Check out this AWESOME anti-science movie!

  • Outdated, discredited, or simply flat-out scientifically wrong hypotheses presented as real scientific controversies!
  • Pro-outdated-discredited-wrong ‘scientists’ persecuted, ostracized by TEH MAN! World cant handle the philosophical implications of their brilliant ideas!
  • SUPER AWESOME cellular animations!
  • Real scientists interviewed under false pretenses! Quotemined!
  • Pissed off scientists shows up at movie screening and all hell breaks loose!

Am I talking about EXPELLED II: Dembskis vs the Baylor Lunch Lady?

No!

Im talking about EXPELLED-except-with-HIV-Denial movie, House of Numbers:

DIRP!

Awesomely, one of the misled real scientists, Dr. Daniel Kuritzkes, took a page from the PZ/Dawkins handbook and improved on it. Instead of just showing up at a local screening, Kuritzkes hosted a post-screening panel discussion. A panel of scientists. No Deniers. Deniers in the audience were blindsided, and lulz ensued.

You all just need to go read the whole article. ‘Fans’ of EXPELLED will get a kick out of it– Creationists, HIV Deniers, anti-vax– its all the same thing.

Comments

  1. #1 Magnus
    April 23, 2009

    What’s next? Antivax? Hollow Earth?

  2. #2 pough
    April 23, 2009

    Ooh, hollow earth would be awesome. Is Neal Adams still kicking around here?

  3. #3 Raimund
    April 23, 2009

    Awesome! I love a good movie that I can shout at for gross retardation! I shall have to pirate it post haste! But seriously, who actually goes in for this kind of thing and why do these films always have budgets for such fancy film making? Is the retard lobby really that rich? Perhaps what we need is a documentary film studio to make movies that systematically refute these lunacies before Joe Average really starts taking this stuff seriously. Maybe even erase some of the lies and misconceptions invented by such steaming piles as What the Bleep. Man that movie irks me.

  4. #4 Tony P
    April 23, 2009

    So all the friends I watched die from AIDS related complications weren’t HIV positive? Are these people serious?

  5. #5 Ktesibios
    April 23, 2009

    The article was interesting. The comments, however, were a Comstock Lode of free-milling stupid.

  6. #6 Moderately Unbalanced Squid
    April 23, 2009

    The poll on the linked page is priceless! :o)

  7. #7 Raimund
    April 23, 2009

    @Ktesibios #5

    I completely agree! Unfortunately you have to have an account to leave a message there and I wasn’t about to do that. Seriously though, when will people learn that having an opinion doesn’t mean anything if it is proven false? Flaming horse apples, what people wrote there.

    Anyway, thanks for the info Abbie! I had no idea these nutters actually existed before this, which means I have something new to complain about!

  8. #8 sfanetti
    April 23, 2009

    What the heck?! Where did these people come from? And the comments on the linked article… I am flabbergasted! We know hiv – we know the way it works – we can sequence it and tell one strain from another. What do the people that made this film “think”? Do they think there is a massive conspiracy that involves thousands of scientists all over the world? Do they think we made up the gene sequence?!

    This film is just totally irresponsible. I was upset at Expelled because I don’t like science education being ruined by religious dopes. But this is far worse. If this film convinces someone that is asymptomatic HIV+ that they don’t have a disease or tell their partners, other people will die. It will encourage people to forego doctors and actual treatment that could give thema few more years, for what?! Who is gaining anything by denying the existence of a pathogen? Would they deny the existence of Marburg, Ebola, Hanta virii too?

    What is wrong with science education? Are there really this many stupid people in the world?

  9. #9 D. C. Sessions
    April 23, 2009

    What the heck?! Where did these people come from? And the comments on the linked article… I am flabbergasted!

    Ah, innocence. This stuff is tame; for the real full-on crazy you should check out MHA. Warning: John “whaleto” Scudamore is actually a moderate.

    Who is gaining anything by denying the existence of a pathogen?

    There is a lot of money to be made farming rivers in Egypt.

    Would they deny the existence of Marburg, Ebola, Hanta virii too?

    As a matter of fact, they do. There’s quite a bit of germ theory denialism out there in Wooville. It’s synergistic with certain religious views, too — much easier to push “sin as the basis for bad health” if you don’t accept a scientific explanation of biological phenomena.

  10. #10 James F
    April 23, 2009
  11. #11 Seth Kalichman
    April 23, 2009

    AIDS Denialism is alive and well, even when after leaders like Christine Maggiore die of AIDS. This small group of destructive conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists are attracting a growing following of people who distrust science-based medicine. A new book titled Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy explores the psychological and social phenomenon of AIDS denialism. All royalties from the book are donated to buy HIV medications in Africa.
    Visit http://denyingaids.blogspot.com for more information.

  12. #12 JimBob
    April 23, 2009

    Background on the boy who made the film:

    http://www.tetrahedron.org/news/press1.html

    “…
    “Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola Accident or Intentional?” (Tetrahedron,
    LLC Press, 1997;1-888-508-4787; http://www.tetrahedron.org/), wherein
    several potentially explosive NCI reports are reprinted, is currently in
    production by Nashville independent film producer Brent Leung.
    …”

    http://www.devvy.com/aids_20001206.html

    “…
    Independent film producer, Brent Leung is heading up the Nashville film
    crew. According to Graves’ publicist, Joel Bales, “‘STATE ORIGIN’ will be
    on the shelf by inaugauration day. “Once the dust finally settles from the
    current political tug of war, the laboratory origin of AIDS will dominate
    the social agenda of humanity, well into the 21st Century.”
    …”

  13. #13 ERV
    April 23, 2009

    JimBob– Oooh, my bestest buddy Lenny Horowitz. Good find.

  14. #14 Cody
    April 23, 2009

    Leung jumped in and told the crowd, “I would like to add that was not taken out of context. Antiretrovirals are a separate part of the film. AZT is one part of the film.”

    Kuritzkes replied, “AZT is an antiretroviral, unfortunately.”

    Oh, snap!

  15. #15 MikeG
    April 23, 2009

    Uggh…

    At least Expelled didn’t have to potential to kill anyone.

  16. #16 HalfMooner
    April 23, 2009

    I truly hate denialism on principle. Especially denialist movies. “Expelled” was disgusting for how it interviewed scientists under false premises, distorted science by cherry-picking quotes, and compared honest working scientists to Nazis.

    9/11 Denialism disgusts me because it is a slap in the face, and an exploitation of, all those who died on 9/11/2001.

    Despite its being denialism of a different sort, “House of Numbers” comes off the same No-Nothing anti-science, anti-intellectual assembly line as did “Expelled.”

    There are many kinds of denialism, and all are equally dishonest/demented, and should be exposed by rational people. But the HIV/AIDS denialism represented by “House of Numbers” has got to be among the worst in terms of its potential body count.

    People will die because of this movie.

    Infected people will not seek treatment. Many will not get HIV tested. Some will spread HIV with out warning their partners, because they believe callous idiots instead of scientists and physicians. Only the Vaccine Denialist movement is in the same league in terms of promoting death in the millions.

    Brent Leung and his financiers will have blood on their hands.

    I do not say the movie should be banned, but perhaps the families of HIV/AIDS fatalities should be able to sue the producers for promoting dangerous lies.

    Meanwhile, kudos to Dr. Daniel Kuritzkes, his colleagues, and the Boston International Film Festival for taking a stand for modern medical science.

  17. #17 Strider
    April 23, 2009

    One of my favorite passages from the article:

    Kary Mullis, a leading AIDS denialist and a Nobel Prize-winning chemist, blamed many early AIDS cases on poppers, saying, “What exactly caused Kaposi’s sarcoma? We know that now. It was amyl nitrite.”

    Holy Shit! I guess some Nobel Prize winners are crazier than others but this is like latter day Linus Pauling crazy…

  18. #18 Joshua Zelinsky
    April 24, 2009

    Stryder, Kary Mullis also has made comments about how he believes in reincarnation and how he thinks that the Federal Reserve is part of some evil conspiracy(there may have been anti-Semitic overtones in that context also). Mullis was always a bit of a loon. He had an extremely good idea with PCR and has done close to nothing else with his life since them. Mullis makes Pauling look like a model of sanity and self-restraint.

  19. #19 William Wallace
    April 24, 2009

    Quick poll: How many people here support freedom of speech? Freedom of thought? Freedom of expression?

    In other news, did you know that the battery industry is ripping you off? See here.

  20. #20 Lee
    April 24, 2009

    For a good dose of hiv denialism lunacy, hop on over to the Aetiology blog here at scienceblogs, and look at the “Christine Maggiore Dies from Pneumonia” thread – its currently well-represented in the recent comment list.

    Be prepared to be startled and disgusted.

  21. #21 neil
    April 24, 2009

    “Quick poll: How many people here support freedom of speech? Freedom of thought? Freedom of expression?”

    You missed freedom to cause suffering and death through misinformation, ignorance and out right dishonesty from your poll and that is the ‘freedom’ relevant here.

  22. #22 David
    April 24, 2009

    This is truly pathetic. I can understand why people want to deny evolution (the whole religious consequences), but why the HIV/AIDS denial? I am sitting in one of the hubs of HIV/AIDS research in South Africa. I constantly read of the success that ARVs have here. In fact mother to child transmission is declining rapidly. More adults are living longer due to medications and the spread of infection is stabilizing.

    Why people dont understand that makes me want to scream!

  23. #23 William Wallace
    April 24, 2009

    You missed freedom to cause suffering and death through misinformation, ignorance and out right dishonesty from your poll and that is the ‘freedom’ relevant here.

    Addressing your question, and limiting my response adults, that is why teaching critical thinking is important. You cannot protect everybody from being duped, however. It is one price of freedom. (In the case of HIV infected children not being treated as a result of their parents, that is a different issue, and not one remedied by censoring).

    On the other hand, I read the baywindows article, nice article–(makes me glad PZ wasn’t allowed in to the screening of the documentary film Expelled), but a little heavy on the use of the word “denialist”.

    Such rhetoric is actually counter productive IMO, and will, I believe, increase the number of HIV infected individuals likely to fall for the arguments of the HIV skeptics.

    Why?

    Who gets AIDS in this country?

    Prostitutes, homosexuals, drug addicts are certainly represented.

    But homosexuals and drug addicts have a tendency to go against the mainstream. Marginalizing the HIV skeptics by calling them “denialists” like a schoolyard bully, will actually induce, in my opinion, more HIV victims to embrace the skeptic’s message.

    Instead, you should simply answer the challenges. Don’t be a bully.

    Unless you don’t really care. In which case, just scream “denialist, denialist, you’re a stinky denialist, la la la la la, and your mom shops at garage sales and stands in line for government cheese” every time you come across an HIV skeptic.

    Increase your volume whenever you see a person with HIV nearby.

  24. #24 BSE
    April 24, 2009

    Lung’s unwillingness to disclose his funders speaks volumes!

  25. #25 D. C. Sessions
    April 24, 2009

    I can understand why people want to deny evolution (the whole religious consequences), but why the HIV/AIDS denial?

    Because a world where diseases like AIDS can’t happen to you is a much nicer world to live in.

  26. #26 Stephen Wells
    April 24, 2009

    William, the “challenges” _were answered long ago_. There are idiots in the comment thread from the news article _claiming that HIV capsid is the same as actin_. That’s wrong on a “Lobsters are the same as chicken” level. And putting out movies which falsely claim there’s a valid debate here are about as productive as “Mains power sockets: dangerous, or source of superpowers? Take a fork and join us on our tool of discovery!”

    Sure, there’ll always be people who’ll listen to the HIV denial message because what they’re really saying is: You’re not really ill, you’re not going to die. That’s seductive.

  27. #27 LanceR, JSG
    April 24, 2009

    Concern troll Limp Willy is concerned. And limp.

    He’s as full of $hit as ever, but at least he’s concerned.

    Your concern is noted, and rejected.

  28. #28 David
    April 24, 2009

    The challenges have been answered and thats why they are called denialists!

  29. #29 William Wallace
    April 24, 2009

    [#28]Your concern is noted, and rejected.

    And it is duly noted that your rejection was conspicuous for not being accompanied by any justification whatsoever. And, I am not really concerned; I am disinterested to uninterested. I’m just noting that if the anti-HIV skeptics were actually concerned, they’d behave differently.

    [#26]William, the “challenges” _were answered long ago_.

    You have to consider the audience, especially new members of the audience you claim are susceptible to snake oil sales pitches, and not the challenger. What is so difficult with calmly restating your case every time some long ago answered challenge is spewed by those you claim are charlatans?

  30. #30 Raymond
    April 24, 2009

    Excuse me, but did _anybody_ here hear what Dr. Luc Montagnier _SAID_!?!?

    Did he just say that a person with a good immune system can be infected by HIV and clear it within a few weeks?!?

    W.T.F.!?!?

  31. #31 Jason
    April 24, 2009

    Raymond – take a deep breath. Everything will be okay.

    This statement is motivated from the perspective of, “any exposure, whatsoever, will cause seroconversion, HIV infection… AIDS…”

    Whereas there are known cases of exposure, before knowledge of PEP, where people did not seroconvert.

    My understanding is that the titer of infection has to exceed the host’s ability to respond; I’m not an immunologist, but talk to folks who work in infectious diseases (my organism of study being a common one).

    Check out: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/497274?cookieSet=1

    For instance, imagine in the case of a needlestick injury – what do you think the odds of seroconverting are?
    Turns out they’re ~1/200
    With PEP, they’re ~1/10,000

    Do you think that 199/200 times for the non-intervention cases, that there was simply no virus on the needle? Maybe in some of those cases, but not 199/200. The viruses may not be competent to infect, or they may be in a low enough concentration that they don’t out pace the typical immune response. I know how this is explained mathematically, but I don’t know the molecular biology behind this; Abbie is in a much better position to speak to this than I. But I think this idea is what Luc is speaking to in that statement.

  32. #32 JustaTech
    April 24, 2009

    WW, have you ever had a conversation with a 2-year-old? (Bear with me a moment.) You, know, that conversation where they’ve just learned “Why?” and keep asking over, and over, and over, and over again until you are nearly insane? That’s why we’re all sharp with HIV denialists. You explain over and over and over again all the refutations of the lies of the snake oil salesmen, and still they keep coming.

    “Denialist” is a strong word, but we use that word because it is correct. Some say that using “denialist” means we’re scared. And we are. We are terrified that people will listen to the denialists and die. As the saying goes “Use a whip to get horse out of a burning stable.” This is a fight for *lives*; we cannot afford to pull any punches. do you understand that?

  33. #33 jon
    April 24, 2009

    @WW #23

    Who gets AIDS in this country?

    Prostitutes, homosexuals, drug addicts are certainly represented.

    But homosexuals and drug addicts have a tendency to go against the mainstream.

    Oooh! Nice shot at the gays there WW. Keep attacking the windmills, one day they’ll all be sorry they doubted you!

  34. #34 JustaTech
    April 24, 2009

    WW, so what you are saying in #23 is that people who are “different” deserve to die of AIDS? ‘Cause that’s kind of what that looks like. Please don’t say that. That would be just plain evil. Not to mention is totally missing the point.

  35. #35 D. C. Sessions
    April 24, 2009

    WW’s list of people who get AIDS is incomplete.

    Don’t forget little kids, tennis players, EMTs, dentists …

    OK, maybe it is supernatural punishment for sins.

  36. #36 afvace
    April 24, 2009

    As someone who is pretty ignorant to HIV/Aids. I have seen this movie and found it very interesting. One point the movie makes is that there is no test that can confirm you have HIV. There are common occurrences of false positives. So my question is does a test exist that can confirm your infected with HIV? One person posted we know the gene sequence of HIV. Then I would assume it would be fairly easy to detect. I’m not a educated in the medical field so I don’t know. Thanks for any help

  37. #37 Lee
    April 24, 2009

    afvace:

    They are lying to you, to put it bluntly.

    The standard HIV diagnostic series is two tests. The first, ELISA, uses the entire suite of immunogenic HIV proteins, mixed together and stuck to the bottom of a small well in a plate. Blood serum from the person beintg tested is put in the well – if the person has antibodies to HIV proteins, those antibodies will stick to the HIV proteins. A secondary test then detects whether human antibody proteins are retained in the well. This test is quick, easy, cheap, and has a false positive rate of somewhere between 1/100, and 1/1000. It is NOT the definitive test, it is used for preliminary screening, because it is cheap and quick.

    People who give a positive result on the ELISA test, then have their blood retested with a much more discriminatory test, the Western Blot. In this test, HIV proteins are separated by size by electrophoretic separation, and then stuck onto a strip of a special paper. That paper is then exposed to blood serum form the person beign tested. If a person is actually infected with HIV, they will have immune tresponses to more than one of the immunogenic proteins, and the western blot test will give positive results at several locations corresponding to the HIV proteins that the person has an immune response to. Typically, to be scored positive on the western blot, they have to be positive at 2 or 3 bands, with a certain base intensity at each.

    To be positive on the HIV test, one must first score positive on the ELISA test, and then positive on the Western Blot test. In one study, over 17,000 people who had scored positive in this way were examined by techniques to identify the virus presense – only one did not have virus. This gives an operational false positive rate, in that study, of about 1:17,000.

    And then, after one is diagnosed positive, there is a followup therapeutic series of tests for viral load, using yet another technique, typically a PCR-based viral load test. Even if one were a false positive in the ELISA-Western Blot tests, it would soon be apparent that there was no virus – and this is very, very , very rare.

    So yes, there is a good, functional HIV test with a very low false positive rate, and the people who tell you otherwise are lying to you.

  38. #38 BGT
    April 24, 2009

    Wow ERV, way to bring out the kooks, almost as good as the post on the Pickens peeps…

    Damnit, in general, I trust scientists because the rules they follow cover so many of them, and the natural competition between them generally brings BS into the light fairly quickly.

    It saddens me to see a film like this rolling out. Expelled was one thing, since it only had an effect on potential critical thinking skills. This thing could be personally deadly to folks who are HIV positive but in denial.

    I don’t know exactly where to stand on free speech about this sort of crap, but I can say keep publicizing take downs of this shit. Consider it a non-funded public health service.

    At least post like this should help you sleep better at night. I don’t know how the denialists do it.

  39. #39 William Wallace
    April 25, 2009

    I think homosexuals more than the average person would be sympathetic to and maybe even try to understand a person who is being bullied. Maybe I am wrong.

    One part of the trailer is disconcerting. The lady who all but stated that answers to questions are used in the interpretation of lab results.

    Is that a lie?

    If true, it is difficult to understand why that would be necessary.

  40. #40 William Wallace
    April 25, 2009

    Nevermind, I read and understand Lee’s answer in #37.

  41. #41 Militant Agnostic
    April 25, 2009

    This from the comments

    Christian Fiala was even on the South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel

    And we know how well that worked.

    I think these denialists are motivitated by a need to feel superior to the “sheeple” and expecially to people who are smarter than they are and who have achieved more than they do. There is a huge overlap in denialism. An HIV denialist is almost guaranteed to be at least 2 of the following:
    anti vaccinationist
    911 troofer
    creationist / ID propensist
    holocaust denier
    AGW denialist
    germ theory denialist

    Half Mooner is right – anti-intelectualism is the basis of HIV denialism.

  42. #42 Der Bruno Stroszek
    April 25, 2009

    WW, you’re making the …interesting… mistake of thinking that people with HIV are all rah-rah in favour of the people who are trying to prevent them being cured. Surprisingly,this is not always the case.

  43. #43 William Wallace
    April 25, 2009

    Der Bruno Stroszek,

    No, I am making an observation that in my opinion a larger percentage of HIV infected people will be more likely to listen to the HIV skeptics if they believe that the HIV skeptics are being unreasonably shouted down by the establishment, especially those with HIV who are themselves outside of the mainstream and who are also sensitive to issues like bullying and rooting for the underdog.

    It is a differential and unintended consequence of bullying the HIV skeptics, in my view. Not a universal effect.

    A reasonable argument might be “if you don’t call a spade a spade, even more HIV infected individuals will be taken in.”

    This is reasonable, and it is as far as I know, just an opinion (as is my opinion).

    But interpreting my statement as a universal consequence is disingenuous at best.

  44. #44 Sili
    April 25, 2009

    I see that mr Wallace is one of those people who think that lesbians are God’s chosen tribe.

    Forgive me if I prefer to disagree.

  45. #45 Telemann
    April 26, 2009

    This is directed to “Strider” – his comment #17 is as good an example as any of the overheated, poorly-researched rhetoric that seems to find a breeding ground on sites such as these. Here is a humble suggestion:
    #1 – Go see “House of Numbers” accompanied by an associate with sufficient reading skills to recite the identifying titles of each interviewee as they appear, should you have any problem with them. (sotto voce is best )
    #2 – Upon seeing/hearing any and all denialists, dissidents, etc. cover your eyes with your hands, until their image has left the screen. Hum a favorite tune, aria, whatever.
    #3 – When Dr.Donald Abrams, MD (Chief of Hematology and Oncology at SF General Hospital, and a Director at the Osher Center for Integratve Medicine) appears to discuss linkage of amyl nitrite abuse with pneumocystis pneumonia, pay close attention.
    #4 – When Dr. Michael Gottlieb, MD (founding chairman of amFAR, first MD to diagnose AIDS) identifies another virus entirely than HIV as the cause of Kaposi’s Sarcoma, pay close attention.
    #5 – When Dr. Harry Haverkos, MD (retired CDC, NIH officer, associate director,National Institute for Drug Abuse) discusses linkage of amyl nitrite abuse to KS, pay close attention.

    By following these simple instructions, you will learn something specific to KS and “popper” abuse, while sparing your delicate sensibilities the injuries and indignities produced by exposure to the image and voice of one Kary Mullis.

    While unrelated to your specific KS comment, ” Strider,” you might consider watching Luc Montagnier, James Chin, Robin Weiss, Anthony Fauci etc.. in between your “duck and cover” activity. These HIV/AIDS authorities have been proven to be non-toxic, and on occasion beneficial to such easily discomfited persons as yourself. In fact, I think the filmmaker Leung could re-edit House of Numbers, excising each and every renegade demonic denialist, and not miss a beat in presenting substantive contradiction and dissonance among the orthodox research establishment. It would shorten the film, and make it more accessible to the “Striders” of the world. That would enhance your viewing pleasure, and leave you more time to thumb through your worn-out “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. Or perhaps you only saw the movie….

  46. #46 ERV
    April 26, 2009

    Teleman–In fact, I think the filmmaker Leung could re-edit House of Numbers, excising each and every renegade demonic denialist, and not miss a beat in presenting substantive contradiction and dissonance among the orthodox research establishment.

    Yes, its called quotemining. Creationists have been doing it to scientists for decades.

    And this is what we were all talking about with the germ-theory denial in HIV Denialism. KS is a secondary infection caused by a herpes virus, HHV-8. Lots of people are infected with this virus, but nothing happens as long as your immune system in strong.

    If you develop AIDS, or take immunosuppressive drugs (pre-post organ transplant), KS lesions form. Now, with organ transplant patients, their lesions resolve after immunosuppressive therapy is reduced/stopped.

    But Im sure KS in organ recipients is caused by BIG PHARMA sneaking poppers in their system during surgery to perpetuate the HIV AIDS LIE!

  47. #47 Chris Noble
    April 26, 2009

    #5 – When Dr. Harry Haverkos, MD (retired CDC, NIH officer, associate director,National Institute for Drug Abuse) discusses linkage of amyl nitrite abuse to KS, pay close attention

    Harry Haverkos’ current views are detailed in his latest article.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/u11168pqm0877915/

    He is completely in agreement with the “orthodox” position that HHV-8 combined with immune-suppression from HIV causes KS. He also argues that vasoactive agents such as poppers may be a third factor after HHV-8 and immune-suppression.

    I’m not sure how Haverkos is being quoted in thee film but if the film portrays him as being in conflict with the “orthodoxy” then it is being deliberately deceptive.

  48. #48 Chris Noble
    April 26, 2009

    In fact, I think the filmmaker Leung could re-edit House of Numbers, excising each and every renegade demonic denialist, and not miss a beat in presenting substantive contradiction and dissonance among the orthodox research establishment.

    What a hoot. Does the film discuss the substantive contradiction and dissonance among the Denialists?

  49. #49 afvace
    April 30, 2009

    afvace:

    They are lying to you, to put it bluntly.

    The standard HIV diagnostic series is two tests. The first, ELISA, uses the entire suite of immunogenic HIV proteins, mixed together and stuck to the bottom of a small well in a plate. Blood serum from the person beintg tested is put in the well – if the person has antibodies to HIV proteins, those antibodies will stick to the HIV proteins. A secondary test then detects whether human antibody proteins are retained in the well. This test is quick, easy, cheap, and has a false positive rate of somewhere between 1/100, and 1/1000. It is NOT the definitive test, it is used for preliminary screening, because it is cheap and quick.

    People who give a positive result on the ELISA test, then have their blood retested with a much more discriminatory test, the Western Blot. In this test, HIV proteins are separated by size by electrophoretic separation, and then stuck onto a strip of a special paper. That paper is then exposed to blood serum form the person beign tested. If a person is actually infected with HIV, they will have immune tresponses to more than one of the immunogenic proteins, and the western blot test will give positive results at several locations corresponding to the HIV proteins that the person has an immune response to. Typically, to be scored positive on the western blot, they have to be positive at 2 or 3 bands, with a certain base intensity at each.

    To be positive on the HIV test, one must first score positive on the ELISA test, and then positive on the Western Blot test. In one study, over 17,000 people who had scored positive in this way were examined by techniques to identify the virus presense – only one did not have virus. This gives an operational false positive rate, in that study, of about 1:17,000.

    And then, after one is diagnosed positive, there is a followup therapeutic series of tests for viral load, using yet another technique, typically a PCR-based viral load test. Even if one were a false positive in the ELISA-Western Blot tests, it would soon be apparent that there was no virus – and this is very, very , very rare.

    So yes, there is a good, functional HIV test with a very low false positive rate, and the people who tell you otherwise are lying to you.

    You say they are lying yet the people saying they get lots of false positives are people that work in the testing laboratories. Also the film shows the package inserts for the test and all of them say that they need to be followed with additional tests. Some even say they can’t confirm a person HIV positive in the materials. So you explaining how they do the test doesn’t really confirm anything for me. When the test materials say more test need to be taken.

  50. #50 ERV
    April 30, 2009

    Also the film shows the package inserts for the test and all of them say that they need to be followed with additional tests.

    OMG! A LEGAL DISCLAIMER!?!?! HIV IS A LIE!

    *throws research in the garbage*

    Wait… Home pregnancy kits come with a disclaimer too… THIS MEANS STORKS REALLY DO BRING BABIES!

    afvace– I do PCR on HIV-1 samples every day. Technically, multiple times, every day. I can tell you how many viruses are in a drop of sample. And Im not in a clinical laboratory, which have higher stringency standards than research laboratories (we can use flow cytometry equipment they cant, we can use cell sorting equipment they cant, we can use reagents/kits they cant, etc).

    If youre telling me that clinical laboratory techs are getting ‘lots of false positives’ on PCR viral load tests, I am flat out calling them liars.

    It is possible that a HIV+ individual has a VERY low viral load– elite suppressors– and such a person could be a false negative via PCR.

    But false positives via PCR? No. Show me the cDNA sequence- What are the primers picking up if its not HIV-1? Show me the Real-Time data. If youre doing it with SYBR, what the melt-curve look like? Whats your RT(-) sample doing?

  51. #51 afvace
    April 30, 2009

    I don’t understand why your getting so upset, being saracastic and rude I am only asking questions cause I don’t know. Is it wrong that I want to inform myself.

    I’m not doubting your abilities. I never questioned your knowledge.

    I feel that comparing an HIV test to a home pregnancy test seems a little ridiculous to me. I’m not doing a home HIV test. I’m going to a medical facility. So if you have HIV in a laboratory and know what it looks like and how to identify it. Why would these tests say that you need additional testing? Can’t you just pull a sample from a person and find the virus just as easily as your saying you do for what ever test your doing on the virus.

    Again, I’m not questioning your knowledge or anything. I’m only looking for answers.

  52. #52 ERV
    April 30, 2009

    afvace– I was making fun of the Denier claim, not you. I tried to make that clear by not direct quoting you and addressing you after, but I guess I didnt make it clear enough. Asking questions is never stupid. Even my resident trolls ask good Qs now and then:)

    Every kit test for every disease is going to have a disclaimer in their instruction manual. Every kit we have in a basic science lab has a disclaimer ‘NOT FOR DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES!’, even though we technically could use it as such. These are legal protections for the companies that produce them, just like the stupid ‘DO NOT OPERATE IN BATHTUB’ warnings on hair dryers or ‘WE MIGHT BE WRONG’ disclaimers on home pregnancy tests.

    The reason why PCR isnt the primary/only HIV test used is because its ~10X the cost of an ELISA. Its stupid to screen millions of people with a $300 test when a $3 ELISA will tell you they are negative. And, while we ‘know what the virus looks like’, electron microscopy is absolutely impossible for testing purposes because of the ungodly time and money it would require per test.

  53. #53 Jonathan
    April 30, 2009

    Afvace-

    “Can’t you just pull a sample from a person and find the virus just as easily as your saying you do for what ever test your doing on the virus.”

    I think ERV already answered this in comment 50. She said:

    “It is possible that a HIV+ individual has a VERY low viral load– elite suppressors– and such a person could be a false negative via PCR”.

    Don’t viral loads change over time, and thus the need for multiple tests?

    (Anyone feel free to correct me, my knowledge on this is limited).

  54. #54 ERV
    April 30, 2009

    Jonathan– No, really its just a money/time thing. If PCR were $3 a test and took 5 minutes, wed just go straight to that. But PCR is expensive, labor intensive, and takes up a lot of time. Just according to the time it takes me to do stuff:
    1. Isolating viral RNA from sample: 1 hour (a full plate, 96 samples, would take at least all morning, maybe all day if you didnt have multiple centrifuges), expensive reagents
    2. Reverse transcription: 1.5 hours (setting up a full plate, make it at least 2.5 hours), expensive reagents
    3. Real Time PCR on viral cDNA: 3 hours (full plate, make it at least 4 hours), really fucking expensive reagents
    4. Interpreting data: >1 hour

    Considering how many people are negative, it makes no sense to do PCR first. Looking for antibodies is cheap and fast.

  55. #55 Jonathan
    April 30, 2009

    ERV-

    Thanks for the correction! Like the blog, by the way.

  56. #56 afvace
    April 30, 2009

    I appreciate your answers to my questions. So I did some research on the Viral Load test. From what I’ve read the problem with this test is that apparently no one has ever isolated HIV. I can’t find anything on who has isolated it etc..

    So If HIV has been isolated I would be interested in that info and if it hasn’t than how do you know what your working with in your tests is HIV? If there is some other way of identifying HIV without isolating it than that info would be awesome as well.

    This is all so interesting. I sometimes wish I would have got in the medical industry now. Thanks in advance.

  57. #57 Tony F.
    May 1, 2009

    All of you people slamming the dissidents… How about saying something concrete, rather than name calling?

    What difference does it make if the doctors interviewed in the film didn’t know that a dissident viewpoint would be given fair time? They said these things. Their quotes are not taken out of context which would change what they said. If their quotes were manipulated, give me an example. Oh, you can’t, because you haven’t even seen the film, nor were quotes taken out of context. They said what they said. They’ve been bungling along for 20 years, with trillions of dollars, and HIV=AIDS still don’t make sense.

    Oh yeah… and the results of viral load and cd4 count have no correlation to health. These tests are useless. Studies prove this, and no studies show otherwise. Thus, if viral load and cd4 count are irrelevant, then there is no reason to take the toxic meds to control such numbers, is there?

  58. #58 afvace
    May 5, 2009

    Tony F. no need to get angry. You can’t be expected to be taken seriously if you come across as a jerk. I currently question what the truth is. But, if you ask and make comments and show facts in a civilized manner you will be surprised how many people will listen or respond respectfully.

    Notice how no one responded to you. They aren’t gonna waste their time cause you will just gonna come back with anger. You obviously aren’t here with an open mind. Just to vent.

    ERV,
    I appreciate your taking time to answer my questions and acting like someone that isn’t a cornered animal when I question things you believe in. You respond with grace. I appreciate that.

  59. #59 W. Kevin Vicklund
    May 5, 2009

    afvace:

    HIV has been isolated for all but the most narrowest of definitions of isolated. The HIV-denialists have latched onto this narrowest of definitions. It’s like arguing that a murder wasn’t committed when you have eyewitnesses to the murderer going into the room with the murder weapon (which has the murderer’s fingerprints, the victim’s blood, and matches the wounds) and security videotape, claiming that the fact that the camera was focused on a mirror rather than the actual events means there is no proof a murder occurred.

  60. #60 LanceR, JSG
    May 5, 2009

    Document title:
    Phenotypic variations and switches in HIV isolated from the blood and the gastrointestinal tissues of patients with HIV-1 infection
    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2645183

    Molecular and biologic comparison of HIV-1 isolated from chimpanzees infected mucosally vs. intravenously.
    http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102213407.html

    Isolated HIV-1 core is active for reverse transcription
    http://www.retrovirology.com/content/4/1/77

    ISOLATED FACTS ABOUT HIV: A response to claims by AIDS dissidents that HIV doesn’t exist
    http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atu/1996/ATU4004.html

    Not that any of that will matter. HIV “dissidents” just ignore any evidence that would refute their delusions.

  61. #61 aliveandwell after 25 years
    May 6, 2009

    most of the comments on this board are an insult to people like me who have been hiv+ for more than 35 years.

    fact: if i had listened to the AIDS orthodoxy i’d be dead by now. i was on the concorde trial in london – it was the only time i got sick from ARV’s. after that expierence i never touched arv’s ever again, quit the AIDS doctors and NGO’s that ‘only want to help’ and here I am, alive and well and healthy as can be. they told back in the late 80-ties i’d be dead in a few month.

    HOW DOES ANY ONE EXPLAIN THIS?

    the aids orthodoxy stole my life. and i am intent on getting it back.

    and no – i do not deny the holocaust, am not anti semitic, work hard every day, and have managed to retain enough thinking power to question the HIV=AIDS theory.

    TO DATE NO ONE HAS EVER ISOLATED HIV. TO DATE NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN THAT HIV CAUSES AIDS. AT BEST THERE IS SOME CORRELATION.

    but millions are being poisened with ARV’s that make sick. the biggest cause of death for hiv+ people is liver failure from ARV’s.

    whether you like it or not: the pharma industry has all to lose and nothing to gain by admitting hiv is not causing aids. and they have no scruples in ruining the lives of millions in the process.

  62. #62 alive and well
    May 6, 2009

    sorry meant 25 years :)

  63. #63 Sascha
    May 6, 2009

    I have been jaywalking for 25 years and yet here I am today, alive and well, and ready to jaywalk another day. Does this mean that jaywalking is not dangerous? That there is only a weak correlation between jaywalking and being struck by a car?

  64. #64 SAWells
    May 6, 2009

    aliveandwell: yeah, I’m going to go ahead and call you a liar. We know a lot about the virus now; we know all its proteins, we can see new virus particles bud off infected cells, I’ve spoken to a postdoc recently who was complaining that the cells she was using sometimes die too fast from virus production, and you may have noticed that a lot of people got AIDS when we weren’t screening blood donations for HIV and that doesn’t happen any more. So, stop lying about virology, and get new propaganda, your old claims are getting tiresome.

  65. #65 afvace
    May 8, 2009

    I enjoy the discussion going on in here. For the most part people are civil. But, I have to say that this blog uses the worst analogies I have ever heard. Jaywalking? seriously. You compare that to HIV? No one goes around proclaiming the dangers of Jaywalking and that if you continue to jaywalk you’ll have 3 months to live. You all are very smart people. Your analogies just make me laugh though.

    So if your using this analogy of Jaywalking in correlation to people not taking HIV drugs. Then this quote from an article about crosswalk studies would say that taking HIV drugs is more dangerous than not.

    The San Diego study concluded “in terms of use, that approximately twice as many pedestrian accidents occur in marked crosswalks as in unmarked crosswalks.”
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3734/is_200009/ai_n8912574/

  66. #66 LanceR, JSG
    May 8, 2009

    Okay, better analogy:

    I’ve been playing Russian Roulette all night, and nothing bad has happened yet! Therefore, Russian Roulette is perfectly <<BANG>>

  67. #67 W. Kevin Vicklund
    May 8, 2009

    The San Diego study concluded “in terms of use, that approximately twice as many pedestrian accidents occur in marked crosswalks as in unmarked crosswalks.”

    And since this study does not even look at jaywalking, it has fuck-all to do with your argument. BTW, what moron goes around claiming that untreated HIV will kill in mere months?

    Answer: the strawmen that AIDS-denialists construct

  68. #68 Sascha
    May 9, 2009

    The analogy was to the inanity of the argument that “it hasn’t killed me yet so it must be harmless”. I smoked for twenty years yet I am alive and well, so smoking is harmless. I binged for twenty years yet I am alive and well, so alcohol is harmless. I worked in an asbestos plant for twenty years yet I am alive and well, so asbestos is harmless. yadda yadda … You get the picture.

    And why would you be offended by my trivialising HIV, if you don’t believe it even exists? Cognitive dissonance or hedging your positions?

  69. #69 afvace
    May 9, 2009

    Wow! i guess I should take back what I said about people acting civil.
    Sascha I never said you were trivializing HIV. I also never said I didn’t believe HIV existed. I’m merely someone that has heard a different side to the story and so I’m trying to do research to figure out the truth.

    Kevin, Ok well then how about HIV drugs are the marked crosswalk. People assume they are safe cause this is what society has said. They don’t look both ways before the take them. This is a major problem with our society. They just go along with what people tell them just cause they have a status symbol. The don’t use the information that is so readily available to us.

    So sad. I make a comment saying that someone used a bad analogy and everybody gets offended. I guess I was wrong about the ability for humans to communicate intelligently.

  70. #70 Sascha
    May 9, 2009

    Pardon! Forgive me if I have offended you yet again. I did not mean to, yet again.

    I’m not comparing HIV to jaywalking or vice versa, I’m applying the argument, used by A&W to demonstrate the inexistence of HIV, ad absurdam.

  71. #71 LanceR, JSG
    May 9, 2009

    Actually, avface, people here are *very* civil… until someone starts lying, obfuscating, and generally being an ass.

    Nobody would say that ARV drugs are “safe”. Nobody outside a denialist’s strawman argument, anyway. I certainly wouldn’t recommend them for just anyone.

    They are, however, *MUCH* safer than AIDS.

  72. #72 Stephen Wells
    May 10, 2009

    Denialist concept of civility: If I tell you that you’re a mass-murdering fraud and that all scientists, doctors and chemists worldwide are deliberately spreading a false story about viruses and killing people for money, I’m just being reasonable and openminded. If you tell me I’m a conspiracy-minded idiot for believing this crap, you’re being uncivil and must have something to hide.

  73. #73 Sascha
    May 10, 2009

    No, he’s right. I was very uncivil. I disagreed with someone who obviously knew the “Truth” that is out there.

  74. #74 afvace
    May 10, 2009

    I have not said that any of you are mass murders or frauds. Nor have I lied. I have only asked questions. I’m not a denialist. I don’t know what I believe. But, I understand why there are many denialists. If you ask questions or try to bring up points that contradict with your beliefs, you folks get very defensive. You are already calling me a denialist.

    Well, I guess since I won’t learn anything here anymore. Good luck to you all. I have nothing more to post. I didn’t start posting here to start an argument. Just find answers.

  75. #75 Objective
    June 1, 2009

    I agree that there seems to be solid evidence supporting HIV and AIDS. Nevertheless, a review of the past will show the need for objectivity and an open mind. Let us acknowledge that Scurvy killed millions while science pursuits a germ theory (it is a vitamin C deficiency). Let us also acknowledge that the earth is not flat, and we know how long those facts took to settle in. Both are two examples where either dissident scientists faced unprecedented uphill battles or scientists became comfortable with “established” facts.

    We must accept counter views in science no matter how insane they are. The danger comes when we ignore it fiercely by assessing a moral standard to the message. Science has always been successful by forcing questions and debates. Always remember that it is not what we do not know that will be our undoing; rather, it is what we KNOW TO BE TRUE but ISN’T.

  76. #76 Tyler DiPietro
    June 1, 2009

    Objective, scientists are always open to having their minds changed with solid empirical evidence, but HIV deniers, like most cranks, don’t have any. What they have are a grab bag of lies and cherry picked half truths which they peddle as science. By playing the Galileo gambit you are completely missing the boat.

  77. #77 LanceR, JSG
    June 1, 2009

    We must accept counter views in science no matter how insane they are.

    No. False. Insane, impossible counter views are not acceptable. This is an appeal to a false middle. There is more to a “theory” than some wild-ass guess some drunk guy in a bar pulled out of his ass. Especially when it comes to very well-documented science, like HIV.

    You gotta have evidence. HIV deniers got nuttin.

  78. #78 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    June 2, 2009

    We must accept counter views in science no matter how insane they are.

    wait

    What?

    Every counter view must be accepted no matter how insane they are?

    Does that mean insane and unsupported?

    Insane and refuted?

    Just plain insane?

    That view is frankly, insane sir.

  79. #79 RetrovirusNotVirus
    June 3, 2009

    One can rather easily deduce from the replies here that most of the responders haven’t seen the movie, or know much about the actual views of those against whom they regale.

    Any among you parroting “denialist” merely for the sake of memetic value have cashed in on ad hominem while forsaking any reason for those who are skeptical of HIV=AIDS to take you seriously. The more objective and carefully crafted fact based replies are always the most persuasive.

    It is not a crime to want to be informed, and even when one is misinformed they are not uninformed, and so are more likely to come around when the facts and evidence convince them to change their position. Therefore, to liken these people to “murders” merely for being misinformed is the epitome of both hyperbole and incredibility; it is not scientific, or even civil, and as others have noted, you simply closes the debate for your adversaries by emploring the worst and most deceptive tactics.

    Indeed, when one wants to be informed about what the retrovirus HTLV-III turned into, and how, they won’t find much illumination here, nor likely in the film.

    If someone believes that only 5,999,999 Jewish people were murdered by the Nazis, are they “denialists” or “anti-semites?”

    I humbly suggest you think about that.

    And rethink it.

    As someone who’s spent over two decades working in hardcore high tech communications, I have indeed witnessed the full politicization and compromise of almost every branch of experiemental, observational, and theoretical Science to suit corporate and national agendas.

    “Are you DENIALISTS that: cell phones cause jaw cancer?!”

    That is just one of the many claims which my industry actually has to address. The evidence is there that there is a risk, but it is so small and there also so many cofactors that it can’t be taken seriously enough to fund long term studies.

    Same with “Global Warming” and the people who really believe that the data indicate an imminent doomsday catastrophe.

    “Imminent Global Doom” simply isn’t falsifiable.

    Like every other religion.

    Thanks for reading.

  80. #80 CommonSense
    June 9, 2009

    It’s very frustrating to engage in debate when you get labeled from the get-go as a “denialist.”

    In science there is no need for pejorative. Only in politics.

    I will say outright, I am of the opinion that indeed HIV does not cause AIDS. I in fact take it farther than even that. I submit that what we refer to when we say “HIV” is not an actual unique entity that exists in the real world, but rather a set of conditions that occur in the body (which are numerous and often times, completely normal) that stimulate production of paracrine vesicle cell-to-cell communication and exchange of genetic material to adapt to a change in stasis (what we refer to colloquially as “viruses”).

    Indeed if one looks under an EM and marks a specific gene sequence with a fluorescent tracer, there may be evidence that some of these vesicles which are endogenously produced by the cells in the body as adaptive entities do have a certain sequence of genes and thus will show up in such cases when you look for that sequence. The idea that these are external entities, and that they are HARMFUL…is simply unproven.

    We hear so much about “we know all about the virus.”

    No, in fact I just got done doing a decently lengthy inquiry into the various proposed mechanisms for how experts say HIV kills or leads to the death of, T cells.

    Do you know how many different, often times DIAMETRICALLY opposed theories there are?

    Does anyone else not find it highly suspect that the “latency period” of HIV was a few months back in 1984 and has increased in time in direct proportion to the years that have passed since 1984? For instance, and I have virology, or specifically HIV pathology textbooks which were or are used by major universities and doctors, that range from 1985 to 2009 and literally depending on the year of publication you can simply subtract that year from the year 1984, and you will get the latency period. So in my 1989 textbook, take a wild guess what the “latency/incubation” period was? Yes. 5 years.
    In my 1993 textbook…you guessed it, 10 years.

    In my most current one? Indeed. 25 years+.

    Why? Why does the latency period continue to grow?
    Because there are people, and always have been, who are HIV+ and remain off the drugs and they are incongruent with the medical model of HIV=AIDS etiology. So what happens? Well, it’s not a conspiracy. Not at all…but it’s just science at its worst: You buy time. You make the puzzle pieces fit, even if it means you have to shave off some of the corners and recolor a little section of the piece to make it work (kinda). You do what you can.

    No there is absolutely no way that “HIV” can be tested for. The reason is because there has never been proper purification done.

    The ELISA tests for antibodies.
    The Western Blot…tests for the exact same things, just that they are all separated out into their own densities.

    ELISA test manufacturers admit it is not enough to diagnose HIV. Western Blot tests makers admit WB is not on it’s own, enough to diagnose HIV. But somehow, when combined together it confers an accurate result.
    This is not science.

    PCR tests for genetic sequences that have not been proven to be anything but UBIQUITOUS in the human body. Therefore no, not synonymous with HIV.

    It’s a shame that there is a slander campaign and an attempt to discredit people who question lies.

    Even if you believe HIV causes AIDS, the drug therapies are the leading cause of death in all persons with HIV/AIDS. That hurts.
    Some may argue that this is because “obviously” the drugs are lengthening these people’s lives (presumably from being cut short by HIV) and thus because they are living longer it is giving them more time to “unfortunately” develop a toxic liver from the “life-saving” therapies.
    …Indeed. I have heard this before. For instance when asked why we get degenerative diseases more often now and the answer is “well, clearly because lifespan has increased and so we are living longer and thus getting these diseases of old age more and more as our lifespans are increasing.”
    Pure hogwash. Two reasons: There are many societies, or pockets of society which are known to have the longest lifespans out of anyone on Earth (in fact there is a book about these people called Blue Zones) and the one interesting thing is not only do many of these people live to be over 100 on a REGULAR basis, but they do so with not an increase in degenerative diseases of all stripes, but a DECREASE in fact (compared to the general population).
    The second reason this notion is deplorably and embarrassingly wrong, is because we are now seeing EARLIER ONSET of these degenerative conditions in the general population. A prime example would be Michael J Fox and his Parkinsons. How old is he? In his 40s? But don’t worry, I’ve looked at the figured in actual Journals…they categorically show a clear trend in recent years of younger and younger age of onset for these diseases we always thought to be due to old age. I think they in fact ARE due to old age…I just think we are not aging chronologically at the same pace that we are biologically. In 40 years we are exposed to so much bad food, stress, lack of sleep, sedentary living, heavy metal poisoning, and so on, that we are literally aging biologically faster than our calendars would have us believe. All aging is is the accumulated strain on the body. Someone who does meth for a few years can appear to age DECADES because of the tax that drug places on the body and the vitamin stores it forces to be depleted. Ouch.

    Nevertheless, to get back to HIV meds being the leading cause of death in those with HIV/AIDS, well, lets consider the possibility that indeed this is happening because “the drugs are helping people live longer” and the virus doesn’t get them, but the drugs do.
    Well, turns out HAART drugs came out after David Ho’s marvelously (and by that I mean, horribly) articulated papers and the whole “hit hard, hit early” campaign. That was 1996. In 2006 (10 years) a large cohort study was done to assess the 10 year data of HAART. What was found? Here’s what was found NO DECREASE IN MORTALITY.

    So no, nobody is living longer because of the drugs. And this was form a Journal article in the Lancet.

    Folks who call dissidents “denialists” and say that we do not have “any facts”….my my my, truly narrow minded.

    Most dissidents that I know use the very information that is found in the medical literature. No we don’t go to TheBody.com or AEGIS.com or AVERT or whatever corporate organized and sponsored institution releases as a PR campaign.
    But hey, while we are talking about BS and PR, have anyone looked in the pages of these so called “scientific” journals these days? More ads and commercial gimmicks than actual science. That’s a sad, sad state of affairs.

    When money is flashed in someone’s face, if flashed long enough, blatantly enough, that person’s vision becomes clouded real fast. It’s not a conspiracy…not at all. It’s SELL OUTS. That’s what it is.

    But you know what, most of you folks simply can’t handle the truth.

    You’re going to go your whole lives actually thinking that the particles we call viruses currently are “disease causing” when they are anything but.

    Evolution rarely makes mistakes. If viruses were disease causing, our cell membrane receptors would have long ago lost the receptors. If viruses caused disease, how did our population make it so long without any viral epidemics? All known epidemics are of bacterial origin, and those are not due to bacteria per-se, but rather the lack of sanitation and clean water, and all the things that were plaguing city dwellers as our societies began to cluster closer together and our mode of dealing with our waste-removal and nutrition attainment suffered.

    You show me a disease causing virus and I’ll show you a compete misunderstanding of molecular biology.

    But go ahead, pretend you know everything.

    What purpose in the cycle of life do viruses provide if they kill cells? If viruses do that, what purpose would it be for? Think about that for a while.

    Don’t worry, I got plenty more stuff to say. Don’t get me started.

    I walk my walk too though. I conquered the common cold. Modern Medicine still hasn’t been able to do that has it? No. It hasn’t. Because it thinks the common cold and the flu are “infectious” LOL!!! Morons.
    Go find a laboratory test where they try and transmit influenza from infected people to non-infected people. Do you know what kinds of results they get? They get a correlation of ZERO. We believe we get flu because we “catch it” and yet when science tries to demonstrate this in a controlled setting, where an “infected” person coughs, touches and interacts with a “non-infected”…well, it fails miserably. But no worry…because it’s a nice theory, and so we’re just going to keep toeing the status quo line. Great.

    Do as you wish. But when someone like me tells you “hey guys, you’re wasting your time” Don’t dismiss it with “denialist.” Totally deplorable language.

    have a wonderful day. I hope there is one or two of you in the crowd who is responsive to this perspective and decides to look into it more deeply. I cam imagine 90% of the responses to me will be of the “you’re insane” persuasion.

    By the way, no I am not religious. I am an atheist. All my life I have been. No do I think the movie Expelled is any good.
    But I also don’t think House Of Numbers is anywhere near the idiocy of Expelled.

  81. #81 LanceR, JSG
    June 9, 2009

    We believe we get flu because we “catch it” and yet when science tries to demonstrate this in a controlled setting, where an “infected” person coughs, touches and interacts with a “non-infected”…well, it fails miserably.

    Flat lie. Which tells you all you need to know about this guy. Human-to-human transmission of influenza is very well studied and understood. Viruses are very well understood. This guy denies *all* viruses.

    Not just a denialist, but a f*cking moron.

  82. #82 CommonSense
    June 9, 2009

    “Human-to-human transmission of influenza is very well studied and understood. Viruses are very well understood.”

    Fair enough, lets examine that idea.

    “I went to consult a standard textbook, ‘Introduction to Modern Virology’ by N. Dimmock and S. Primrose, published by Blackwell Scientific Publications.

    On page 230 I found it surprisingly reported that, although people have presumed that flu is spread by coughing, ‘transmission experiments from people infected with a rhinovirus to susceptibles sitting opposite at a table proved singularly unsuccessful. Equally unsuccessful was the transmission of influenza from a naturally infected husband/wife to his/her spouse.’

    Also on the same page it reported: ‘it has been shown that recently bereaved people are susceptible to infectious diseases. Thus one’s resistance is influenced by one’s state of mind.’ It then went on to discuss winter life styles; such as living crowded in unventilated and over-heated rooms, all things it says might make us produce the symptoms of illness – and all things that make cells ill without any need of help from viruses.
    It then concluded on page 212: ‘Evidently viruses do not kill cells by any one simple process and we are far from understanding the complex mechanisms involved …[it] seem more akin to death by slow starvation than acute poisoning. Lastly it is by no means clear what advantage accrues to the virus in killing its host cell. This situation may represent a poorly evolved virus-cell relationship or virus in the ‘wrong’ host cell.’

    It thus seems that cells may be sick, poisoned, stressed or malnourished in some way before they show the symptoms of ‘viral infection.’ There is a considerable body of research that indicates cellular illness or malnourishment often precedes the production of viruses, rather than the converse. For example: it is reported that deficiency in selenium, a metal our cells use as an antioxidant, can precede the symptoms of colds, flu and even AIDS. (There is also a strong co-relation between selenium levels in soils in African countries and the prevalence of AIDS symptoms. )

    Dr Melinda Beck reported that selenium-deficient mouse cells show symptoms of illness and emit viruses. She and her co-authors deduced from this that a lack of selenium made viruses dangerous – and consequently that these viruses made the cells ill. But was this deduction soundly based? Selenium is a component of glutathione peroxidase (GPX), an enzyme that protects cells from oxidative stress. Selenium-deficiency thus makes cells ill with oxidative stress without any need for a viral illness. They consequently could produce viral-like particles as waste or for repair purposes.

    Another research paper reported that, when cells are suffering from ‘oxidative DNA damage’ (such as from chemotherapy), then they are more likely to get hepatitis due to HCV viral infections. Again, what comes first? The authors presume the virus must cause the illness – but surely the illness started with the earlier oxidative stress.”

    FROM
    European Journal of Epidemiology
    -Transmission and control of rhinovirus colds
    “Although rhinoviruses are probably the world’s leading cause of respiratory illness, they are surprisingly reluctant transmitters”
    “Current research suggests that rhinoviruses are spread chiefly by aerosol, rather than by fomites or personal contact.”

    However, as is common in virology, we have direct contradictions:
    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/13/1/173_174.htm

    In the above link, we have a CDC document entitled “Questioning Aerosol Transmission of Influenza”
    It states “We have reviewed the literature cited in Tellier’s Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A Virus (1) and disagree that it supports the conclusions drawn regarding the importance of aerosols in natural influenza infection.”

    Interesting. Same story goes for how “HIV” is supposed to cause AIDS. Many theories, none of them conclusive, many of them diametrically opposed like this.

    Here is another citation:
    FROM
    Journal of Hygiene, Cambridge
    “An investigation of the possible transmission of rhinovirus colds through indirect contact”

    The article delineates some of the possible avenues which are hypothesized for this “mode of transmission” yet it finally admits:
    “However, it has generally proved unexpectedly difficult to reproduce ‘natural’ transmission of colds from infected to susceptible subjects under controlled conditions. ( Tyrell, 1965; D’Alessio, Dick & Dick, 1972).”

    Here’s an excerpt from another CDC article:

    ” A prodigious volume of work at the Common Cold Research Unit in Salisbury, England, following World War II established that colds could be produced by inoculating secretions into the nose or eye of volunteers (33). These rather crude experiments were replicated with nasal inoculation of small concentrations of rhinovirus once the specific viral agents that cause the common cold were elucidated (34). Presumably, therefore, persons might acquire rhinovirus by touching their nasal or ocular mucosa with contaminated fingers. A study by Hendley et al. at the University of Virginia demonstrated that health-care workers are not immune to practices that might promote self-inoculation (35). One third of grand-rounds attendees picked their nose, and one in 2.7 rubbed their eyes during a 1-hour lecture. Subsequent work demonstrated that it was difficult to transmit rhinovirus by kissing (36), and that exposure to cold did not increase the likelihood of “catching a cold” (37).

    These studies could not answer the central question of whether rhinovirus is transmitted primarily by direct contact, indirect contact, droplet contact, or droplet nuclei. Unfortunately, considerable additional investigation has not resolved the issue completely (38). Essentially, two experimental approaches, both highly contrived, have come to different conclusions. Work by Hendley and Gwaltney at the University of Virginia generally has supported transmission by hand contact and self-inoculation, while experiments by Dick at the University of Wisconsin have favored spread by large droplets, droplet nuclei, or both.”

    So back in the post WWII days, they found out that “inoculating secretions into the nose or eye” of volunteers could induce a reaction (indeed any irritant can do this, you can “induce a cold then, by rubbing ones eyes or nose with a jalapeno pepper extract). Thus, they can PRESUME that the colds are infectious. That’s a giant leap of faith if you ask me (wait. did I just say “faith”…in a science discussion?)

    Next
    FROM:
    Respiratory and Clinical Care
    “How do we catch colds”

    By the way, just to point out, what a “scientific” question. The question should be asked “How do we acquire colds?” Nevertheless, I wouldn’t expect that level of dispassionate inquiry, how foolish of me. I mean, everyone already “KNOWS” that colds are infectious, so therefore we assume they are, and only reserve inquiry into the possibilities that do not require us to overturn any dogma. Come on, it’s only natural.

    In this article, anyways, it says:
    “Understanding of the mode of transmission is critical for reducing transmission of infections within building environments, where large numbers of people may be in close proximity, contaminating surfaces with pathogens and generating infectious aerosols. Dramatic epidemics with emerging infections, like SARS, and the threat of using infectious organisms as a source of bioterrorism, like the spread of anthrax spores in the 2001 episode, add to the rationale for studies on transmission of infectious diseases within modern, often complex buildings. Strategies for controlling infections would differ, depending on the route of transmission: hand washing and cleaning of surfaces for contact and surface transmission and increasing ventilation and air cleaning for airborne transmission.”

    Interesting. If the author knew anything of the “spread” of anthrax in 2001, they would have quickly discovered that there was no spread, actually…you see, because:

    “Anthrax can enter the human body through the intestines (ingestion), lungs (inhalation), or skin (cutaneous) and causes distinct clinical symptoms based on its site of entry. An infected human will generally be quarantined. However, anthrax does not usually spread from an infected human to a noninfected human.”

    Woops!

    No matter…just more assuming, and more assuming. I love the state of the virological sciences today. Amazing.

    I got more, don’t go anywhere just yet Mr “Human-to-human transmission of influenza is very well studied and understood.” Stick around for a sec.

    FROM
    Medical Research Council’s Common Cold Unit, Salisbury, Wilts, UK

    “The commonest adverse health effect from the indoor environment is a respiratory tract infection, most often a common cold. Any one of a number of viruses can cause colds. The full process by which infections are contracted is poorly understood. However, there must be direct contact between the infecting agent and the nasal or lower airway cells.”
    So it’s poorly understood. In other words, it’s COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD, because if they understood what a cold is, they would be able to prevent them. I know what a cold is, and a flu, and I have prevented them in myself for the last 2+ years. And I used to get them ALL THE TIME.
    How odd though that right after there is admission that they are “poorly understood” … it says … “there must be direct contact, [etc etc].” Who says? And how do they know, since it’s so poorly understood? Woops.

    I can go on, and on, and on…
    Where is my “Flat lie”?

    And if I am not lying then perhaps this doesn’t “Tell you all you need to know about [this guy]”

    I do not deny all viruses. I deny HIV, Hep C, and a few other viruses that are only assumed to exist from indirect proofs. Other viruses such as poliovirus, rhinovirus, etc, DO EXIST. What I deny is that any of these viruses are disease causing.

    How odd too, that the very viruses that we all believe are causing disease, are being conclusively linked to REVERSING it!

    Ironically, new studies show that deadly viruses can actually be used to cure people. With these new discoveries, we can hope for a better future where we can find a way to cure certain fatal diseases. Below are examples of new discoveries on how viruses can help people.”
    http://www.odec.ca/projects/2004/lija4j0/public_html/cure.htm

    Yeah…it’s not ironic at all, if you understand biology.

    What some of us don’t understand today is that science is a FLUID process. And we will always live under conditions where the majority of people are convinced of something because it is what the “science” says at that particular time. And so we get caught up in the moment. We forget to consider any other possibilities.

    And we start to attack those who say “wait, I see a different approach here.”
    We like to think the scientific process of inquiry is totally honest, infallible and never gives in to the monetary system. Unfortunately there is much pollution that has manifested itself between science and big business. It is hard to conduct honest, original experiments these days. You don’t believe me? Talk to a scientist asking for a grant for his/her own non-industry sponsored work. Yeah, I thought so.

    Please be more respectful of people with different opinions and not name call. I am not lying about anything. I have a different perspective, which happens to actually have a much better predictive value than our current scientific dogma does in terms of some aspects of what we think we know about biology, in particular, virology…which is one of the most misunderstood fields there is.
    Evolution we know a great deal about.
    Red blood cell oxygen delivery, we know a lot about.
    HIV, the flu, and others…we know EMBARRASSINGLY little of.

    I respect your steadfast decision to deny my opinion as valid, but don’t forget, things aren’t valid or invalid just because you want them to be. Perhaps you and others are wrong.

    Peace.

  83. #83 LanceR, JSG
    June 9, 2009

    Let’s see… what’s the word I’m looking for… oh, yeah.

    LIAR!

    .54 seconds with teh Google, and clicking on a random link on the first page…

    http://www.virology.ws/2009/04/29/influenza-virus-transmission/

    The importance of aerosol transmission is illustrated by an outbreak of influenza aboard a commercial airplane in the late 1970s. The plane, carrying 54 persons, was delayed on the ground for three hours, during which time the ventilation system was not functional. Most of the travelers remained on board. Within 72 hours, nearly 75% of the passengers developed influenza. The source of the infection was a single person on the airplane with influenza.

    Cherry-picking a study, and misquoting to twist it’s meaning *is* lying. You don’t have to like it, but virus transmission is *very* well understood. Anyone who, in this day and age, denies that HIV, influenza, and the rhinovirii are infectious? Liar *and* an idiot.

    Oh, and “spread of anthrax spores” != “spread from infected human to non-infected human”. One more lie. Do I need to continue?

  84. #84 Matt Platte
    June 9, 2009

    Scanning for Godwin artefacts (and I wasn’t disappointed) I saw this

    If someone believes that only 5,999,999 Jewish people were murdered by the Nazis, are they “denialists” or “anti-semites?”

    Not sure what answer the troll had in mind but in USA/Canada that believer would indeed be a denialist and anti-semitic. /Just sayin’

  85. #85 LanceR, JSG
    June 9, 2009

    And do tell, Mr CommonSense, what *is* a cold, since all of medical science is, according to you, wrong.

    Also: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=hepatitis+c+virus&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=4&oq=hepatitis

    Hepatitis C

    Dumbass.

  86. #86 JohnV
    June 9, 2009

    I’m sure I’m missing it, but what’s the point in bringing up the fact that Bacillus anthracis infections don’t especially transmit from person to person?

  87. #87 LanceR, JSG
    June 9, 2009

    @JohnV: Denialist-boy thinks that linking a spore-forming bacteria to viruses makes sense. The irrelevancy is beyond his poor, feeble mind.

    We’re waiting, CommonNonSense. What *is* a cold? And how did you “cure” it?

  88. #88 Confused
    June 9, 2009

    I stopped reading when you insinuated that you can see fluorescence with EM. Evidently, that wasn’t far in.

    You claim that the label of denialist has not place in science. If you want to be taken seriously in a debate on science, demonstrate that you understand the concepts you’re describing. You evidently don’t, therefore I can only assume you’re here for political reasons, so I have no qualms labelling you a denialist.

  89. #89 Fitz
    June 9, 2009

    I want a T-shirt with a stereotypical mad scientist, arms raised in triumph, with the words “I conquered the common cold”.

  90. #90 LanceR, JSG
    June 9, 2009

    “I conquered the common” **ACHOO… snif…** “cold!”

  91. #91 W. Kevin Vicklund
    June 9, 2009

    All known epidemics are of bacterial origin, and those are not due to bacteria per-se, but rather the lack of sanitation and clean water, and all the things that were plaguing city dwellers as our societies began to cluster closer together and our mode of dealing with our waste-removal and nutrition attainment suffered.

    Not only are half of all major epidemics of viral origin, the two oldest pandemics are of viral origin:

    165 – 180: Antonine Plague
    251 – 266: Plague of Cyprian

    Coupled with a number of other false claims noted previously, how much of your other claims are false? Why should I believe anything you say?

  92. #92 Kathryn
    June 10, 2009

    What is the mechanism by which “lack of sanitation and clean water” are purported to cause epidemics if bacteria and viruses are ruled out?

    I happen to find Germ Theory to have high predictive value, so it would take a LOT of contrary evidence to throw it out.

  93. #93 CommonSense
    June 10, 2009

    You’re right about the EM, I misspoke. Indeed what we see with the EM is not the stained fluorescent tracer. This is seen with light microscopes though, and, as the recent video does show very well, we see the marked material inside on cell, pass to another.

    Sorry for the confusion. But again, we know that cells exchange genetic material with one another under certain circumstances. Indeed times where oxidative stress is high are very likely candidates. This represents an adaptive mechanism which is obviously poorly understood at this time (as we are too busy trying to connect viruses as causes of disease, rather than taking the objective approach of considering them as adaptive responses, which even if you just think about it…makes more sense).

    Just seeing some specific sequence of genetic material “infecting” another cell is not proof of causation of disease. Indeed all the “proof” that exists that HIV is etiologically related to AIDS are fragmented non-related cases that purport to fulfill the various necessary steps in Koch’s postulates.
    But we never see a continuous process fulfill each step. For instance because we can’t directly inject human beings because it’s unethical (indeed if HIV was real and if it DID cause AIDS, it would be VERY unethical, so considering that most docs do believe this is the case, then it is very ethical that they not carry this step out on purpose)…but since we can’t do that, we can only go based on accidental needle sticks and so on.
    So we have cases where some nurses get accidental sticks, and sure enough, they happen to test positive (as ANYONE can), and sure enough, they are put on the meds immediately (as ANYONE would be) and sure enough they start getting sick from … well, that is unclear, as the symptoms from the drugs’ adverse reactions are admittedly “indistinguishable in many cases from clinical AIDS” and thus we have there part of our Koch’s postulate of being able to “inject an asymptomatic individual with the pathological agent and induce illness”…but again, what is inducing the illness? And how do you know they are HIV positive, when you don’t have a gold standard for verifying that HIV is real, exists, and is the same thing that they have floating around in their body?

    Again, these so called “proofs” of fulfilling koch’s postulates are nothing more than the fantasies of wishfully thinking virologists with frustration and probably a good deal of cognitive dissonance and perhaps even a side of boredom thrown in.

    As far as the cold being transmitted from that airplane, it’s hilarious isn’t it…lets see…people on a plane…you have NO ventilation, and then you have what appears to be ACUTE reactions to most of the people on it which happen immediately and it is blamed on one person who may have had a cold prior to boarding…or perhaps that person they narrowed it down to was simply the first to start coughing or complain of a sore throat.

    Amazing how we will not ask questions when we feel satisfied. Did all those people on the plane get tested to see if they all had the same exact strain? If it was from one person, the only way to really conclude this for sure is to check that one person for the “disease causing” virus, and make sure everyone else has that same strain. Did they do this? Or did they just ASS U ME?

    You put me on a stuffy plane and have the ventilation fail and guess what, I might develop flu-like symptoms. Stagnant, uncirculating air as well as buildip of heat inside the plane is not a suitable environment for health. And the fact that the people on the plane developed IMMEDIATE acute reactions tells you something. What does it tell you? It tells you “HEY! Stupid!…it’s not a virus, because even by the “generally accepted” definition of how viruses that cause colds/flus function, they do not manifest acute symptoms right away. In fact most of the time it is said to be a day or longer for any symptom to arise. This of course in my book is BS as well, but, I’m just mentioning it because if you’re under the paradigm of virus -> infection -> disease … you still have to explain how you would count that case as proof of transmission.

    Anyways, what I was responding to was the boneheaded comment that ‘we know perfectly well’ how the flu and cold is transmitted and so on, and it has been demonstrated before many times. In fact, as I quoted, many textbooks, journal articles, expert virologists and biologists agree time and time again that it is NOT cut and dry and in fact quite the opposite of what our friend in his post claimed, we do NOT have any scientific study where under NORMAL conditions infected people are able to transmit their illness and the virus to other non-ill people.
    I made my argument and I certainly think it should be considered and looked into.

    AS far as the “pictures” of Hep C, wow…yes, I can draw on MS Paint too.

    LOL. I’m not even going to respond to that google images link. Thanks for it though. Because, you know, I never ever actually looked for legitimate pictures of Hep C, you see, I just decided that for fun I was going to deny its existence. … … … … moron.

    Now, what is a cold, how do we get them and what is the cure?

    Pretty simple. Not all colds come about due to any one specific cause. Too much stress can cause a cold, lack of vitamin D is the most common culprit by far, which is why in the wintertime as Vit D levels drop colds are “seasonal” as many people fail to get adequate vit D levels during those times. In fact most people above even the 30degree latitude line are deficient in many cases. Any sort of obstruction of cellular metabolism will lead to a cold, which is a vicarious elimination of built up waste (hence large amounts of macrophage and white blood cell loss via mucus expelling) to reach stasis again. If the body is devoid of b vitamins, fat soluble vitamins, or any nutrient, and certainly Vitamin C or the most important, Glutathione, it will take much longer to recover.

    Dairy in the diet is a very common culprit as it not only causes colds often, it is also associated with asthma, intestinal permeability, and acne. Same with grains (which humans never were supposed to eat, and only did so starting about 10,000 years ago as an adaptation to not having other sources of caloric intake. For survival, grains played a big role for our species during those less technologically advanced stages of our species.
    However, grains were only used as we ventured away from our natural setting where we evolved, along with our primate relatives on a predominantly frugivorous diet supplemented with vegetables and some nuts and seeds. This diet of mostly fruit is being corroborated by research that examines microwear on fossilized teeth from humans and their immediate ancestors from a few hundred thousand years back.
    Some of the incredible findings are that for instance “nutcracker man” was not at all eating or cracking that many nuts but rather eating soft ripe fruits. The physical ability to crack nuts was there, and this led most to surmise that this is what those structures were used for, but close analysis of the microwear of the teeth indicated unequivocally that the eating of nuts or in fact any rough or hard foods was not the case and it was soft fruit that comprised our diets and our ancestors’ diets.

    Anyway, the important thing to realize then is that in order to not have a cold or flu, one must not produce any metabolic waste in the body that builds up faster than it can be broken down. The best way to do this by far is to:

    -Eat the best possible foods for your species
    -get your rest patterns and chronobiology such that you go to sleep every night around the same time, and get about 6-7 hours of sleep and wake up without the alarm clock (in other words wake up when your body is ready to, and thus is finished doing all the complex cleaning and detoxing processes it partakes in while sleeping)
    -ensure you do not have any deficiency in any nutrient or vitamin (sunshine becomes a big must here, for there is no other really good way of getting enough vitamin d, even if you eat lots of animal foods, as these require cooking typically and they generally are vitamin d poor due to this)
    -keep positive attitude. mind-body connection is there. I do not for one second suggest this is a “spiritual” connection, as I do not believe in such tomfoolery. However, anyone that has studies psychoneuroimmunology should know very well what I speak of.
    -exercise about 2-3 times a week to stimulate lymphatic flow and thus keep everything in the body moving in and out as it should and not promoting obstruction.

    -lastly, understanding that diet is a huge factor, if not the most significant one, in getting a cold. By consuming foods rich in sulfur rich amino acids, dehydrated and concentrated foods that are acid forming and “empty calorie” food sources, such are refined white flour and so on, we force our body to work overtime for no good reason (excess secretion of HCl in stomach, Bicarbonate in the duodenum by the pancreas, so on and so forth) this all causes a drain in nutrients and vitamins in the body, which should be provided BY the food, not demanded from the body to be able to process the food.

    Most people do not understand this. I have to admit. As little as 5 years ago, I didn’t even fully understand this. I was still stuck scratching my head thinking I was getting colds 3-4 times a year because of “vectors of infection” that I was leaving myself vulnerable to. For instance I figured at one point it was me not cleaning my gym bag often enough. When I started cleaning that up it was washing my hands…I must have not been washing my hands enough, I thought. So I got all into washing the hands too…nothing changed. Then I realized I sometimes had a habit of putting pens in my mouth or around it when I had on in my hand…so I forced myself to cut that habit thinking THAT must be it. Nope. Not a thing changed.

    Then one day I realized how simple and how stupid I was and I did lots of consideration and came to the conclusion that it was a macro problem, not a micro problem. In fact the flu was also an endogenous problem, not an exogenous phenomenon.

    I went on raw foods. I eat something like this on a typical day:
    10 or so bananas
    2-3 medium melons, or 1/2 a large watermelon
    a few apples
    bunch of grapes
    some dates
    few nuts
    1 head of lettuce
    some tomatoes
    1/2 stalk of celery
    1/2 cucumber
    2 red bell peppers

    something like that. I eat that way and have been for about 2 years and change now.
    I completely reversed…sorry ERASED all acne on my body. I have not had a single cold in this period of 2 years and change. I have even had girls who worked with me or were in school with me sneeze on me, one even spit directly in my mouth when she was sick with a flu (don’t worry, she as cute and I was doing it to prove a point to her that she couldn’t get me ill)…NOTHING HAPPENED.

    I used to get sick with a flu or cold at least 3 times a year easily up until a couple years ago.

    The only trick is to not mess the body up. And by the way Linus Pauling may not be such a crazy person. First of all the man lived to a ripe old age, give him some credit.
    Second of all, when I do my micro, macro and phyto nutrient numbers, I am always at perfect levels (yes even b12) on this diet…but I always found one thing very odd and that is that my Vitamin C numbers are always through the roof. When I checked Linus Paulings figures for his recommendation, the levels that a fruit based raw diet like this produces are around those recommendations.

    I think we as a scientific community and society misunderstand the different between “adequte” levels of vitamin C (which is simply defined as ‘enough vitmain c so that you don’t manifest scurvy’) and “optimal” levels of vitamin C, which I would define as “the proper amounts of this vitamin to be as healthy as possible, not get colds, not have “predispositions” to “infections” and so on.

    Ohh and, yea, I’ll be injecting myself with someone’s blood who is HIV+ or has AIDS and documenting it, putting up the video online and showing me taking 3 follow up HIV tests after 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after infection. When I do so, I will be posting this video or videos (if I do more than one video on this subject) via the youtube user account “hivpositivelyfalse”

    I’m sure I will be met with scorn and ridicule, people will be making jokes about me being a candidate for the Darwin Awards and so on…but…when nothing happens to me and I don’t even test HIV+ on any of my tests, perhaps there will be enough cognitive dissonance in enough people that this subject gains a bit more serious appraisal.

    It will be a good thing for science when the fraudulent HIV=AIDS nonsense hypothesis is finally accepted as a “mistake” in the annals of science. It will, no doubt, be a very gradual process, but it will be a very good thing, as we won’t have to keep living in a lie as rational thinkers.

    And back to the topic of this article on this page…shame on whoever connects Ben Stein and his idiocy to HIV dissent.
    Ben Stein is a clown that thinks the Earth is under 10,000 years old. And he calls evolution “Darwinism.” No Stein. It’s called SCIENCE. But by no means does HIV dissent have ANYTHING to do with creationist idiocy.

    The only thing that is similar is that they both seem to be going against the generally accepted scientific “consensus”. However that alone doesn’t say much at all.
    If it’s science it isn’t consensus. If it’s consensus it isn’t science. Period.

    peace.

  94. #94 LanceR, JSG
    June 10, 2009

    I’ll be injecting myself with someone’s blood who is HIV+

    You really are a moron. And a liar.

    Detailed spanking after coffee.

  95. #95 Faithless
    June 10, 2009

    Wait – did he say viruses don’t cause disease?

    It just saps your energy, y’know? No matter how long you surf the internet (13 years now, for me) you still keep stumbling across new types of stupidity. Not just a new species or a new genus, but a whole new phylum. Whoever came up with the original myth of the Hydra – cut off one of its heads, and two more grow in its place – must have been a time traveller from the 21st century who had first hand experience of internet nitwittery.

  96. #96 Prometheus
    June 10, 2009

    #94

    “You really are a moron. And a liar.

    Detailed spanking after coffee.”

    Oh do hurry LanceR, JSG, before UncommonNonsense finishes his morning glass of cute co-worker spit and raw fruit breakfast.

  97. #97 LanceR, JSG
    June 10, 2009

    Wow… the stupid is so deep with this one. Where to start…

    Rhinovirus: When person A, infected with the rhinovirus, gets in an enclosed area with other people, who then start exhibiting symptoms of rhinovirus infection, and we can culture the rhinovirus from their mucous membranes… and those who do not exhibit symptoms do not have the virus… what part of this chain do you not recognize?

    Stress causes colds? Simple test: Place a volunteer in a hermetically sealed environment with no outside contact. It’s not that hard, we do it all the time. Track that patient through stressful activities, poor diet and bad exercise habits. (Just living in a bubble should do it) See if that person develops a cold. Actually, we have already done that. Look up David Vetter for an example of someone who had never been exposed to any viral infections. Oddly enough, he never developed a cold or flu, even though his life was very stressful.

    Viruses have been seen in the lab. I have seen time-lapse video of virii invading, coopting, and destroying cells in their rush to create more virii. We can culture virii from infected organisms, and use those to infect other, healthy organisms, who then become ill.

    You are doing nothing more than childish “Nuh-uh” before you quickly move the goalposts. Before you inject yourself with anything, you may want to ask Juliet Young what happens when you accidentally stick yourself with an HIV tainted needle. Oh, wait! You can’t, because she DIED.

    So, let’s see: We’ve got cherry-picking, false experts, impossible expectations, and *MANY* logical fallacies.

    You’re so wrong, that the light from right is going to take a thousand years to reach you.

    I need a shower to wash off the burning stupid. At the risk of sounding like my father; “You just wait until ERV gets here!”

  98. #98 LanceR, JSG
    June 10, 2009

    Oh, and before I forget:

    Raw Foodism? SRSLY? You do realize that controlling fire, and the resultant ability to COOK FOOD played a large role in the evolution of the oversized human brain, right?

    Are you aware that there are only two animals in the world able to digest both protein and cellulose? You can salvage a little bit of respect if you can name both of them! Come on, CommonNonsense… you can do it!

  99. #99 CommonSense
    June 10, 2009

    That’s funny, because I feel the exact same way about the folks who believe everything they hear from the church of modern medicine.

    Paleontology, physics, chemistry…those are REAL sciences.

    Modern medicine is not. Don’t get me wrong neither is “alternative medicine” with their crystal healing, sacred herbs and light therapy and all that nonsense. People are often mislead into thinking that the only option is either modern medicine, or CAM.

    Such is human perversity.

    I will say there are a few cases where modern technological approaches are producing some really great results. For instance surgical techniques, or organ replacement, or diagnostics in general. Modern medicine is amazingly good at doing things like measuring your nutrient status, blood pressure, bone density and so on. But how pathetic is modern medicine at getting people healthy?

    If modern medicine worked, you would see an increase or leveling off of life expectancy. You don’t see that. We are seeing for the first time in modern (post 19th century)

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/life-expectancy-will-decline-without-action-experts/2008/02/24/1203788147700.html

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/21/DI2008042102526.html

    It’s a sad state of affairs. Meanwhile more pills, more vaccines, more reasons to “ask your doctor about…(the new cure for a disease you didn’t even know you had)” and so on.

    Yes indeed, I’M the one who must be insane. What if I’m not. What if greed has really truly blinded science that much? What kind of world would you expect to see if indeed greed really did blind science at one point?
    Do you think there would be an industry predicated on making money by prescribing pills that are supposed to make you happy, change your depression, make you not shy anymore, and so on? The whole industry of psychiatry was born out of a need to make money. Psychology was doing just fine. People had problems, they talked to a shrink. Sure some of the shrinks may not have been very good, but it was OK. People often times who have ‘psychiatric’ problems just need to get something off their chest, just need to be comforted, a good friend to talk to, or even sometimes a nutritional assessment and some sunshine.
    That doesn’t cost any money. If you look at how the DSM has gotten bigger, and bigger, and thicker, and thicker…something strikes you as odd: How on earth are new mental diseases just “popping out” from nowhere? Where did these diseases come from? Do you know there have been independent parties who have analyzed the DSM and every single time they find that by the DSM’s standards, there is not one person alive today that can truly be called “sane”? Every single person you can name that is alive today will have one “disease” or another.

    Now that’s marketing. Making it a pathology to just be a human being. No science. Absolutely no science.

    When we find that we CONTINUE to be told that our cholesterol levels are indicators of heart disease, and that taking statin drugs helps “reduce the risk”….yeah…that’s bullshit too. Don’t worry folks, it ain’t just AIDS that’s a scam. AIDS is one of the most insidious scams, and avarice permeates the entire establishment, but it’s far from an isolated case.

    People assume that there’s “science” behind it.
    There is no such thing. There’s very little science behind most pills and drugs.
    It’s like saying that using dynamite to dig a hole in the ground to plant a tree is “scientific”…yeah…it “works”, in other words if you look at planting a tree as only needing a hole to be dug in the ground, then sure a stick of dynamite is a possible solution…but what about damaging surrounding plant life? What about the residue it leaves behind in the soil that poisons the tree you want to plant, what about the fact that you can’t dig a very neat and clean hole with it? Whatever happened to a shovel? That’s how we approach things like cancer for instance, or yes…AIDS. We hide behind the WEAKEST of scientific excuses to carry our atrocities and because everyone is getting paid very nicely, everyone collectively shuts their critical thinking off and blindly obeys.

    Good for you! I can’t do that. I see bullshit, I have to open my mouth and say “hey, watch out friend, your about to step in some bullshit!”

    People think modern medicine is scientific. Tisk tisk. Modern medicine is often VERY unscientific.
    Go ask a kidney stone expert what CAUSES kidney stones. “Well, we just don’t know.”
    Patients are often given pills in a sort of “shoot in the dark” fashion, and each time they don’t work the doctor doesn’t even really know why they didn’t work but he/she will just prescribe the next potential drug on the list of options as if their profession is a kind of blindfolded dart contest.

    Ah, but that’s not “unscientific” right? Of course it isn’t. That’s REAL science.

    Sure. Keep telling yourselves that. LOL.

    Just don’t come knockin on my door trying to convince me I need my booster shot because otherwise I am putting others at risk due to weakening the “herd immunity.” Yeah, no thank you.

    It’s really funny….we act like AIDS is caused by a virus…how odd. A super destructive virus that also has the ability to recombine, hyper-evolve, hide in the cells, reactivate and then proceed in causing the most devastating and life-destroying symptoms in history just so happened to come into being and start manifesting disease RIGHT at the same time that recreational drug use was at an all time high (for the first time ever) and homosexuals, for the first time ever were starting to be accepted (and demanding to be) in society so some pockets of homosexuals began doing really unfortunate things like partying a little too hard, taking drugs, taking WAY too many antibiotics, doing poppers etc…and these are the same groups that had the first of the AIDS cases. My goodness, if hard street drugs and overuse of antibiotics weren’t the causes of AIDS, it seems they missed the opportunity of a lifetime!

    But alas, our wonderful (totally honest) scientists found out the REAL cause, which was a virus. And these were nothing more than the most honest and genuine humanitarians. You know…like Robert Gallo. You know…the guy who engaged in fraud so blatant there was an entire book written about him. The man who was not even given credit for the Nobel Prize, not even given MENTION! Yeah. Truly the creme de la creme.

    Such honestly. Even David Ho, who has had papers retracted from Journals, after they find out his research was bogus. Yea…stand up guys. Truly.

    And you all are castigating ME?

    HA! Go shove another issue of Pharmaceutical Ads, ahem, excuse me..I mean “JAMA”, up your ass.

    You wouldn’t know truth and honesty if it slapped you upside the head.

    Yes, I WILL be injecting myself with someone’s HIV+ serum, and when NOTHING HAPPENS, I would love to hear the excuses at that time. It’s amazing how dumb and narrow minded some of you folks are. It is literally AMAZING.

    But yeah, keep talking shit. As long as you can convince yourselves youre right, what does it matter what reality is.

    Have a most enjoyable day.
    adieu

  100. #100 LanceR, JSG
    June 10, 2009

    Blah, blah, blah, GREED.
    Blah, blah, blah, LIES.
    Blah, blah, blah, argument from incredulity.
    Blah, blah, blah, slightly modified Galileo Gambit.
    Blah, blah, blah, totally ignore anything anyone has said that might possibly counter my ignorance.
    Blah, blah, **fingers in ears** LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALA.

    Any substantive response? Or just more lies?

    You don’t have the BALLS to actually inject HIV. Nobody does. You are a liar, a crank, and an idiot.

    Discussion?

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!