelation therapy has a long, safe history and the military stock piles it for wartime emergencies.

    Another area that is not routinely tested for is the essential minerals or elements that the body so desperately needs to function effectively. If one is found to be lacking these in one’s diet, this is easily compensated for by taking mineral supplements, preferably in liquid form as it is more bioavailable to the body. Nobel Prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling believed that the lack of minerals was at the heart of diseases.

    These are important tests that one might consider as the body cannot function at its optimal capacity while carrying around toxic metals and lacking key ingredients so necessary to health.

  481. #483 carter
    September 9, 2007

    “Many have asked some of us what alternative theories do we have for AIDS.

    I will follow Noreen’s lead and add my thought too.

    Idiopathic CD4 T lymphocytopenia

    I believe this condition is what to look at then back track and/or extrapolate it to cases of AIDS. Then, I believe that applying the Perth group’s oxidative stress theory and the use of the many types therapies to combat your body going through oxidation would result in improved outcome.

    Hypothetical situation:

    Doctor to patient; “Well, Mr. Carter, I know you haven’t been feeling well and we looked at some elevated antigens and somehow you have more unspecific viral fragments in your blood. We want you to take natural low-cost therapies, enhance your diet with organics and exercise every other day. It’s like what we tell people with diabetes or Epstein’s Bar to do. If you don’t get well we have some anti-retrovirals you can take for a limited duration, which are shown to work if need be.”

    VS

    Doctor to patient; “Well, Mr. Carter, I know you haven’t been feeling well and we looked at your western blot and determined you have HIV. We’re so, so sorry you have the virus that opens the door to 29 different diseases that will lead to an early demise and quite possibly death. Because of your elevated antigens and high viral load in your blood, we want you take “AZT Lite” (Retrovir) and a multitude of other toxic drugs to keep the virus at bay. Don’t take too much stock in natural low-cost therapies because they’re insufficient. Enhance your diet with organics and exercise every other day is helpful but you still need to come and let us to the work. It’s like what we tell people with diabetes, you can manage this disease. You might want to stop thinking of having a life without natural sex from now on too., But not to worry there’s tons of support groups for people like you.

    The first scenario approaches health and wellbeing without a virus as like ICTL, makes logical approaches for improvement following a oxidative stress situation and eliminates the indoctrination into a death and dying cult.

    The second scenario is a devastating blow which concretes the hex of a deadly virus and instills that there’s nothing to look forward to other than daily intake of chemotherapy for a life time or till death by liver failure.

    Cut out the death and dying cult and the voodoo hex? Oxidatve stress?, But no way! That would be bad for business.

  482. #484 Historian
    September 9, 2007

    Franklin said

    Perhaps you failed to notice that by December 10, 1981, it was clear that the newly described immune deficiency syndrome was not limited to just gay men. Intravenous drug users had also been affected.

    No Franklin. Finding fourteen sick junkies and 180 sick homosexuals is not such “clear” evidence of anything. To make it so, one would need to have an overactive imagination.

    This epidemiological link supported the hypothesis of an infectious etiology, as was well known from Hepatitis B Virus.

    Perhaps so, but most likely only in an overactive imagination.

    Franklin, for some odd reason, you seem to expect to find “healthy” junkies! Perhaps you believe that shooting up drugs is a healthy and viable life pursuit. If so, then do go enjoy yourself. As to the best of my knowledge, IV drug abusers are and always have been infinitely unhealthy individuals suffering myriad ailments. Do you for some reason think that junkies were healthy in the 30′s, 40′s, or 50′s? The connection of such with a mere 14 sick junkies, to a single viral entity is ludicrous at this point, and certainly not so clear but in the imaginations of the clinicians and virologists who chose to believe in such.

    Such “evidence” is more supportive of the Duesbergian hypothesis more than a viral hypothesis. Perhaps it is unfortunate that he waited till 87 to comment.

    Furthermore Franklin, you certainly do not know how many of the 14 junkies were also homosexuals, nor do you know how many of the remaining 166 homosexuals were also junkies or abusing poppers. Could have been all of them for all you know.

    You can be sure that the clinicians treating these young men who were dying in the primes of their lives had “a sincere desire to find out the truth.”

    Undoubtedly they were. It is said that the highway to hell is paved with good intentions. And, unfortunately, we poor humans have a vast history of scientific mistakes. Did they actually find the “truth”? Or did their overactive imaginations get the best of them? If so, are they really so able to admit it if such is the case?

    Unfortunately, the Denialists lack this fundamental desire and therefore do not use “intelligent methods” to uncover the truth. They simply engage in rhetorical gimmicry to hide the truth.

    You sound a bit angry. Perhaps even like the pot calling the kettle black.

    Again, I ask you to tell us what the scientific papers published on Dec 10, 1981, revealed about the AIDS epidemic–not what a news broadcast said.

    First of all, I was not discussing scientific papers, nor was I discussing such with you. I was discussing the opinions espoused by the media, and I was discussing it with Seth.

    Second of all, the very word “AIDS” had not even been in any usage whatsoever at that point in 1981, so there certainly would not have been scientific papers on the “AIDS syndrome” at that time. Even if there were any such scientific papers in 81, they could certainly not have been nothing but conjectures at that point.

    Irregardless if there were or there were not scientific papers in 81, it has nothing at all to do with the vast realm of public “opinion” which also includes scientists, as they too are influenced after watching the telly, listening to the radio, and reading newspapers. They certainly are not immune to mistaken opinions, as even very recent history repeatedly shows to be the case.

    Now I must ask you again and for the third time:

    Franklin, had not all natural blood products as well as all blood transfusions and all transplantations been quite dangerous back in those days of the 60′s, 70′s, and 80′s?

  483. #485 Seth Manapio
    September 9, 2007

    “Franklin, had not all natural blood products as well as all blood transfusions and all transplantations been quite dangerous back in those days of the 60′s, 70′s, and 80′s?”

    ————-

    Well, there are different pathogens that cause different diseases. Flu virus causes flu. Rhinovirus causes the common cold. And so forth. Some of these viruses can be passed by blood transfusion and make the recipient very sick.

    One such pathogen is HIV, which it is hypothesized causes a very specific degredation of the human immune system. Other known pathogens, like hepatitis, don’t cause the same symptoms.

  484. #486 Seth Manapio
    September 9, 2007

    Okay, so Noreen and Carter very different ideas about what causes AIDS.

    One thing we can all agree on is that AIDS exists, right?

    Here’s the thing… I would like nothing better than to live in a world where a simple and cheap therapy could solve AIDS patients problems, or where natural remedies were magically superior to pharmaceuticals. Honestly, I would.

    But I’ve never seen any evidence that we live in such a world. And I’ve looked.

    What is interesting is that noreen’s life was saved by HAART therapy, and carter recognizes that it has its usages for people who don’t get better by doing nothing. Maybe the real problem is that some people, who are HIV positive or know people who are, feel dehumanized by their interactions with physicians.

    I think everyone has had a doctor who you didn’t think listened or cared, who it seemed didn’t take an interest in your health or put a lot of effort into diagnosis. I can imagine that being told you were HIV positive by such a doctor would suck, hard.

    Maybe HIV/AIDS isn’t the issue at all. Maybe the real issue for some rethinkers is just having their feelings as HIV positive individuals taken seriously by their hcps?

  485. #487 Chris Noble
    September 10, 2007

    The only reference to this quote I can find on line for this are direct reference to this Perth Group paper. Is there any evidence that this quote actually took place besides what the Perth Group says?

    This “quote” appears to be a complete fabrication.

    “We have never found HIV DNA in the tumor cells of KS…In fact we have never found HIV DNA in T-cells”

    Gallo had previously published his finding of HIV DNA in T-cells.

    The most charitable interpretation is that Lauritsen misheard or misunderstood what Gallo said.

    Nevertheless the “quote” lives on in denial land. Denialists are more interested in the alleged words of Gallo reported by Lauritsen and retold out of context by the perth group than reading an actual scientific paper by Gallo.

  486. #488 noreen
    September 10, 2007

    Seth, I had so many things wrong with my health, not just one problem, that indeed drugs, antiboitics, anti-fungal, anti-diarrhea meds, IV treatments, diet, supplements, vitamins and herbs, ALL combined was the magic ticket to my remarkable recover. All of my health issues were not new but old ones to society, the problem being that it was a domino effect and since I had untreated and undiagnosed health issues I contiuned to go downhill that much easier. Another strange thing, even being so sick and after being diagnosed, I was sent home for eight weeks without the antiretrovirals and managed to survive. So when I am sick and dying and lived without them, surely now when I am very well, I can do so too.

  487. #489 noreen
    September 10, 2007

    For those with open minds, there is an interesting article at the New AIDS Review from the August Journal of AIDS,
    http://www.newaidsreview.org/blog/index.php
    Because it is on a rethinker site doesn’t automatically mean that it is not accurate information.

  488. #490 Adele
    September 10, 2007

    Noreen you have got to be kidding me!! Are you saying liversedge put an article from AIDS on his site because wouldn’t it be copyrite infringment, or what?

    Maybe you can summarize that article and not make us read it??

    Becasuse NAR is a total waste of time I think anyone who puts monkeyheads on someone is a joke.

  489. #491 Chris Noble
    September 11, 2007

    Noreen you have got to be kidding me!! Are you saying liversedge put an article from AIDS on his site because wouldn’t it be copyrite infringment, or what?

    I think what Noreen means is that Liversedge put extracts from several articles with his own “commentary”.

    The only thing that Liversedge demonstrates is that he is scientifically illiterate. For a true denialist every paper can be made to support their dogma if they just “rethink” it hard enough.

    It is truly a case of the blind leading the blind.

    Neither Noreen nor Carter have read the articles from AIDS and yet they rush to regurgitate the Denialist misreading of them.