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  • Outdated, discredited, or simply flat-out scientifically wrong hypotheses presented as real scientific controversies!
  • Pro-outdated-discredited-wrong ‘scientists’ persecuted, ostracized by TEH MAN!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 CommonSense
    June 10, 2009

    I hear your comments folks.
    And I sympathize with you. I understand why you feel as you do and say as you say. But you’re wrong. And I’m not a liar.

    David Vetter? Ohh, the kid that was born with a weakened immune system because of thymus atrophe? Who had to be “kept in a sterile environment” to stay alive? Yeah that worked out pretty well for him eh? Where’s he today?

    Juliet Young? So a nurse gets a jab, finds out she has the “african strain” lol of HIV, and dies after 7 years. Yeah. I’m sure she was on antiviral meds, being a nurse and all. So what does that tell you? How do we know she died of HIV and not the HIV drugs?

    Show me someone who gets a needle prick, is otherwise in great health, and refuses to take any drugs after being diagnosed and then dies shortly after. That would be interesting.

    But to cite a case of a nurse taking the drugs which we now know are the leading cause of death in hiv+ persons….hmm….I don’t see how you can be so adamant that she died of HIV. Where is the proof? Where is the evidence?

    POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC

    …and you people are telling me I speak in fallacies.

    I’m sorry that it “saps your energy” by the way. But there’s a flipside to that you know…some of you people sap my energy too.
    For instance when I find out some mother had her son taken away because she wanted to breastfeed and not give her child AZT or nevirapine.
    Or when I see commercials for diet soft drinks on tv, or when I see fast food restaurants INSIDE hospitals. Believe me, words cannot describe how “sapped” my energy is when I see these things.

    So if I’m sapping YOUR energy, sorry to say but….GOOD! You need a kick in your ass, and you need to know that many people are fed up with modern medicine. IT DOESN’T WORK.

    It’s ok. Nobody needs to be punished. Just don’t hate on people who call a spade a spade.

    I thank you.
    enjoy your day.

  2. #2 olegt
    June 10, 2009

    CommonSense,

    your assertion about life expectancy is totally wrong. The PLoS Medicine paper cited in Washington Post mentions that life expectancy in the US kept increasing: “Between 1961 and 1999, average life expectancy in the United States increased from 66.9 to 74.1 y for men and from 73.5 to 79.6 y for women.”

    The point of the article was that life expectancy for women declined in some counties, primarily “in the Deep South, along the Mississippi River, and in Appalachia, extending into the southern portion of the Midwest and into Texas.” Those counties are home to only 12% of the US population. Whatever the reasons for that decline, it does not reflect the overall trend of increasing life expectancy in the US as a whole, so your argument is complete bunk.

  3. #3 LanceR, JSG
    June 10, 2009

    BZZT! Wrong again, dumbass!

    Antiretrovirals have *decreased* deaths from AIDS. HIV kills. Look around. There are thousands of people who have refused the ARVs and subsequently died. Just because you have your head so far up your ass that all you can see is your kidneys, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    Proof? Evidence? You obviously don’t even know what those words mean. When you figure out what “Evidence” means, perhaps you will be able to understand evidence.

    David Vetter died of the first virus he ever came in contact with. How’s that grab ya, moron? We know viruses very well, thank you. We understand how viruses are transmitted, how they infiltrate the body, how they hijack cells to reproduce, and how the resulting illnesses progress.

    BTW: You still haven’t answered my question about protein & cellulose. There are only two animals who can digest both… rattus rattus and humans. Think there might be a reason for that?

    And why, if viruses are harmless, do our bodies have highly evolved defenses against them? What would be the point of that?

    (Cue dishonesty and moving goalposts in 3… 2… 1…)

  4. #4 ERV
    June 10, 2009

    Hey, wait. I might have to reconsider the womping– This dude seems like hes got some really great diet advice, and I think we all could benefit from his wisdom.

    CrazyDude– Im 5’9″, 135 lbs, and I really need to lose some extra flab, but I dont know how. Will following your guidelines to life help me?

    Oh wait! I dont have any extra flab! Im ripped!

    I did a back-of-the-envelope analysis of CrazyDudes diet. ~450 grams of sugar. 450 grams. No protein. No fat. Dude might as well drink 15 liters of pepsi a day and take a multivitamin and some benefiber! ROFL!!!

  5. #5 LanceR, JSG
    June 10, 2009

    Actually, looking back at that diet, I now understand why he’s got such sh*tty ideas! He hasn’t been out of the bathroom since he started this diet.

    One more lie to add to his tally…

  6. #6 Prometheus
    June 10, 2009

    CommonSense @#99

    “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.”

    Oh for the love of Pete. You have got to be some kind of Super Troll with this “Kidney Stone expert” jive.

    ERV are you doing a sock puppet ballet to up your site stats?

    Your urologist sounds hysterical.

    No.

    It really doesn’t work that way. We know exactly what the genetic cause of Cystinura (eek)is and though we don’t know exactly what environmental or genetic factors might cause the PROPENSITY for other formations (yet) we pretty much understand the chemical imbalances that causes the crystal precipitations that form renal calculi.

    You are just lazy and ill informed and either projecting that on an imaginary urologist or his office is in the third stall at Port Authority.

    Who is is your imaginary proctologist? I hope it isn’t Santa (big fingers and he jiggles during the exploratory).

  7. #7 ERV
    June 10, 2009

    I get emails when you all comment, so first thing I did was Google my Gmail for this guys IP# to see if he was an old troll reborn– Nope.

    This concentrated arrogant idiocy is 100% legit.

  8. #8 JohnV
    June 10, 2009

    “taking WAY too many antibiotics”

    What is your suggested mechanism for how antibiotics cause AIDS?

  9. #9 CommonSense
    June 10, 2009

    I did a back-of-the-envelope analysis of CrazyDudes diet. ~450 grams of sugar. 450 grams. No protein. No fat. Dude might as well drink 15 liters of pepsi a day and take a multivitamin and some benefiber! ROFL!!!

    Shows how much you know about nutrition. Our primate cousins, for instance the Bonobo, who is 99+% genetically similar to us, eats:
    Raw fruits, some veggies, some nuts and some seeds.

    To insinuate that there is “NO” protein in my diet is absolutely ridiculous. Every whole food you can name has protein. “Back-of-the-envelope” indeed. If you knew anything about the effects of soluble fiber, and presence of vitamins , minerals and phytochemicals and sugar absorption you would realize that fruits have some of the lowest glycemic index/loads you can name. In fact all whole foods for the most part do when you don’t process them to oblivion.

    Our bodies require mostly sugar to use for ENERGY…you know…the whole “cellular respiration” bit when glucose is catabolized step by step and then the derivatives are passed down the electron transport chain for maximum ATP production…yeah…that’s done with glucose.

    If you eat nothing but meat all day, the majority of that meat ALL gets CONVERTED…to what? Yup…SUGAR. As far as fat goes, I get about 10% of my calories from fat, and it is high quality, plant fats, and my omega3/omega 6 ratio is an “impossible” 1:1 ratio which is like the holy grail of lipid nutrition. I have beautiful skin with no blemishes and I can imagine my inner organs are likewise possessing very healthy membranes. My protein I get is about 10% of my total calories. I get more than enough protein, I too am RIPPED, but I’m not constipated either. I go to the bathroom once to two times a day, it takes me less time to take a shit than it does to urinate. Also I don’t have any body odor. Ohh yeah, I never wash my hands with soap either…and “oddly enough” I haven’t gotten sick once in the last 2+ years.

    And why, if viruses are harmless, do our bodies have highly evolved defenses against them? What would be the point of that?
    what you see as “highly evolved defenses” I see as “regulation of production.” For instance hormone regulation…one could easily say “our bodies have highly evolved defenses against hormones”…for instance when we don’t need them anymore, we get rid of them, and we cease production of them. If you realize that viruses are chemical messengers, not disease causing entities, then things like interferon and all these other “highly evolved” mechanisms for “defending” ourselves can really be seen as regulation of viral quantity. As with many systems in the body there seems to be a positive feedback mechanism as well as negative feedback mechanism with viruses, their production and their down-regulation.
    It’s really just a matter of perspective. Here’s an example. Say you have a stressor, say alcohol…too much of it…it’s starting to cause problems in the liver. The liver cells are overwhelmed by so much of it, and as a result, certain genes are turned on in the cell which also trigger the production of these viral messengers to be produced to be shot out to “spread the word” to other cells in the nearby area and this process quickly goes “viral” as it were, and within the viral genome is not just information for the virus to replicate, but also cell-altering properties that will become implemented and also regulation of further viral production depending on the circumstances of the cell’s environment which received the virus.
    Part of the cell-altering properties that the virus may have built into it is perhaps information that triggers more production of a certain protein that breaks down elements of the alcohol, or perhaps the message is to produce more mitochondria or whatever it may be to better adapt to the stressor. When there is an adequate adaptation to the stressor, perhaps there is a function in the virus that says “if there is already ample production of X protein, then you can downregulate this message and ‘shred it’ (so to say).”

    This is much more viable a model than “well, viruses just cause disease and that’s it, we need to kill em.”

    The fact of the matter is we know very little about viruses. We have classified them, for sure. We know that there are the various kinds (that David Baltimore delineated for us in the 70′s) but we really truly know very little about them. And the reason is because we are expecting them to be these evil entities and we keep trying to pretend they are the reasons for disease, when it is so very difficult to reconciliate this with reality.

    You say we have defenses against viruses, I say we have regulation of endogenous messages which are enclosed in protein capsids. It’s very odd, isn’t it, that our cells would continue to keep their receptors for these viruses on their surface, if indeed there wasn’t some “highly evolved” reason to keep them there. Before I talk about “highly evolved defenses” I would wonder and think about why it is our cells continue to make receptors for these viruses? Some viruses, it’s true have the same binding mechanisms as other compounds that are beneficial, and in these cases it is said that there is proof that viruses are “tricking” the cells into accepting them. But there are other cases where some viruses latch onto receptors that the cells have that are ONLY used for those viruses. Very odd. If indeed we were HIGHLY EVOLVED and viruses did cause disease, you would think through the process of evolving, our cells would have dropped those receptors, as there was no benefit.

    Imagine how backwards our thinking on virology is.

    I get emails when you all comment, so first thing I did was Google my Gmail for this guys IP# to see if he was an old troll reborn– Nope.

    This concentrated arrogant idiocy is 100% legit.
    Yes, it is true. I am no troll. Sorry to disappoint. I am passionate about what I talk about though, and I do apologize if I sound annoying to you all. That’s not my intent.

    BZZT! Wrong again, dumbass!

    Antiretrovirals have *decreased* deaths from AIDS. HIV kills. Look around.
    Nice argument. I choose you for my debate team. We’ll conquer the world together friend. To the moon! To the moon!

    “taking WAY too many antibiotics”

    What is your suggested mechanism for how antibiotics cause AIDS?

    It is well known that antibiotics are immune suppressive.
    I will quote from the writer of an article “Beyond Antibiotics” Dr Lawrence Wilson:

    “5. Immune Suppression. This may sound odd, as the purpose of antibiotics is presumably to help the immune response. However, evidence indicates that people treated with antibiotics have more repeat infections than those who are not treated. This is especially true of children whose ear infections are treated with antibiotics. Vitamin A and C and the use of simple herbs such as echinacea and astragalus, for example, are much safer and often equally effective.
    In fact, antibiotics do not aid the immune system. They replace one of its functions. Antibiotics act by inhibiting certain enzymatic processes of bacteria, and by changing mineral balances. Normal cells, however, are also affected. This may be one reason why antibiotics weaken the immune response. Other toxic effects of antibiotics, such as the effect upon the normal bowel flora, may also be a cause.
    AIDS research indicates that a risk factor for AIDS is an impaired immune response. This can be due to a history of repeated antibiotic use. Perhaps it is no accident the same group with the highest incidence of AIDS, male homosexuals as of 2009, is also a group that uses more antibiotics than other groups in America.

    The link between antibiotic use and increased cancer rates can also be explained this way. This topic is discussed in the paragraphs above under #1.”

    Link here: http://www.drlwilson.com/Articles/antibiotics.htm

    Indeed, many homosexuals engaged in the very active and recreational lifestyle in the 80′s and 90′s would commonly do a “pre-exposure” prophylactic dose of antibiotics on a regular basis thinking that this would be a good way to prevent STDs from their partners and thus “thinking ahead” like smart folks. Unfortunately this persistent use of antibiotics could very well have been (along with the general use of hard drugs and nitrite inhalants) causative agents in the etiology of AIDS.

    That’s how I think antibiotics could cause AIDS.

    Disagree if you want, that’s what I think is the best explanation. You say virus, I say lifestyle. Who’s right? Well the popular explanation is virus. But just because its popular doesn’t make it so. It makes it “likely” because “surely the majority can’t be wrong”…but then again…often times the majority is wrong.

  10. #10 LanceR, JSG
    June 10, 2009

    Okay… the stupid is entirely too strong for an amateur. ERV, try not to splatter too much blood on the carpet.

    Viruses as messengers? Yikes. And *we’re* the ones who don’t understand virology…

  11. #11 ERV
    June 10, 2009

    CaptainDerp– You get less than 40 g of protein a day. You eat over 10 times as much sugar as you do protein. And assuming you eat a serving of almonds, you get a whopping 15 grams of fat.

    Bodybuilders and powerlifters have some crazy diets, but Im pretty sure your P-7%/F-6%/C-86% ratio takes the cake. Literally. Dudes going to be the first human to get diabeetus from eating fucking bananas LOL!

  12. #12 ERV
    June 10, 2009

    Ugh I just looked at grams of sugar, not total carbs… the ratio is worse than that. Jesus Christ, dude! Welp, at least hes not going to get scurvy!

  13. #13 ERV
    June 10, 2009

    CaptainDerp– “I too am RIPPED”
    TITS or GTFO.

  14. #14 CommonSense
    June 10, 2009

    Bodybuilders and powerlifters have some crazy diets, but Im pretty sure your P-7%/F-6%/C-86% ratio takes the cake. Literally. Dudes going to be the first human to get diabeetus from eating fucking bananas LOL!

    Ugh I just looked at grams of sugar, not total carbs… the ratio is worse than that. Jesus Christ, dude! Welp, at least hes not going to get scurvy!

    You show that you have ABSOLUTELY no understanding of nutrition. LOL. My fasting glucose is <60, I play 3-4 hours of continuous sport (basketball) every other day. I bench press 225 pounds. LOL.

    And I never get sore, dehydrated, or get headaches, constipation, etc etc etc etc etc etc.

    lmao. Nice blog post genius. I’m glad you’re informing everyone about such things like:
    -Blindly conforming to authority and believing everything about HIV/AIDS without double checking.
    -How GMO food is perfectly normal and not bad for you whatsoever.
    -Vaccines are necessary for “immune boosting”

    LOL! You fail to realize that the requirements for fat are only the following: about 2 grams of omega3 fats per day and 2 grams of omega6 per day. I get right around this amount. I was just giving a typical day. I often times will have an avocado, or more nuts, etc. As far as protein, do you even know what you are talking about? Seriously? Do you know that romaine lettuce has more protein calorie for calorie, than a steak does!? I seriously can’t believe you are this ignorant.

    I’m going to get diabetes huh? From bananas? Yeah. That’s why gorillas in the wild who eat a PURELY vegetarian diet based largely on bananas in many cases, get all that diabetes right?
    LOL. Foolish, my friend.

    Indeed if I was eating refined sugar devoid of ANY nutrients, devoid of ANY fiber, devoid of any vitmains like a coke, yea, that would be HORRIBLE. I don’t do that moron.

    Go learn about nutrition before you open your mouth ;-)

    Ignorance is bliss as they say though, so I understand if you remain Neanderthal-like in your responses.

    Have a good one. But you really should stop presenting yourself as someone who knows anything about science.

    L

    O

    L

  15. #15 CommonSense
    June 10, 2009

    Sorry the above should read My fasting glucose is less than 60. For some reason putting the “less than” sign and 60 after it renders it invisible.

  16. #16 Lee
    June 10, 2009

    Oh good god…

    “Do you know that romaine lettuce has more protein calorie for calorie, than a steak does!?”

    15 g of lettuce has about 1 calorie, and about 0.1g protein, or about 10g protein for 100 calories lettuce.

    100 g of steak (about 4 ounces) has about 190 calories, and about 30 g protein, or about 16 g protein for 100 calories steak.

    If you ate a kilogram (almost 2 1/4 pounds, at about a pound per head of head lettuce) of lettuce, you would get less than 7 grams of protein.

    L

    O

    L

  17. #17 vhutchison
    June 10, 2009

    CommonSense??? Blood glucose normal range after fasting is 70 to 99 mg/dl. Maybe at less than 60 your hypoglycemia must have had deleterious results on your brain cells. That could account for your ridiculous comments on HIV and nutrition?

  18. #19 JohnV
    June 11, 2009

    @the idea of antibiotics causing aids:

    Saying “it is well known” then linking to a webpage by someone who seems to suggest that the germ theory of disease is incorrect does not add to the believability of your claims.

  19. #20 BAllanJ
    June 11, 2009

    Hmmm… looking at the diet, the length of time, and what this guy types on this comment thread…. I have a question for those that know…

    Anyone know how long it takes to show signs of B12 deficiency? And what are the symptoms?

  20. #21 ERV
    June 11, 2009

    Not to mention essential amino acid deficiencies, and fat-soluble vitamin deficiencies…

    Dr. Rose was the fellow that experimented on his grad students, right? Withheld specific amino acids from their diets to see how long it took them to pass out… Dude doesnt even eat beans! Jesus!

  21. #22 ragarth
    June 11, 2009

    Am I the only one who sees the incredibly irony of this whack-job, after his thorough research upon HIV using google while eating his banana sandwiches- hold the bread, feels he knows more about HIV and viral transmission than a scientist who’s career is based upon these subjects?

    So CommonSense, anti-intellectualism much?

  22. #23 Sven DiMilo
    June 11, 2009

    Do you know that romaine lettuce has more protein calorie for calorie, than a steak does!?

    Stoopidest comparison EVER.

  23. #24 MikeTheInfidel
    June 11, 2009

    Holy HELL. You’ve got yourself a whole MESS of crazy here.

    Looks like you’ve overlooked one bit of his nonsense, though – his claim that AIDS, as a disease, was ‘invented’ as a way to demonize gay people and drugs. That it SUDDENLY came into existence in the ’80s.

    Disregarding the fact that the first cases of AIDS are now traced back to around (or before) the 1950s.

    What a maroon!

  24. #25 Prometheus
    June 11, 2009

    “I have beautiful skin with no blemishes and I can imagine my inner organs are likewise possessing very healthy membranes.”

    “I too am RIPPED, but I’m not constipated either. I go to the bathroom once to two times a day”

    “Also I don’t have any body odor. Ohh yeah, I never wash my hands with soap either…and “oddly enough” I haven’t gotten sick once in the last 2+ years.”

    Yes master but how can your magic diet help us?

    There can be only one Highlander.

    No fair! I want to be immortal too!

    After that ugly “pockets of homosexuals”/ hard drugs poppers/ antibiotics post I am tempted to assist you in your exploration of your physical resilience.

    We’re playing Jarts Saturday afternoon. Wanna be the catcher?

  25. #26 JohnV
    June 11, 2009

    Don’t see jarts references very often. Nicely done.

  26. #27 CommonSense
    June 11, 2009

    his claim that AIDS, as a disease, was ‘invented’ as a way to demonize gay people and drugs. That it SUDDENLY came into existence in the ’80s.
    No, it’s not. But thanks for showing everyone your lack of ability to pay attention.
    AIDS by definition is a collection of diseases that are simply linked together. In the beginning there were in fact many different hypotheses as to what caused all these different in fact seemingly unrelated diseases in some cases. For instance the very first years of AIDS, the majority of the deaths from AIDS were cases of:
    PCP (pneumonia)
    and
    Kaposi’s sarcoma

    These two diseases have virtually nothing in common. KS for instance has very little to do with immune suppression. Most KS lesions occurred in persons in the naso/oro pharynx/larynx lungs chest, and generally remained only visible on the upper body and sometimes the arms.
    We now know the cause of KS is almost without question due to ONLY the use of nitrite/nitrate inhalants that were popularized for usage within the gay community due to their dilation effect on the blood vessels, which translates into both a kind of “high” (I am told) and more importantly it makes anal sex less painful for the recipient.

    KS is traditionally a disease that was seen in ONLY Mediterranean men in their later years and it occurred at their ankles, for COMPLETELY different reasons and causes. The KS we saw in the “AIDS” patients remains to this day ONLY in those who do poppers.
    If KS was something HIV caused, we would expect to see it relatively randomly distributed. But we don’t see that. Drug abusers who never use poppers, would get AIDS, but NONE would get KS lesions. People in Africa, they don’t get KS. Middle class persons who happen to test positive on these so called “HIV” tests, they don’t get KS. Even Robert Gallo himself has stated that KS shouldn’t really be considered as a symptom of AIDS anymore.

    Indeed:
    “Robert Gallo, as unofficial voice of the AIDS Establishment, disclosed important revisions in the AIDS-paradigm. It is now necessary to consider co-factors. No longer is HIV believed to cause KS by itself; at most it may aggravate KS after it has been caused by something else. No longer is HIV believed to kill T-cells; whatever damage it allegedly does, it does indirectly. Speaking informally, Gallo discussed the latest thinking on the nature and causes of KS.”
    –this was as far back as 1994.

    Gallo is also quoted in the book “AIDS, the mystery and the solution”…
    “The puzzling relationship between AIDS and Kaposi’s sarcoma, (the most common form of cancer found in AIDS) continued to intrigue medical scientists and reporters.

    In an interview conducted by James D’Eramo, Gallo was asked about…Kaposi’s sarcoma. Gallo responded “I don’t know the cause of Kaposi’s sarcoma. My guess is that it must be related to HTLV-3 infection in some way. Perhaps its caused by the release of growth factors of HTLV-3 infected cells.” D’Eramo then asked why Kaposi’s sarcoma occurred mostly in gay men. Gallo remarked “I don’t know. Kaposi’s sarcoma confuses me.”

    From the very beginning it was a hypothesized link that Gallo and others were merely HOPING for. They WANTED to find that there was a link between HTLV-3 (again, a nonexistent entity) and these diseases that were “new”. We had never seen the amount of KS at that serious of an increase in any other time in history. We also had never seen the amount of pneumonia cases like we were seeing.
    How odd though, that we saw a rise in KS that correlated directly with the increased use of poppers in the then-burgeoning gay movement, and a huge increase in pneumonia in the drug abusing sector, again a new phenomena at the time (it is true that drugs had been around for a little while before that, but not crack. Not heroin. Not the seriously hard street drugs). How interesting that we looked at increased use of poppers in the gay community, and saw a rise in KS which is very easily linked to the use of poppers, and then we looked at the drug abusers and saw a rise in pneumonia, which is TOTALLY expected and understandable (for instance, if a drug abuser is using hard drugs and is HIV negative, we simply say “ohh, he/she clearly got sick from the drugs.” But when they are (again by CHANCE) HIV+ we say “ohh it was clearly the virus that was transmitted via the needle.”) we assumed the cause was an infectious entity.

    Why anyone would decide to say that these two conditions (which by the way were the 2 main big-time “AIDS defining” conditions in the beginning of the “epidemic”) were related and must be caused by a single infectious entity is perplexing. Unless of course, we’re on a hunt for a virus. If you want to find something badly enough…you just might “find” it. It’s like these Jesus freaks who believe he existed as a real person and they spend their lives pretending that they are “speaking” with him…man, they literally just “find” what they are looking for.

    With HIV it’s not that insane…but in some cases it’s even worse.
    Who would draw blood from patients who are sick with these diseases, and then look for proteins and then find a few of them (all associated with UBIQUITOUS cell structural components like myosin and actin and various other normal proteins that comprise everyday cell structure) and then conclude that they all must be all part of some new virus. It’s literally as JUNKY as science can get. I mean there is junk science, and then there is AIDS science. I mean…it doesn’t get much dumber than this folks.

    Since 1994, to be fair, Gallo did try and link a protein from “HIV” (remember “HIV proteins” are all also proteins associated with normal cell function. In fact I challenge anyone to find me an “HIV protein” that is ONLY present in HIV. You won’t find it, which is why there is no test that looks at any one single protein. And please…PLEASE don’t say “p24″…please don’t make me write another 5 page long response explaining why you are a complete moron, seriously…please spare me the hassle). At any rate, he did try and say that one of the “HIV proteins” is linked to KS since 1994, and yet, he doesn’t have a proved causal link, but most importantly…it doesn’t explain AT ALL, why: KS was virtually only found in gay men who used nitrates, and
    as the use of these poppers has declined over the years (which it has substantially) so has the cases of KS. We almost NEVER see KS cases anymore in AIDS patients. In fact many people are now saying KS shouldn’t even be an AIDS defining disease, because it occurs now mostly in non-AIDS patients.

    Back to the original comment I was responding to though, no, I’m not suggesting anyone invented the diagnosis to demonize homosexuals. I have NEVER been of this opinion. It was a case of virus-hunting. Gallo had a “virus” which he didn’t have a disease for. He was researching for the last decade, the possible links to cancer of retroviruses, because they are seen ALL AROUND the tumors. Again, ANOTHER INDICATOR that these are endogenous entities that our bodies make in order to ADAPT TO STRESSORS. We know viruses do not cause cancer now. This should have been obvious to a 5 year old though, and there was certainly no need to spend BILLIONS of dollars trying to prove to ourselves what we already knew from pure observation: CANCER ISN’T CONTAGIOUS! HELLO!!

    This isn’t rocket science. And yes, I also am of the opinion that HPV does not cause cervical cancer that is a joke, wrapped in a fraud, drizzled with a little bit of a hoc profiteering. Again, CANCER ISN’T CONTAGIOUS. And as I have been saying for some time now: Virtually NOTHING IS. The only contagious things I have seen to be “real” is what Dawkin’s calls “memes” I see memes as the most contagious and potent form of viral entities that you can name. I think this is why one of his programs was Sub-Titled “The VIRUS of Faith.”

    You wanna study virology? Get out of the lab (all that lack of fresh air and unnatural lighting is horrible for your health anyway) and study the 90%+ of the world’s population which bows down to imaginary deities and shares insane beliefs (don’t say it, I know what you’re thinking).

    There is no “conspiracy” and there is no “agenda” to “demonize” or “depopulate the undesirables” as some have tried to argue.
    You have to realize folks, I’m not the one with the insane theories. I speak that which is evident.
    The CRAZY people, aren’t even the ones who say HIV causes AIDS. The truly insane people, are the ones who say “this was a virus created in a lab by splicing visna and bovine leukemia viruses (again, viruses don’t cause cancer, but like these guys are gonna listen. They sell fucking 400 dollar wind chimes for fuck’s sake!)

    …Sorry, my mistake, 495 dollar wind chimes. “special” wind chimes. You know…the ones that vibrate at a frequency that enables us to resonate with a higher transmission of energy from the sacred healing 7th chakra field….or whatever they say.
    THOSE are the people that are insane.
    The ones who claim they have a “cure” for AIDS, and they give you a patent number as proof, even though we all know very well that the purpose of patents is not to verify that a product actually WORKS, but rather to simply verify that you were the first person to have an original idea. That’s all. I have seen patents for time machines, mind-reading devices and everlasting life. So yeah…why not throw a miracle AIDS cure in there as well. It’s only sensible after all, right?

    Disregarding the fact that the first cases of AIDS are now traced back to around (or before) the 1950s.
    …you really are a an idiot aren’t you. When did I disregard this? First of all “AIDS” simply describes A COLLECTION OF ILLNESSES. But by the CDC definition, we could never know for sure if anyone before 1982 had AIDS because the CDC definition requires not just the disease to be present (one of the 30+ ‘AIDS defining’ diseases that is) but they must also be accompanied by an HIV+ test result, or, after 1993 when they fraudulently amended an already fraudulent situation to begin with…you could also be called an “AIDS” patient if you had a less than 200 TCell count. And so, by that criteria people in the 1950′s or lets go further back…people in the 1550′s…couldn’t be said to have clinical AIDS, why? Because there was no such thing as an HIV test back in those days you see?

    So no, I don’t disregard anything. You however, seem to show a lack of aptitude to understand what it is you decide to voice your opinion about. Congrats on that. Join the other 200 million+ in this country who have ABSOLUTELY no idea what is going on in the world around them.

    Funny it is, I should add, that they have found human bodies in good enough conditions to analyze their DNA from hundreds of years ago, and they have found them to be “HIV+” as well. They have even tested rats, dogs, lambs, sheep, etc…and they have found HIV in these animals too. How funny.

    Here’s another hilarious tidbit:
    Ever since we have had HIV tests, (1984)…we have done tests on the population to determine how many people in our country as a whole are infected but don’t know. In other words what is the total prevalence (determined by simple extrapolation of course). Since 1984…listen to this, because this is important, I’m putting it on the test…

    SINCE 1984…THE PREVALENCE OF HIV+ PERSONS IN THE US HAS REMAINED AT 1 MILLION CASES. STAGNANT.

    Why do I mention this? Well…when you have an EPIDEMIC (AIDS was CERTAINLY an epidemic, there is no doubt about that) that is increasing exponentially in number, but a a supposed viral agent you are saying is causing this epidemic that is STAGNANT, you have reached what is called an impasse. Cognitive dissonance. The square block does not want to fit into the round hole, Jim! Shit! To quote The Big Lebowski “The damn plane has crashed INTO THE MOUNTAIN!”

    K? K.

    What a maroon!
    God I hope for your sake “maroon” is a derogatory term used to refer to someone’s lack of intelligence. Otherwise, you are either:
    A. A complete and utter MORON for misspelling that word, or
    B. You have decided to result to chromatic-based personal attacks, to which I can only respond by calling you a turquoise.

    lmfao.

  27. #28 ERV
    June 11, 2009

    heh. The research I did as an undergrad was used to develop a clinical test for KS.

    Im going to have to post my rebuttal ASAP, before Im overwhelmed by the tide of… the tide of… whats a good name for the Denier version of TARD?

  28. #29 Sven DiMilo
    June 11, 2009

    What purpose in the cycle of life do viruses provide if they kill cells?

    I think we’d need to back waaaaaay, way up to start engaging with this guy.

  29. #30 Prometheus
    June 11, 2009

    “God I hope for your sake “maroon” is a derogatory term…”

    You don’t even have a passing familiarity with Looney Tunes.

    You sir, are a monster.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo

  30. #31 LanceR, JSG
    June 11, 2009

    The KS we saw in the “AIDS” patients remains to this day ONLY in those who do poppers.

    Liar. The nurse I pointed out to you yesterday developed Karposi’s Sarcoma in her mouth. Are you suggesting she used poppers?

    it is true that drugs had been around for a little while before that, but not crack. Not heroin. Not the seriously hard street drugs

    Man, a liar *and* stupid. Heroin? Opium? Poppy dens? Any of this ringing a bell? Heroin was developed in 1874 by Bayer. For many years it was an additive in over the counter cough medicine.

    We have discussed here recently the ability to track strains of HIV in order to determine where the infection started. This has been used to determine if patient A was responsible for infecting patients B C and D. It is being used right now to determine if a Florida dentist deliberately infected several of his patients, several of whom have developed AIDS.

    You are incapable of recognizing a fact if one leapt up and bit you on the ass. Your unmitigated arrogance, combined with your boundless ignorance, makes you one of the more obnoxious assholes I’ve ever had the misfortune to deal with.

    What new lies will you concoct now?

  31. #32 CommonSense
    June 11, 2009

    I think we’d need to back waaaaaay, way up to start engaging with this guy.

    No, not really. I understand the proposed reason for viral existence. Life as it is today is basically thought to have originated with replicator molecules whose sole “function” was to select for the ones that were the best able (by chance or whatever it may have been) to replicate most effectively. These replicators were the fundamental constituents which upon linking together, created the first amino acids and thus polypeptides, and on it goes after we introduce the lipid vesicles which allow for autonomy and faster, more efficient reactions (replication) and then the first cells come to be and on and on… and the theory is that viruses as we know them today are simply these kinds of phenomenon of replicators that are somehow “selfish” and their whole “purpose” is to reproduce. Yet we tend to ascribe quasi-sentient properties to viruses which are anything but alive. They are no more alive than hormones are. Would we say testosterone is? Absolutely not, and yet it has a specific “function” or “action” and yet the molecule itself is as inert as the next.
    In nature, the culminating and essential evolutionary feature that defines biology is one word: It’s a word that Lynn Margulis (who by the way is an AIDS “denialist” as well) knows all too well:
    SYMBIOSIS.

    All biology is based on this principle. Indeed there are cases of host/parasite relationship, but even many of those evolve into symbiotic relationships. It would be very odd to all the sudden just have existence of viruses which apparently break all these rules. I would be inclined to revert to Occam’s Razor and, before hypothesizing replicator molecules gone awry, killing the very host they “infect” (something even parasites won’t do) I would make DAMN SURE that I was 100% positive that these viruses did CAUSE disease.

    Viral causation of disease was ASSUMED hundreds of years before we had the electron microscope. Read through the history of medicine. Everyone was convinced that there must be some kind of sub-microscopic entities that caused disease. When we found the EM, we started looking at diseased tissue and lo and behold what did we find. Exactly what we wanted to find…disease causing sub-microscopic entities. Bam. Virus. End of story.

    That’s fine with me, but the theory is broke, doc. And I can prove it wrong on my own. Which is hilarious. Any disease anyone has, I am more than willing to expose myself to. There is absolutely no way to get an infection when you keep the body in proper health. Similarly to the way that you cannot find a fruit rotting when it is attached to a tree. Does the fruit have an “immune system”? No. Disease is not brought about because you haven’t vaccinated or trained your immune system at boot camp (aka inoculations). Disease manifests when there is obstruction of cellular integrity, metabolism and regeneration/cycling. Anything that causes this, causes disease. Then we see bacteria come in and do their work to recycle the dead tissue or viruses get produced by the body in efforts to adapt to a stressor.

    It’s really funny that I say this right now and everyone here is like “Ohh, you’re so lost, so stupid, and so on” and years from now I’ll be hearing “ohh yeah, I knew all this stuff about viruses being cellular responses induced by stressors. Of course, we knew that from day one.”

    I love talking to the sheeple. They always know what they are doing and they always know they are right and anyone who disagrees is obviously wrong and that is that.

    You’re just as faith-based as the religious people you point the finger at. It cracks me up.

    So yeah…let the insults keep rollin’ on.

  32. #33 LanceR, JSG
    June 11, 2009

    the way that you cannot find a fruit rotting when it is attached to a tree

    False. Never spent any time on a farm, have you? Fruit rots on the tree all the time.

    Does the fruit have an “immune system”?

    Actually, yes. It does. Next stupid question?

    And the whole idea of the body “producing viruses as a response to a stressor”? Yeah… um… no fucking way. If that were true, then each “virus” would have a genetic imprint similar to the host, and completely different from the “viruses” in other hosts. We can sequence viruses and see that this is not the case.

    You really don’t understand any of this, do you?

  33. #34 CommonSense
    June 11, 2009

    Man, a liar *and* stupid. Heroin? Opium? Poppy dens? Any of this ringing a bell? Heroin was developed in 1874 by Bayer. For many years it was an additive in over the counter cough medicine.
    Hey look Ma, another one of those idiot-people you were talking about!

    Yes, and heroin was used as over-the-counter Black Tar, inject it directly into your veins, malnourished junkie on the streets living like a bum drug back in the early 1900′s/late 1800′s? Yeah.
    I’m sure. My how inattentive of me.

    If I would have said that the heroin from the late 1970′s was the same as the heroin from the turn of the previous century, I would have gotten harsh criticism. But no, I make a very logical statement and you have to dig like a deranged idiot to find something to “discredit” me with.
    Go screw yourself for being disingenuous. Don’t just attack me for the sake of defending your belief at all costs.

    It is being used right now to determine if a Florida dentist deliberately infected several of his patients, several of whom have developed AIDS.
    RIGHT NOW? really? Or by “right now” do you mean the 1993 case where some people, including a poor woman whose name I believe was kimberly bergalis or something like that…happened to test positive on an HIV test and the ONLY contact she had with any needle or sexual exposure was only when she got a shot from the dentist to numb her mouth…it was thus ASSUMED that this was some “crazed” dentist who was deliberately infecting people even though he vehemently denied doing so. But, since there was ONE patient, they decided to check ALL his previous patients, and naturally, as we would predict, some of those people HAPPENED to test HIV+ as well.

    The poor lady who tested HIV+ was not sick though. She had a routine test at the time and was feeling healthy. It was only get this…after she was put on AZT that she started getting REALLY REALLY sick. Of course, we don’t do monotherapy AZT anymore because well…quite frankly if you did monotherapy on AZT and you lasted longer than 3 years you are a miracle.

    Ohh but no, it must have been the HIV. When you say “hiv sequence” what you refer to is not the entire “genome” of HIV…which DOESN’T EXIST. You refer to small segments of parts of genetic material which is again, common in all kinds of people and has nothing to do with infection. The “closeness” that it may resemble another persons “strain” is no different than someone’s genetic sequence for production of insulin. LOL. Yeah, you will find that there is a “similarity” in that respect. It can hardly be used to “track and identify” someone though. What a joke.

    …Back to the quote about the ‘several of them developed AIDS’ bit…
    What about the several that didn’t? Guess which ones decided to take the drugs? “Several” of them did. Seems to me, you’re the one who can’t accept reality when IT bites you on the ass.

    Your unmitigated arrogance, combined with your boundless ignorance, makes you one of the more obnoxious assholes I’ve ever had the misfortune to deal with.

    What new lies will you concoct now?

    What lies? I speak the truth you fool.

  34. #35 LanceR, JSG
    June 11, 2009

    What lies? I speak the truth you fool.

    Liar. You wouldn’t know “truth” if it jumped up and bit you on your lying nose.

    The lady who runs this blog *works* with HIV. Live. In the lab. Infecting animals to test vaccines.

    Dumbass.

  35. #36 Prometheus
    June 11, 2009

    “Any disease anyone has, I am more than willing to expose myself to.”

    slut

  36. #37 LanceR, JSG
    June 11, 2009

    Oh, and “track and identify”? You’d better learn to read. See http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission.htm to try to learn something.

  37. #38 LanceR, JSG
    June 11, 2009
  38. #39 JohnV
    June 11, 2009

    “I love talking to the sheeple. ”

    1) Unless you invented the term, you’re a shining example
    2) Interesting definition of sheep: “anyone who disagrees with me”. whereas anyone who agrees is free thinking and independent.
    3) Just to be sure, you are of the belief that the germ theory of disease is incorrect?

  39. #40 CommonSense
    June 11, 2009

    False. Never spent any time on a farm, have you? Fruit rots on the tree all the time.
    Right. Rotting fruit, if still connected to the stem, and if the actual tree itself is not diseased, does not occur on a tree. You will not find a rotting fruit growing on a healthy tree. But as soon as you take a healthy fresh fruit from the tree and allow it to sit on the ground for a few days, you will see it very quickly start to break down.
    And no, fruits do not have lymphatic-immune systems. You don’t give fruits vaccines for instance to make them healthy (and likewise neither do you with humans). Proof of antibody production does not ensue or ensure “immunity.” Matter of fact there is no correlation.

    And the whole idea of the body “producing viruses as a response to a stressor”? Yeah… um… no fucking way.
    ummm….yes fucking way.

    We can sequence viruses and see that this is not the case.

    You really don’t understand any of this, do you?
    Viruses, when introduced into another body via injection will tend to find the target cells, bind, and replicate. Similarly, if you were to take hormones, inject them into someone’s blood, you would see a VERY profound effect.
    But #1 viruses don’t cause disease (and this is why when we try and draw up serum with one sequence of virus, mix it in vitro with tissue from another individual, we will see new virus form because we are looking at fragmented versions of biology. I know of no kidney tissue that exists just as kidney tissue. I only know of kidney tissue that exists as part of an entire kidney, which is part of an organism etc. There are great things we can do with in vitro analysis, but sometimes it’s just not robust enough of a situation to mimic what ACTUALLY happens in the body. Particularly the mechanisms of up and down regulation and these sorts of “monitoring” or mediation by the surrounding tissue, organs, blood, etc).

    I’ll tell you what though. Let’s make this really simple…

    How about a wager. Let’s make it significant. 10,000 dollars. Up front, all cash.
    You find someone for me who is HIV+ and you are ABSOLUTELY sure this person has “the virus”…you make sure you have documentation, and you have satisfied yourself 100% that the person absolutely has this virus in their blood…
    You bring me to them, in front of eyewitnesses and taken in one continuous shot on camera, we have the “HIV+” person’s blood drawn. Say 5-10 ml…or whatever amount you wish to use that would plausibly raise your expectation to a nearly absolutely sure state that I will have the virus replicate in me and I will subsequently test HIV+ and then we inject me with it. I take an HIV test after 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after this “exposure” and if I am HIV- each time I win the money. If I am HIV+ on any of the tests, even regardless of the fact that I have no symptoms or any apparent illness…I still lose. If I get sick, I lose. If I die, I lose. If I refuse to take a test, I lose. If I violate any of these rules or if I do anything that is seen as even REMOTELY suspicious, I lose.
    Literally the ONLY way for me to win is for me to:
    Get injected, not develop any illness, not develop any AIDS defining conditions, not test for low CD-4 counts, and not test HIV+ on ANY of the tests I take.

    I will do this at any time, in front of anybody, anywhere. All I ask is we make the contract official and the money is given to an independent third party we both agree upon to hold until the winner is determined.

    This offer is open to anyone. Indeed if you want to raise the stakes my limit is infinity. I will wager my mom’s house which is worth around 800K right now with only 40K left on the mortgage. All my belongings, and savings, everything I have I will put on the line. Anyone who wants to take me up on this, I am extremely serious and would like to do this.

    Because if you think you are so smart. If you think you are so understanding of these concepts, then you really should put your money where your mouth is.

    Otherwise, stfu.

    thank you.

  40. #41 CommonSense
    June 11, 2009

    3) Just to be sure, you are of the belief that the germ theory of disease is incorrect?
    Indeed.

  41. #42 LanceR, JSG
    June 11, 2009

    I will wager my mom’s house

    Which tells us all we really need to know. What are you, 12?

    Fruit rots on healthy trees. Ask a farmer. I’ve seen it.

    ERV? Smack this fool.

  42. #43 JohnV
    June 11, 2009

    So when we, for example, injected mice with Clostridium perfringens and gas gangrene developed, it wasn’t the bacteria causing the disease but the stress on the mouse and the bacteria were just along for the ride?

  43. #44 CommonSense
    June 11, 2009

    So when we, for example, injected mice with Clostridium perfringens and gas gangrene developed, it wasn’t the bacteria causing the disease but the stress on the mouse and the bacteria were just along for the ride?

    Sort of. In the real world, in nature, you don’t find bacteria introduced into the bloodstream in any large concentration. Ever. If we were to take that bacteria and instead of bypass all the other physical barriers preventing it from being introduced in large amounts into the blood, we saw…fed it to the mice…there would be nothing more than perhaps diarrhea. To prove that poliovirus causes polio, researcher tried to take infected monkeys and have them directly infect others. This failed each and every single time. Not one case of any documented transmission from touch or oral, etc “transmission”. So then the researchers decided to culture the virus and inject it directly into the uninfected monkeys. Still nothing. Occasionally they would get sore arms at the site of infection and SOMETIMES the arm would go numb. But no great success having the disease manifest. It was then that researchers had to revert to INTERCRANIAL drilling and literally stabbing the monkeys in directly in the brain and injecting the sera to have most of them come down with polio symptoms. And thus there was the conclusion that poliovirus caused polio. Very dubious to say the least.

    Introducing large amounts of bacteria in the blood is highly damaging to the lymph system and taxes the body and if its enough (and i’m sure the mice you were referring to had MASSIVE amounts of fluid injected into their tiny bodies) then yeah, it would absolutely make sense to see a trauma cause disease, and then having the bacteria present in a body in a state of disease … certainly would proliferate, for that is what bacteria do in states of disease.

    Why do we have to revert to these really invasive and unrealistic never-would-happen in nature methods to prove things about nature which aren’t even true?

    You ask me. The theory don’t fit the facts though, bob.

    As a side note, I can’t keep posting nothing but “dissent”…I’ll link to something I think everyone can appreciate:

    Youtube user ndsuvirtualcell Pretty cool animations. Also there is a website called you can find with (some) good info if you good “bioseminars” but then again one of the “seminars” is David Baltimore talking about HIV, so take it for what it is.

    Sorry we don’t all agree. But I’m also very sorry that you think I am some uneducated moron. Sorry, Maroon. (I don’t watch TV, nor did I like doing so as a kid). My apologies for missing the Bugs Bunny reference.

  44. #45 LanceR, JSG
    June 11, 2009

    you don’t find bacteria introduced into the bloodstream in any large concentration. Ever

    Right. Because there are never traumatic injuries in reality. Nobody ever gets shot, or stabbed, or falls on a dirty tool in the real world.

    C’mon, idiot. You can do better than that.

    I tell you what: You go down to the local hospital, and you volunteer to take HIV infected blood intravenously. Tell ‘em it’s to prove a point. Let us all know what happens.

    Better yet, tell yer mom what you’re contemplating. Let us know how she reacts.

    Barring that, take a freaking biology class. You might learn something.

  45. #46 JohnV
    June 11, 2009

    Well in my specific example, the C. perfringens that cause gangrene don’t cause food poisoning (absence of an enterotoxin). I know that’s not the point, I’m just tossing it out there for nerd credit.

    The mice were injected with the bacteria resuspended in 100 microliters of phosphate buffered saline into the right hind leg thigh muscle. When injected with PBS and no bacteria gangrene doesn’t develop. When injected with PBS and mutants that don’t produce a specific toxin (phospholipase C) gangrene doesn’t develop. If its the trauma and not the bacteria causing the disease (with bacteria taking advantage of the injured tissue), why would the absence of a specific toxin gene make such a difference?

    (Specific data are coming from DOI: 10.1128/IAI.72.9.5204-5215.2004)

    This isn’t particularly un-realworld. The dosage is skewed, but that’s due to the limits of a small animal model + anaerobic bacteria. But the model, C. perfringens finding itself in a wound, is what happens in the real world and why, before the introduction of antibiotics, it was a really significant problem.

    If smaller doses are your thing, aerosol exposures of mice to ~1000 Burkholderia mallei and they’ll die. Shouldn’t be any tissue damage from this mode of inoculation. If you do an IP injection its fewer bacteria still. If you use hamsters its ~10 bacteria.

    DOI: 10.1128/IAI.72.11.6589-6596.2004

  46. #47 Albatrossity
    June 11, 2009

    I’ve not been following this thread religiously, but this “commonsense” notion

    Rotting fruit, if still connected to the stem, and if the actual tree itself is not diseased, does not occur on a tree. You will not find a rotting fruit growing on a healthy tree.

    is just hilarious. Perhaps Mr. CS believes everything he reads in the wholly babble, such as Luke 6:43 – “For a good tree brings not forth corrupt fruit; neither does a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”

    But in the real world, as we all know, depending on the babble as a science book is not a good idea. See here for a reality check.

  47. #48 Chris Noble
    June 11, 2009

    The poor lady who tested HIV+ was not sick though. She had a routine test at the time and was feeling healthy.

    Kimberley Bergalis was suffering from systemic candidiasis, extreme weight loss, hair loss and PCP before she was ever tested for HIV let alone put on antiretrovirals.

  48. #49 CommonSense
    June 11, 2009

    Kimberley Bergalis was suffering from systemic candidiasis, extreme weight loss, hair loss and PCP before she was ever tested for HIV let alone put on antiretrovirals.
    Wow, and I’m the one who is accused of lying?

    Bergalis NEVER had the debilitating illnesses and problems she had before being put on any drugs, nor before being tested.
    She had candida…a problem so many women have and it is due to their poor diet and lack of exercise. She had a case of pneumonia. Again, she didn’t start having the severe anemia the bone marrow problems etc until being put on AZT and in hindsight, looking back…researchers admit that the AZT was what she died from.

    Look fuckers, you can’t have it both ways. If she didn’t get sick it was because “the virus was still dormant” but she got sick and died after 3 years of being “infected” (with what I have no clue). What happened to your precious incubation period?
    Ohh that’s right. It’s not a defined period of incubation, rather, it represents a possible range of inactive time where the virus can remain dormant and hide itself inside the cell without going into attack mode.

    All mechanisms for this ohh-so-convenient grace period are shaky at best, pathologically deplorable lies at worst.

    The worst part is this:

    all you morons (or maroons, for our more saturday-morning oriented children) keep referencing the “very conclusive genetic sequencing” that “proved” the same strains where present in Bergalis that came from the dentist…well, you’re just fucking idiots, unfortunately…

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that Bergalis, as well as five other unrelated patients, had contracted the same strain of HIV from Acer. CDC-conducted tests of DNA sequencing showed that there was a high correlation between the strain of HIV carried by Acer and that carried by Bergalis and Acer’s other patients. Later review of the CDC tests strengthened the case that Bergalis’s HIV infection was linked to Acer. These CDC tests, however, were later called into into question by the Annals of Internal Medicine stating, “that the molecular analyses used to determine that the dentist and his patients had the same strains of HIV had potentially serious flaws.“[4][5][6][7][8]

    This is from the Wiki page I encourage all you fucking nitwits to open your eyes before you make claims which are incorrect.

    And here’s a letter from a fellow idiot like yourselves (who claim to be “scientists” lol…fucking children with magnifying glasses thinking they know anything. Amazing)….

    Dear Alive & Well,

    I urge you to remember the case of Kimberly Bergalis. [Kimberly Bergalis is the Florida woman who died of AIDS in 1989 after allegedly being infected with HIV by her dentist]

    Although I loathed her grandstanding, she did serve as an example of someone who never did recreational drugs but died of the same immune system meltdown with the same bony and gaunt face as my friends. Despite what you say, there is ample evidence that AIDS DOES exist. It is not a byproduct of drug use. It’s an infection.

    Mike Salinas

    Dear Mike,

    After being diagnosed HIV positive, Kimberly Bergalis took AZT in the tremendously high doses used in the mid to late 1980s. Today, great numbers of AIDS experts on all sides of the issue acknowledge that AZT is extremely toxic and the high dose treatments given back in Kimberly’s time were responsible for countless deaths.

    Prior to beginning AZT treatment, Kimberly was not seriously ill. She had a yeast infection-a common occurrence possibly caused in her case by antibiotics taken after dental work, and pneumonia. Some 30,000 HIV negative Americans die each year from pneumonia-pneumonia happens and is not uncommon among college age people like Kimberly who often “burn the candle at both endsÓ through study, work, partying, lack of adequate sleep and nutrition.

    Once Kimberly started taking daily doses of AZT chemotherapy, she wasted away like a typical chemotherapy recipient. She lost weight, muscle mass, her hair and her appetite; she developed rashes, acne and neuropathy to the degree she could hardly walk. If you check a medical dictionary or the Merck Manual, you will find Kimberly Bergalis suffering described most succinctly as side effects of DNA chain terminating chemotherapy treatment.

    However unfortunate, Kimberly Bergalis’ story does not provide conclusive evidence that AIDS is a contagious condition caused by HIV. In scientific terms, Kimberly’s experience would constitute a poorly designed study of one with no control. But for the sake of discussion, let’s say that one person’s experience suffices to prove HIV causes AIDS.

    Does the lesser known story of a woman born the same year as Kimberly, diagnosed HIV positive the same year, who unlike Kimberly had suffered with serious illness (Crohn’s disease and arthritis) prior to testing positive who opted to take natural treatments and today is healthy, happily married, and the mother of two healthy little girls (both born without medical intervention) prove HIV does not cause AIDS?

    Ok. Now your turn to flip reality on its head and tell me how dumb I am… :-)

    Cheers idiots.

  49. #50 Lee
    June 11, 2009

    Prometheus wins the internets:

    136 “Any disease anyone has, I am more than willing to expose myself to.”

    slut

    Posted by: Prometheus | June 11, 2009 3:47 PM

  50. #51 Chris Noble
    June 11, 2009

    Bergalis NEVER had the debilitating illnesses and problems she had before being put on any drugs, nor before being tested.

    AIDS From A Healer, Scorn From Others

    The correct timeline is dentist, systemic candidiasis, weight loss, hair loss, PCP (not just any pneumonia) and then being tested for HIV.

    Why do you think they tested somebody with no obvious risks for HIV? Because she had PCP which is indicative of severe immune deficiency.

    You have quoted Christine Maggiore’s version of Kimberley Bergalis’ death. In case you hadn’t noticed Christine Maggiore spent the last years of her life deperately trying to convince herself and others that HIV does not cause AIDS. That did not stop her from falling victim to HIV.

  51. #52 CommonSense
    June 11, 2009

    You have quoted Christine Maggiore’s version of Kimberley Bergalis’ death. In case you hadn’t noticed Christine Maggiore spent the last years of her life deperately trying to convince herself and others that HIV does not cause AIDS. That did not stop her from falling victim to HIV.

    First of all, you didn’t know christine, or her family, or what happened. And I would suggest being careful what you say about Christine. When she died I felt like a family member passed away. Consider any comments you make about her as though you were speaking about my own mother.

    Christine’s daughter was given amoxicillin for an ear infection (sad to say I think this was due to Christine feeding her milk and grains, which are the most common causes of ear infections in children). At any rate, her daughter had a severe reaction to the antibiotic. From Christine and her husbands direct words, we know that their daughter upon first taking the antibiotic, had an acute reaction. The second time she took it, she went into shock and died right there. It’s a huge tragedy. Then imagine what happens to you as the mother when you are told you are responsible for your child’s death. The whole world was told how insane Christine was and how she was killing her daughter. Christine was devastated. Even when these kinds of idiotic and insensitive insults are said, even though they are baseless, it is EXTREMELY emotionally draining to be told constantly by everyone that you are your own child’s murderer.
    She literally was never the same since then. No more joy and cheeriness. She was devastated.
    Autopsy showed her daughter died from anaphylactic shock from adverse reaction. It was only after someone found out Eliza Jane was Christine’s daughter that they said “ohh, wait a minute…in that case…she must have died of AIDS. Let’s say there was PCP in her lungs.”
    It’s too bad that a photo and micrograph of her lungs was sent to Texas in a court case by then, where it was in fact used as a CONTROL SAMPLE to compare a child that DID have pneumonia in their lungs.

    Do you understand this?
    Eliza Jane Scovil’s lungs were used as a control for what “normal” lungs look like to compare them to a child in Texas who actually had pneumonia. It’s too bad the morons at the coroner’s office didn’t realize this when they fraudulently declared the child died of PCP.
    In fact, Christine had a court date set for February to take this issue to court. She sadly died in December, but her husband kept fighting and won the case. So please…pretty please with a cherry on top, keep the lies to a minimum, as well as the sleazy slander.

    Here’s another thing: Nobody ever talks about the fact that her fist son, Charlie, was conceived long after Christine was diagnosed with “HIV+” status, and yet he is HIV-
    Her husband, after YEARS of (obvious) unprotected sex, remains HIV-

    You think he’s the dumbest man in the world?

    How about Karri Stokely and her husband in Florida? Admits hundreds of unprotected encounters sexually and yet…well, no seroconversion.

    Just look at the various studies that try and “prove HIV transmissibility” and what do they prove? Nothing. The most famous one of these studies that dissidents point out is the Padian et al study from 1996 where they had HUNDREDS of sero-discordant couples (one negative, one positive) and after the entire 10 year study was finished, despite numerous couples engaging in not just sex but UNPROTECTED sex, many many many times….NOT A SINGLE person seroconverted.

    It’s as if the obvious truth can be placed right in front of your idiotic faces and STILL you morons (maroons) can actually find a way to deny reality.

    Don’t accuse me of religious zealous beliefs. You are the ones who keep making excuses and can’t answer SIMPLE FUCKING QUESTIONS.

    Do you people even know anything about the history of HIV?

    You say the lady who runs this blog works “with HIV”? Why don’t you ask her to show you the scientific paper that proves HIV causes AIDS.
    It should be a simple document to obtain.

    But she won’t find it.

    And as far as I’m concerned, she can go fuck off too. We need people in this world that are willing to be truthful and ACTUALLY do science, not mindless lab techniques that require less brain power than a retarded chimpanzee has.

    Yea I said it.

    And if anyone offends Christine, so help me flying spaghetti monster I will beat the living shit out of you.

    have a pleasant day.
    idiots.

  52. #53 Tyler DiPietro
    June 11, 2009

    “First of all, you didn’t know christine, or her family, or what happened. And I would suggest being careful what you say about Christine. When she died I felt like a family member passed away. Consider any comments you make about her as though you were speaking about my own mother.”

    Christine Maggiore was a bitch and I’m glad she’s dead. Too bad there isn’t a hell for her to burn in.

  53. #54 CommonSense
    June 11, 2009

    Christine Maggiore was a bitch and I’m glad she’s dead. Too bad there isn’t a hell for her to burn in.

    If I ever meet you in real like I swear on my life I will hospitalize you.

  54. #55 Prometheus
    June 11, 2009

    Oh yea.

    Yea!
    .
    .
    .
    You just wait right there tough guy.
    .
    .

    Now you did it!
    .

    My mom is waiting for your mom in the 7-11 parking lot to unleash a crippled septuagenarian retired math professor Daughter of the American Revolution beat down on your punk ass mom and her back of the amortization bell curve home equity.

    Bring it bitch!

    I honestly have no idea what you guys are talking about.

    Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

  55. #56 Tyler DiPietro
    June 11, 2009

    “If I ever meet you in real like I swear on my life I will hospitalize you.”

    For real holmes, for real.

  56. #57 Mike Caton
    June 11, 2009

    CommonSense: I’m going to jump on the bandwagon from a different side. I noticed you posted a little link about stopping Obama’s healthcare plan. Those of us with a libertarian bent who oppose nationalizing health care don’t appreciate crackpots detracting from the arguments’ credibility. Please just stick to your arguments that bananas and lettuce can make you fly and immune to bullets.

    From a rhetorical standpoint – it’s interesting that as soon as a commenter identified someone with your convictions who caused damage (Christine Maggiore), you resort to the tactic of organized religion: “You aren’t aware of X Y and Z obscure event or doctrine, which disqualifies your opinion”, “You can’t question that”, “I’m offended”, “watch what you say”, “only I can talk about that”. Do you seriously expect that to work here? Your objection really makes you appear to be stifling inquiry, rather than welcoming it in the interest of persuading others of your argument’s value. And are you really spending all this time commenting on blogs when you could be helping people directly? Market forces apply to medicine too, you know – where are the hordes of people lining up for your health instruction? Or can a conspiracy so easily trump the market? In fact, how would you be behaving differently if you were (hypothetically) just a full of shit sad-sack and just looking for attention?

    Last question CommonSense – I’m starting medical school in the fall. How exactly do you expect them to indoctrinate/brainwash me with these looney ideas that viruses cause diseases (and crush your valuable dissent)? What should I watch out for? Or does my admission already guarantee I’m part of the conspiracy?

  57. #58 Jon H
    June 11, 2009

    Christine Maggiore was an evil woman who murdered her own daughter in order to glorify herself.

  58. #59 Mike Caton
    June 11, 2009

    I just read the article about Leung’s AIDS denialist movie. CommonSense, seems you’re not the only crank with a sore spot when someone mentions names of people whose delusions ultimately cost them their lives. Am I imagining the similarity in behavior patterns here:

    “In the middle of Kuritzkes’s speech Leung and several other audience members shouted over him, ‘This is not a panel!’ and, ‘Where’s the panel?’ The shouting reached a fever pitch when Kuritzkes began reading a list of names of AIDS denialists who allegedly died of complications from AIDS.”

    http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=90259

  59. #60 Prometheus
    June 11, 2009

    Christine Maggiore’s ghost and your mom just called. They offered me a triple interdimensional basket job with ectoplasmic photo finish. Can I borrow a quarter, a Ouija board and cab fare to alley behind Merchant Marine Hall?

    Hey ERV, this guy is an F5 fountain. Give him his own punishment corner. You can build Arnie a gold plated bitch barn with your crazy Shell Oil banner ad bucks.

    Or bet them against this guy’s mom’s house he’ll get hydrophobia if he wrestles a bunch of rabid skunks on You Tube.

    Either of these.

    I’m easy.

  60. #61 Chris Noble
    June 11, 2009

    ahh ‘commonsense’ you somehow forgot to address the point where I showed that you were ‘mistaken’ about the events leading up to Kimberley Bergalis being diagnosed with HIV.

    PS. If you want to threaten somebody with physical violence it is not a good idea to also brag that your diet consists mostly of bananas and lettuce.

  61. #62 olegt
    June 11, 2009

    Forget it, Chris. CommonSense uses the time-tested tactic known as the Gish gallop. He doesn’t care whether his arguments are right or wrong. He will just move on.

  62. #63 Tyler DiPietro
    June 11, 2009

    Fuck, you guys are all responding to him with substantive points and gay shit like that. I’m just trolling. I feel kinda bad.

  63. #64 CommonSense
    June 11, 2009

    What should I watch out for? Or does my admission already guarantee I’m part of the conspiracy?

    What is it with conspiracy? Did I EVER say this word? It’s not conspiracy. It’s just bad science. If you were to be starting psychiatry school I would tell you the same thing. It’s no conspiracy, it’s just bad science because it’s been polluted by money. Profit motives. It’s VERY simple.

    Here’s what happens when you go to med school:
    You get TRAINED in PROCEDURES. You can pass with an “A” or a “C” and it’s no different. Med school is incredibly intensive, you will have no time for pussyfooting around and considering the possibility that what you are being taught is not the best info and that’s that. You got tests to take, terms to memorize, patterns to recognize and there’s no time for wondering if say cholesterol really is a risk for heart disease, or if HIV really does cause AIDS and so on. There’s just no time to mess around with these ideas.

    And so you QUICKLY learn to brush off these concerns and laugh at people (or simply avoid them) who question what you are being taught. In fairness, med school is not a bad thing. Most of the things learned are indeed helpful in many cases. But the problem is the following:

    Medical school is basically predicated upon creating physicians that do certain things. The idea is to create a doctor who will be very much inline with what everyone else is saying such that there isn’t confusion. The most important thing is for the doctors to basically know what they can question and what they can’t question. Examples:

    What you can question:
    -Whether you feel like recommending complementary or alternative medicine to your patients.
    -If you should give b12 to people who are low in MMA tests via injections or with sublinguals
    -What product to recommend for someone with dandruff
    -How many glasses of water you tell your patients to have each day

    What you cannot question:
    -If treating symptoms with drugs is they way to give people health (it is, decades of the absolute best scientific research has proven this over and over)
    -Whether vaccines are safe and effective (they are, anyone who says different is a hippie idiot)
    -Whether chemotherapy is cruel and unusual punishment (it isn’t, chemo may not be the best option, but it’s the best we got. anyone who says you can treat cancer with rabbit food doesn’t understand neoplastic growths and in all likelihood, is a hippie idiot)
    -Whether the main causes of disease is anything other than viruses, bacteria/fungi, genetics or misshapen proteins (these are the causes of pretty much all major diseases. anyone who suggests it could be diet, environmental toxins, stressful living conditions and poor lifestyle habits is likely…a hippie idiot. as well as a possible communist).

    When you go to med school, it’s not OPTIONAL to disagree with certain tenants of modern medicine. Your job as a doctor is simple:

    -give vaccines to people
    -diagnose people with diseases
    then, match up disease symptoms with corresponding pharmaceutical and sign name on line.
    -attend “CE” courses, which are for the majority of them, more pharmaceutical adverts.
    -see as many patients in a day as possible because it’s all about making that dough, boy. And the more people you see, the more cash you get. Bottom line.

    Ohh yeah, and did I mention that you will have DEBT when you leave school, and you will need to start paying that back…like right away. The best way to do that is by working with your friendly pharmaceutical drug retail reps, making sure you push those pills, and so on…

    Doctors are really quite useless when you think about it. All this bullshit about having a “calling” and “wanting to help people” is COMPLETE bullshit and most med students know it. They want MONEY, man. Which is fine. It’s ok to want money…but not when you are not giving people the best care.

    Doctors right now are nothing more than pharmaceutical vending machines. They serve no legitimate function in insuring health. That’s the truth. The only ones that I respect are the ones who get out of med school and then write books questioning what they learned, and telling people how to be healthy, and that the system sucks.

    Doctors are not their own people. They are EMPLOYEES. Of who? Of Roche, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, GSK, etc, etc etc…

    Without the products these companies produce, there is no doctor. There is no “medicine.” There is no industry.

    You are asking if I think you are “part of the conspiracy?” There IS NO conspiracy. It’s just business as usual. No conspiracy at all. Just self-interest of the individual that blinds them from the concern of their peers and patients.

    Enjoy your 4 years. I am myself considering going to med school. I still don’t know if I wanna do it though because I will have to bite my tongue so much. I might just go into chiropractic instead, or naturopathy.

    But no, for the last time. No conspiracy.

  64. #65 minimalist
    June 11, 2009

    What is it with conspiracy? Did I EVER say this word? It’s not conspiracy. It’s just bad science.

    Oh okay.

    Thousands of scientists worldwide working directly with the viruses and witnessing their effects firsthand = BAD SCIENCE

    Profoundly crazy, retarded, ignorant idiot abusing an internet connection = GOOD SCIENCE

    Got it.

  65. #66 Militant Agnostic
    June 12, 2009

    I might just go into chiropractic instead, or naturopathy.

    It figures. He would fit right in.

    I go for the B12 deficiency hypothesis – aggravating an underlying mental illness.

  66. #67 Prometheus
    June 12, 2009

    #163

    “Fuck, you guys are all responding to him with substantive points and gay shit like that. I’m just trolling. I feel kinda bad.”

    Not me Tyler. My posts, like Christine Maggiore have no substance.

    Get it? See it’s funny cause she’s dead. See what I did there?

    Where is my threat? What am I? Chopped lettuce?

    Sorry. I am really tired and I had ham for dinner. My immune system is compromised and an HIV goblin is probably sneaking down the chimney.

  67. #68 CommonSense
    June 12, 2009

    I go for the B12 deficiency hypothesis – aggravating an underlying mental illness.
    Actually I’m really good on my b12 stores. The most common cause of b12 problems (which by the way affect meat eaters just as well as vegans) is problems with parietal cells in the stomach. Low HCl production and intrinsic factor secretion are in fact the most significant causes of b12 issues. It’s not actually getting the b12. There are papers in Nature and in Science and in the Journal of Clinical Nutrition that analyze plant sources and find b12 in things like organic tomatoes, strawberries etc…
    I have read many researchers state that they think the b vitamins are almost always found together in all whole food sources…hence “b-COMPLEX” as they are called.

    Nevertheless, I have optimal Methylmalonic Acid levels indicative of adequate b12 levels actually. I also have all other nutrients and minerals in the body at optimal levels. I live in a very sunny state and so my vitamin D levels are perfect. The thing I really like about my diet and my state of health is that I never get fatigued. I lift weights and I can do the same exact muscle groups the very next day, literally 24 hour recuperation cycles. Most weight trainers will brag about how tough their workout was because they were “sore for three days”…lol. These folks done understand that’s not a good thing. That’s indicative of the fact that your body is not able to go into optimal anabolism and repair.
    These are the same idiots who die of renal and hepatic disorders in their 40′s and 50′s due to their tubs of concentrated protein they eat. It amazes my how people can look at soy protein and think “wow, yummy. only 50 bucks!? What a deal”

    Idiots.

    Hey you know what, I’m not an internet tough guy. I’m standing up for something I know is right.

    All you guys who are making comments about Christine Maggiore, I won’t lie, that hurts to read them. I truly loved that woman for all she did and how selfless she was, but I understand that people view her as the enemy or as some deranged idiot mom.

    Let me just make a few points that some of you may not know:

    -Kary Mullis…the inventor of PCR technology that allows all this genetic sequencing research to even exist is an unwaivering AIDS Dissident.

    -Peter Duesberg, a member of the National Academy of Science is an AIDS Dissident. Even though the mainstream has completely backlashed against him, his views on cancer are interesting enough that they are willing to “overlook” his AIDS dissidence and give him interviews and publish his thoughts on his chromosomal-level cancer link (as opposed to single gene link that most research is looking at)

    -Dr. Rodney Richards. He was working with Abbott Labs literally responsible for developing the so called HIV tests. His advice? “HIV tests of all kinds should be banned immediately and never used again. For anything. They do not detect a virus.”

    Again, you have many many more highly recognized scientists on the list of rethinkers and many who voice support from behind the scenes but don’t go public themselves out of fear of being ostracized. And there is plenty to fear. Just look at the reactions I got here. And I’m not even a tenured researcher or professor.

    I think it’s odd that Lynn Margulis is on the list. Most people don’t know that.

    So we take Margulis’s theory on endosymbiosis. And we take Mullis’s PCR technology, and Duesberg’s aneuploidy theories, but when they mention HIV they MUST be idiots and lunatics, right?

    Right. These aren’t “REAL” scientists after all right? I mean, PCR? Any old fool could have thought of that. Endosymbiosis? What a crackpot theory. And aneuploidy theory of cancer? Please…that was disproven decades ago.

    These aren’t scientists, these are DENIALISTS.

    So, lets do this…lets make straw man arguments about these people and then proceed to make them look incompetent and moronic. Wonderful!

    Can anyone explain to me why THESE people think HIV doesn’t cause AIDS? It seems for all intents and purposes they are quite…well..intelligent people. They are believing in some big giant lie though. How could they be so duped? Is it sufficient to just call them cranks and nutters?

    They’re certainly not doing it for the money. Most of them have had funding removed (Duesberg)
    or even lost their jobs due to their views (Rebecca Culshaw, Dr. Andrew Maniotis).

    Is it really enough to explain why rational, apparently very bright and intelligent researchers in high positions are holding these opinions?
    Does calling them wackos really answer the question of why do they believe what they believe? Is there a chance they are right and everyone else is wrong? How can we be sure?
    Have you heard all of their claims and concerns?
    If not, should you be able to justifiably dismiss them without investigation?

    These are important questions.

  68. #69 Robert Smith
    June 12, 2009

    CommonSense Said:
    We now know the cause of KS is almost without question due to ONLY the use of nitrite/nitrate inhalants that were popularized for usage within the gay community due to their dilation effect on the blood vessels, which translates into both a kind of “high” (I am told) and more importantly it makes anal sex less painful for the recipient.”

    “KS is traditionally a disease that was seen in ONLY Mediterranean men in their later years and it occurred at their ankles, for COMPLETELY different reasons and causes. The KS we saw in the “AIDS” patients remains to this day ONLY in those who do poppers.

    “People in Africa, they don’t get KS.”

    African children must be very resourceful in order to travel outside Africa to get and use poppers, so they can develop Kaposi’s Sarcoma and get back home in time to be noticed in the hospital systems there.

    See: Non-infective pulmonary disease in HIV-positive children. Pediatr Radiol. 2009 Jun;39(6):555-64.

    and:
    Kaposi sarcoma in children with HIV: a clinical series from Red Cross Children’s Hospital. J Pediatr Surg. 2009 Feb;44(2):373-6.

  69. #70 LanceR, JSG
    June 12, 2009

    Is there a chance they are right and everyone else is wrong?

    No.

    How can we be sure?

    By using science to test their claims. It’s been done, and they are wrong.

    Have you heard all of their claims and concerns?

    Unless they’ve come up with something new, then yes.

    If not, should you be able to justifiably dismiss them without investigation?

    It’s been investigated and found to be wrong. On many different levels.

    These are important questions.

    No. These are irrelevant distractions. The questions have been asked and answered, and now defense is simply badgering the witness.

    You may want to check out “Why People Believe Weird Things” by Michael Shermer. It would be a much better use of your time than trying to impress adults with your adolescent fantasies.

    Stop lying and learn to read. And the vague threats just make you look foolish.

  70. #71 minimalist
    June 12, 2009

    So we take Margulis’s theory on endosymbiosis. And we take Mullis’s PCR technology, and Duesberg’s aneuploidy theories, but when they mention HIV they MUST be idiots and lunatics, right?

    Aaaaand yet another appeal to authority from the ranting loonball.

    You have no idea how science works. None.

    Every scientist, no matter how eminent, will have each and every idea evaluated on the quality of their evidence.

    The denialists have none, and in fact have a boatload of counterfactual claims, as others have nicely demonstrated in this thread (most recently, Robert Smith’s post immediately above).

    Evidence. That’s how science sorts out the good ideas from the bad. Shocking concept, I know!

    Unfortunately, until the day comes when science accepts ideas on the basis of whether they make you feel morally superior to all those filthy homosexuals and drug users and African mud people who don’t live “cleanly” like you do, you’re shit out of luck and will continue to be treated like like the ignorant asshole you are.

  71. #72 Albatrossity
    June 12, 2009

    And just to remind you about a comment (#147) above that you are ignoring, mr. internet tough guy, fruit does rot on trees as surely as you are rotting in your mom’s basement.

    Let me know when you are coming to beat me up. I’ll clear my schedule.

  72. #73 CommonSense
    June 12, 2009

    As far as fruit rotting on trees give it up man. You’re missing the point. When the tree is grown in optimal conditions without use of pesticides and chemicals and synthetic fertilizers, you do not see fruit rotting on the tree. If you do, it is because the whole tree is unhealthy.

    Go to the pristine areas of Peru and check the mangoes on the trees and see if you can find an area where they are growing naturally and find me a diseased fruit on the tree.

    Go to Bordeaux in France and check the grapes there in the countryside and tell me what you see.

    Here is MY point. The integrity of the individual, and the resistance to disease is related to their nutritional status and their level of overall health. It is NOT related to how many vaccines they have received. It is not related to their HMO.

    If you want to dispute this that’s fine. If you want to pick at details, go ahead. There are always cases where you may see some of the fruit on the trees get bruised up from wind, or they are grown in improper soil conditions and thus have no natural resistance to insects, who begin to chew through the skin, exposing the inside of the fruit to the outside and thus allowing oxidation to occur. And guess what happens after that? Yeah…it might rot on the tree. But you’re missing the point by clinging onto these threads.

    I’m not making an all or nothing statement. But here’s what I AM saying…take an orange tree for example:

    Notice 10 oranges that all are about the same “age”, that is, they all began as little buds at the same time, and they are all relatively the same size. As soon as they appear almost ripe, you randomly select 5 of them and you snap them off the tree and you set them down below it. You monitor the 5 you snapped off the tree and the 5 still remaining on the tree.

    You let the days go by and notice which ones get moldy first. What you will notice is that the 5 you pluck off the tree will go bad virtually ALWAYS before the ones on the tree. In fact, the ones on the tree only will go bad after they fall from the tree naturally on their own.

    That’s all I’m saying. Get over yourself. Yes I acknowledge your point from comment #147, yes. OK, not ignoring. There you have it. I hope that clarifies my point.

    And like I said, if vaccines were so important for immune health, why do we not vaccinate wild animals and they remain fine. Why do we not vaccinate fruits and veggies (after all, someone said they do have immune systems too)…

    As far as KS in children in Africa, it has been documented that such a disease was found in African children (albeit an extremely small percentage) decades and decades ago. Out of all the cases of what we call “AIDS” in Africa, do you know how common KS is? Compare that to the Incidence of KS in homosexual men with AIDS in the 1980s. Are you kidding me? Gay men were getting KS like it was their job. Africans were getting this disease at rates less than 1/1000th if not even less often and these cases were nowhere near the same as the obvious and pronounced lesions on the homosexual mens’ upper torso and respiratory region.

    Here’s what the paper you cited states:
    “Before the HIV epidemic, this hospital treated one patient with Kaposi sarcoma every 4 years; the incidence has now increased to 2 patients per year.”

    Does this sound like:
    - An epidemic?
    - Statistically significant?
    - Diagnosis bias?

    And yea, KS is something you can DEFINITELY have some wiggle room in the diagnosis. I can guarantee that many of those kids who had the diagnosis of KS could easily have been determined to fit the same etiological patterns of those children decades before the AIDS era who had the same symptoms.
    I’ll bet you that.

    Again, it’s the same old song and dance. You can use that kind of statistic to suggest KS is caused by an infectious agent. But when I point to similar finding about autism in relationship to the total amount of vaccination that has increased by 3 to 5 fold since the 70′s, people start to tell me “well, this is very likely due to diagnosing bias.”
    And when I say the reason we have stories of children with KS increasing could very well be due to similar bias, it is told to me this is impossible.

    The rules don’t apply to everyone who toes the line. I know how it works. You find any reason you can to discredit those who question you.

    Appreciate the response though, without the slander.

  73. #74 LanceR, JSG
    June 12, 2009

    why do we not vaccinate wild animals and they remain fine.

    Demonstrably false.

    Rabies.
    Tularemia.
    Pasturellosis.
    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol4no2/wolfe.htm Wild primate populations & infectious diseases.

    That wooshing sound? That’s the goalposts moving.

    Oh, and Karposi’s Sarcoma is pretty obvious, even to the untrained eye. Autism? Not so much. But a good attempt at irrelevancy to change the subject!

    Slander is a very specific legal charge. Calling you an idiot does not apply. You are demonstrably an idiot.

    Go tell your mother she wants you.

  74. #75 Stephen Wells
    June 12, 2009

    When someone can claim that fruit doesn’t rot on trees, be confronted with evidence that it does (commonly, frequently, in fact), and claim people are missing the point, you know that the “point” was never anything more than “I’m right, no matter what”.

  75. #76 JohnV
    June 12, 2009

    Wild animals in the south west United States come down with Yersinia pestis infections and periodically pass them along to humans.

    Anyhow, still waiting for thoughts on why sham inoculations and inoculation with certain mutant strains of a bacteria don’t cause disease while the wild-type causes a lethal infection.

  76. #77 Albatrossity
    June 12, 2009

    CS

    You initially made the blanket assertion that fruit does not rot on trees.

    I showed that this blanket assertion was wrong.

    Your eventual response (after initially ignoring the fact that you are wrong) was to point out that sometimes fruit doesn’t rot on trees (or grapevines, now), or that if you pick them, they might rot faster, or that any tree with rotten fruit must be unhealthy. That’s not an intellectually honest response; that is, as LanceR pointed out, moving the goalposts.

    An intellectually honest response would be to admit that your original blanket assertion is incorrect. But since you seem to be congenitally incapable of doing that, I’ll help out.

    Your original assertion was wrong.

    As are most of the rest of your assertions, by the way. But since others have been pointing that out to you quite successfully, I’ll just get out of the way now.

    Carry on.

  77. #78 olegt
    June 12, 2009

    CommonSense wrote:

    Go to Bordeaux in France and check the grapes there in the countryside and tell me what you see.

    Indeed, let’s see how they make a desert wine known as Sauternes:

    Sauternes is a French dessert wine from the Sauternais region of the Graves section in Bordeaux. Sauternes is made from Sémillon, Sauvignon Blanc, and Muscadelle grapes that have been affected by Botrytis cinerea, also known as noble rot.

    And while we’re at it, let’s look up noble rot:

    Noble rot (French: pourriture noble; German: Edelfäule; Italian: Muffa) is the benevolent form of a grey fungus, Botrytis cinerea, affecting wine grapes. Infestation by Botrytis requires moist conditions, and if the weather stays wet, the malevolent form, “grey rot”, can destroy crops of grapes. Grapes typically become infected with Botrytis when they are ripe, but when then exposed to drier conditions become partially raisined and the form of infection brought about by the partial drying process is known as noble rot.

    Those grape vines must be sick. Them twisted French!

  78. #79 Lee
    June 12, 2009

    Here is all you need to know about CommonSense:

    CommonSense says:
    “The most famous one of these studies that dissidents point out is the Padian et al study from 1996 where they had HUNDREDS of sero-discordant couples (one negative, one positive) and after the entire 10 year study was finished, despite numerous couples engaging in not just sex but UNPROTECTED sex, many many many times….NOT A SINGLE person seroconverted.”

    Here is the abstract from Padian et al:

    Heterosexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in Northern California: Results from a Ten-year Study
    Nancy S. Padian1, Stephen C. Shiboski2, Sarah O. Glass1 and Eric Vittinghoff3

    1Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, CA
    2Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, CA
    3San Francisco Department of Public Health San Francisco, CA

    To examine rates of and risk factors for heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the authors conducted a prospective study of infected individuals and their heterosexual partners who have been recruited since 1985. Participants were recruited from health care providers, research studies, and health departments throughout Northern California, and they were interviewed and examined at various study clinic sites. A total of 82 infected women and their male partners and 360 infected men and their female partners were enrolled. Over 90% of the couples were monogamous for the year prior to entry into the study; <3% had a current sexually transmitted disease (STD). The median age of participants was 34 years, and the majority were white. Over 3,000 couple-months of data were available for the follow-up study. Overall, 68 (19%) of the 360 female partners of HIV-infected men (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.0–23.3%) and two (2.4%) of the 82 male partners of HIV-infected women (95% CI 0.3–8.57%) were infected. History of sexually transmitted diseases was most strongly associated with transmission. Male-to-female transmission was approximately eight times more efficient than female-to-male transmission and male-to-female per contact infectivity was estimated to be 0.0009 (95% CI 0.0005–0.001). Overtime, the authors observed increased condom use (p < 0.001) and no new infections. Infectivity for HIV through heterosexual transmission is low, and STDs may be the most important cofactor for transmission. Significant behavior change over time in serodiscordant couples was observed. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:350-7.

  79. #80 W. Kevin Vicklund
    June 12, 2009

    The less than symbol garbles anything after it because it signifies the beginning of an html tag. I’ve replaced the symbol with [less than] to show the full abstract.

    To examine rates of and risk factors for heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the authors conducted a prospective study of infected individuals and their heterosexual partners who have been recruited since 1985. Participants were recruited from health care providers, research studies, and health departments throughout Northern California, and they were interviewed and examined at various study clinic sites. A total of 82 infected women and their male partners and 360 infected men and their female partners were enrolled. Over 90% of the couples were monogamous for the year prior to entry into the study; [less than] 3% had a current sexually transmitted disease (STD). The median age of participants was 34 years, and the majority were white. Over 3,000 couple-months of data were available for the follow-up study. Overall, 68 (19%) of the 360 female partners of HIV-infected men (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.0-23.3%) and two (2.4%) of the 82 male partners of HIV-infected women (95% CI 0.3-8.5%) were infected. History of sexually transmitted diseases was most strongly associated with transmission. Male-to-female transmission was approximately eight-times more efficient than female-to-male transmission and male-to-female per contact infectivity was estimated to be 0.0009 (95% CI 0.0005-0.001). Over time, the authors observed increased condom use (p [less than] 0.001) and no new infections. Infectivity for HIV through heterosexual transmission is low, and STDs may be the most important cofactor for transmission. Significant behavior change over time in serodiscordant couples was observed.

  80. #81 LanceR, JSG
    June 12, 2009

    **shocked**

    Do you mean to say that CommonNonSense was… **gasp** LYING?

    I am shocked! Shocked! To find gambling in Rick’s!

    Whoops, wrong movie…

    In short, CommonNonSense is a serial liar, an “Internet Tough Guy”, roughly 12-15 years old, and lives in his mom’s basement. Am I missing anything? Oh… and he’s got severe diarrhea from all the fruit in his diet.

  81. #82 CommonSense
    June 12, 2009

    *sigh*

    Why is it that people who think they are defending science believe it is OK to act like idiots?

  82. #83 CommonSense
    June 12, 2009
  83. #84 minimalist
    June 12, 2009

    Because it’s fun and because you deserve no better.

    Of course, you’re not going to bother to address the latest demolitions of your claims. You know you can’t. But you will continue to blurp your stupidity here, or elsewhere, as though your claims hold any merit whatsoever.

    This is why most people find it more entertaining, and a better use of time, to mock you, and your mommy-worship of an ex-porn starlet-turned-AIDS-denialist.

  84. #85 Chris Noble
    June 12, 2009

    So we take Margulis’s theory on endosymbiosis. And we take Mullis’s PCR technology, and Duesberg’s aneuploidy theories, but when they mention HIV they MUST be idiots and lunatics, right?

    Margulis is also a 911 truther. Mullis believes in astrology, the Urantia book and denies anthropogenic global warming and that CFCs cause ozone depletion.

    So yes these people demonstrate that it it is completely possible to make an important scientific contribution in one field of science while being a complete idiot and raving lunatic when they speak about subjects outside of their own expertise.

  85. #86 LanceR, JSG
    June 12, 2009

    Oh! I’m wounded! A serial liar, Internet Tough Guy, barely pubescent, living in mommy’s basement, twit with chronic diarrhea thinks *we’re* acting like idiots!

    **sproing** Dammit! That’s the fifth irony meter this week! You owe me fifty bucks, Nonsense!

  86. #87 cooler
    June 13, 2009

    Please cite and briefly explain the overwhelming evidence that proved HIV was a fatal disease that Justified AZT’s release in 1987. Waiting.

  87. #88 Lee
    June 13, 2009

    cooler:

    here is a review article from 1987. Note that in 1987, we already had the complete sequence and genomic organization of the virus. Note that it references the epedemiological studies, showing HIV preferentially in AIDS and pre-AIDS (ARC) patients.

    Not especially, cooler, the pictures of budding HIV virus, in 1987. And note the reference ot known and published methods for isolating HIV from patients and culturing it, as a definitive diagnosis for HIV.

    there are many more such review articles from around 1987, cooler.

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=2590378&pageindex=7#page

  88. #89 Lee
    June 13, 2009

    By 1985, AZT was shown to inhibit HIV replication in vitro, at concentrations of ~ 1-5uM. It was known from previous work that this concentration was achievable in vivo, in patients, with manageable (although nasty) side effects. It was also known tahat the compound had high oral bioavailability, and that it had reasonably good penetration into CNS tissues, so AZT was selected for clinical trials in patients with AIDS.

    A Phase I clinical trial in 1985 showed that AZT therapy could at least partially reconstitute immune system function in late-state AIDS patients. IOW, it was shown in 1985 that a therapy chosen because it targeted HIV replication, gave the hoped-for immune system response.

    A multi-center, placebo-controlled Phase 2 study was initiated, in 262 patients who had been diagnosed with AIDS and had PC, or who had been diagnosed with ARC. This study was terminated prematurely in September 1986, because of observed significant differences in survival rates – 19 placebo patients died, and 1 AZT patient. In addition the AZT patients had dramatically fewer opportunistic infections, and significantly improved T4 lymphocyte counts, as well as reduced serum titers of p24 antigen, reflecting reduced titers of virus.

    So, a compound chosen because it inhibits HIV, when given to AIDs patients, dramatically reduced AIDS mortality, dramatically reduced AIDS-related opportunistic infections, improved T4 counts, and reduced HIV titers.

    A planned placebo-controlled Phase 3 trial was scrapped, largely because of demands from dying AIDS patients for access to AZT.

    A fast-track process was created, and 6 months later AZT was licensed for treatment of AIDS and advanced ARC patients. A condition of licensing was ongoing monitoring and studies – which continue to this day.

    BTW, a good friend of mine was one of those men in 1986 – 1987 praying and hoping for access to AZT – he was on his deathbed, with PCP, KS, and thrush, a week or two at most from dying, and AZT saved his life. He was one of the lucky ones for whom AZT monotherapy remained effective long enough to bridge him to multi-drug therapies and HAART – but was again on his deathbed from PCP and KS once during that transition. AZT remains part of his HAART therapy to this day.

  89. #90 cooler
    June 13, 2009

    Lee et al,
    Just cite and briefly describe the describe the experiments that proved HIV was a fatal infection that proved HIV was a fatal infection that Justified AZT’s release in 1987, I would think there should be overwhelming evidence for people to take such a dangerous drug.

    Spamming a Url is not evidence, it would get one laughed out of a courtroom and flunked out of any class.

    All I can find is Gallo barely being able isolate a virus in 26/72 people and Levy being able to not fare much better at 22/45. If this was the basis to put people on AZT the rest of their lives, than this is a sick joke. So this whole hypothesis was based on a partial correlation with a microbe that was so difficult to isolate because it was barely there? Pretty sad Duesberg is totally correct, the whole thing was invented at a press conference.

    Prove me wrong by citing and briefly describing the studies that justified AZT’s release in 1987, remember no spamming websites.

  90. #91 Hu
    June 13, 2009

    From the Padian et al. article (the full text is available, see link):

    We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study.

    Apparently the HIV-positive partners of the participants had been infected before the study, so CS wasn’t lying about that particular bit. However, (s)he didn’t exactly bend over backwards to avoid miscomprehensions about the rest. There weren’t hundreds of couples engaging in unprotected sex for ten years and not getting infected, but:

    Forty-seven couples who remained in follow-up for 3 months to 6 years used condoms intermittently, and no seroconversions occurred among exposed partners.

  91. #92 Lee
    June 13, 2009

    Cooler:
    “All I can find is Gallo barely being able isolate a virus in 26/72 people and Levy being able to not fare much better at 22/45.”

    Cooler, you have been corrected on this multiple times – stop lying.

    Here are a few of the more significant relevant key papers from 1987 and earlier. They show a pattern of detection and ISOLATION (yes,cooler, isolation, from well before 1987) of HIV, and detection and localization in tissues, from people with AIDS, pre-AIDS and ARC, or at risk of AIDS, but not – read the controls in those papers, cooler – from people not at risk for AIDS. Together, these and the others – I could go on – form an overwhelming picture.

    Barre-Sinoussi et al 1983. Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Science.

    Popovic et al 1984. Detection, Isolationa nd continuous production of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS. Science.

    Gallo et al 1984. Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathis retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. Science.

    Feorino et al 1984. Lymphadenopathy associated virus infection of a blood donor recipient pair with acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Science.

    Levy et al 1984. Isolation of lymphocytopathic viruses from San Francisco patients with AIDS. Science.

    Zagury et al 1984. HTLV-III in cells cultured from semen of two patients with AIDS. Science.

    Sarngadharin et al 1984. Antibodies reactive with human T-lymphotropic retrovirus (HTLV-III) in the serum of patients with AIDS. Science.

    Thiry et al 1985. Isolation of AIDS virus from cell-free breast milk of three healthy virus carriers. Lancet.

    Palmer et al 1985. Morphology and immunoelectron microscopy of AIDS virus. Archives of Virology.

    Gelderblom et al. 1985 Fine structure of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and immunolocalization of structural proteins. Virology.

    Ratner et al 1985. Complete nucleotide sequence of the AIDS virus, HTLV-III. Nature.

    Schupback et al 1985. Antibodies to HTLV-III in Swiss patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS and in groups at risk for AIDS. NEJM.

    Petricciani, 1985. Licensed tests for antibodies to human T-lymphotropic virus Type III. Sensitivity and specificity. Ann Int Med.

    Carlson et al 1985. AIDS serology testing in low and high risk groups. JAMA

    Ho et al 1985. Isolation of HTLV-III from cerebrospinal fluid and neural tissue of patients with neurological symptoms related to the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. NEJM.

    Duncan et al 1986. Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, HTLV-III, and HTLV-III antibody in the wife of a man with transfusion-acquired AIDS. Am J Med.

    Griffith 1987. Principles of laboratory isolation and identification of the human immunodeficiency firus (HIV). Yale Jrnl Biol Med.

    Vogt et al 1986. Isolation of HTLV-III/LAV from cervical secretions of women at risk for AIDS. Lancet.

    Ward et al 1987. Risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection from blood donors who later developed the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Ann Int Med.

    CDC 1987. Human immunodeficiency virus infection in transfusion recipients and their family members. MMWR

  92. #93 cooler
    June 13, 2009

    Sorry partial correlations don’t remotely prove causality. Finding a virus in less than half of “AIDS” patients does not prove anything, neither does stretching the latent from 10 months to 10 years (Duesberg inventing the AIDS Virus), when your pet microbe turns up in totally healthy people, not to mention the lack of an animal model.

    This is not even mentioning what a difficult time Gallo had to isolate the virus, because it was barely there, he could only isolate it by using stimulants, and admitted it only infected a very small % of t cells. This virus fails every single one of Koch’s postulates. This is all you have to justify people taking AZT the rest of their lives, a long term cell killing blood transfusing chemotherapy?

    Since you just gave me a bunch of references with no specifics to their data, let me ask you a question, how many people with “AIDS” were Gallo and Levy able to isolate HIV from?

  93. #94 Lee
    June 13, 2009

    oh, cooler, yo magnificent idiot.

    You claimed you couldn’t find anything except Levy and Gallo. I posted a whole crapload of relevant papers – and you respond by ignoring everything except Levy and Gallo.

    Oh, and – Levy looked at 86 AIDS patients, and found HIV antibodies in all 86. 100%.

    He randomly selected 45 of them, and attempted to culture HIV from them. He succeeded in 22 of the 45, for an ~ 50% SUCCESSFUL CULTURE rate – despite, as you pointed out, the difficulty the early experimenters had in culturing HIV at all. IOW,Levy found antibody evidence of HIV in 100% of his aids patients, and confirmed that with virus culture and isolating in 22, or 1/4 of those cases.

    He looked at high risk men – sexualy ative gay men – and found a very high percentage of them ahd HIV antibodies, indicating a very large pool of infected but not overtly symptomatic people, who were at risk for AIDS because of the infection.

    This was in 1984. Levy’s work in 1984 predicted a massive surge of AIDS cases, because of the high level of latent infection. Anyone remember what happened to gay men in SF in 1985 – 1990? I do – many of us refer to those years as “the plague years.” Levy was right.

    cooler, your refusal to admit so much of the evidence, does not mean it does not exist.

  94. #95 Lee
    June 13, 2009

    And Gallo et al 1984 – he SUCCESSFULLY ISOLATED VIRUS from:

    18/21 pre-AIDS patients
    3/4 clinically healthy mothers of children with AIDS
    26/72 AIDS patients (with a high proportion of degraded serum samples to start from)

    And in his controls:
    1/22 clinically healthy homosexual men
    0/115 clinically healthy heterosexual subjects

    cooler, this paper isn’t proof – no single paper is proof – but it is compelling evidence. Look at the numbers in the controls. And the combination of ALL the MASSIVE amount of other evidence, only some of which I cited above, was overwhelming evidence for HIV as the cause of AIDS even in 1987. Only 3 years after identifying HIV. We have 22 additional years of data since – 8 times as many years, many orders f magnitude more papers – and the evidence is overwhelming.

  95. #96 cooler
    June 13, 2009

    First of you pathetic liar, even 100% correlations don’t prove causality, or I should get the Nobel prize discovering wrinkles cause death in old people.

    Second of all, Levy and Sarngadharin et al found a whole lot of antibody in healthy people, but you can stretch the latent period to 10 years to get around that!

    What your basically saying if a microbe is barely present at all in less than half of people with a disease, and you can only find antibodies, antibodies that are also present to a lesser degree in healthy people this justifies a massive terror campaign of AZT consumption? They teach this in stats class you moron, half-assed correlations like this don’t prove anything.

  96. #97 cooler
    June 13, 2009

    “Antibodies to ARV were found in all 86 AIDS patients and in a high percentage of 88 other homosexual men in San Francisco.”

    Classic! Levy et al found Antibodies in almost as many non-AIDS patients! We must extend the window period to 10 years to get around this!

    Isolation of lymphocytopathic retroviruses from San Francisco patients with AIDS
    JA Levy, AD Hoffman, SM Kramer, JA Landis, JM Shimabukuro, and LS Oshiro

    Infectious retroviruses have been detected in 22 of 45 randomly selected patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and in other individuals from San Francisco. The AIDS-associated retroviruses (ARV) studied in detail had a type D morphology, Mg2+-dependent reverse transcriptase, and cytopathic effects on lymphocytes. The viruses can be propagated in an established adult human T cell line, HUT-78. They cross-react with antiserum to the lymphadenopathy-associated retrovirus isolated from AIDS patients in France. Antibodies to ARV were found in all 86 AIDS patients and in a high percentage of 88 other homosexual men in San Francisco. This observation indicates the widespread presence of these lymphocytopathic retroviruses and their close association with AIDS.

  97. #98 Lee
    June 13, 2009

    cooler’s on autopilot – Levy! Gallo!

    Yes in 1984, Levy found HIV in a high proportion fo otherwise healthy gay men n SF. I remember what happened to gay men in SF, between 1994 – 1990. A very, very high percentage of them died. From AIDS. As I said above – cooler, do you read more than GAllo! Levy!?

    Cooler, do yo have any intention of addressing all the other evidence from pre-197? Or are you going to coninue on autopilit – Levy! Gallo!?

  98. #99 LanceR, JSG
    June 14, 2009

    See, the problem with arguing with Cooler is that he has no interest whatsoever in actually discussing reality. He has an ideological bias against the whole idea that HIV=AIDS, and he has latched onto Levy! Gallo! as his escape route.

    If he and other AIDS denialists had any contact with reality, we could discuss the many times when otherwise healthy people were deliberately/accidentally injected with HIV tainted fluids and subsequently developed AIDS. Of course, this would directly contradict their wishful fantasy and will thus be completely ignored.

  99. #100 cooler
    June 14, 2009

    “all from the metropolitan Zurich area of Switzerland. All the AIDS and pre-AIDS pateints were positive for antibodies; 36% of the drug addicts, 10% of healthy homosexual men and 8.4% of the hepatitis patients were also positive but none of the other patients or blood donors was. ”

    Wow! AIDS negative drug addicts, healthy homosexuals, Hepatitis patients testing positive! Lets just give them a nice long window period and some AZT to get them sick if they are not already!

    Schupback et al 1985. Antibodies to HTLV-III in Swiss patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS and in groups at risk for AIDS. NEJM.

    Abstract:

    The authors used 3 assays, an ELISA based on disrupted HTLV-III and 2 strip radioimmunoassays based on the Western blot technique using either purified virus or extracts of cells producing the virus, to screen sera from patients with AIDS (10) or pre-AIDS (10), hepatitis (83), other disorders (10) as well as from healthy homosexual men (40), intravenous drug addicts (103), and healthy blood donors of both sexes and of unknown sexual preference (83), all from the metropolitan Zurich area of Switzerland. All the AIDS and pre-AIDS pateints were positive for antibodies; 36% of the drug addicts, 10% of healthy homosexual men and 8.4% of the hepatitis patients were also positive but none of the other patients or blood donors was. Antibodies to the p24 core protein were found consistently and at high titres in seropositive numbers of at-risk groups and pre-AIDS individuals but were dramatically reduced in AIDS patient but antibodies to the p41 envelope protein were present in all AIDS and pre-AIDS patients but absent in some 10% of seropositive people at risk. The value of the ELISA for screening but not other purposes because of false-positive results is stressed. [A large survey of nearly 7000 blood donors, in Germany, revealed that 0.16% were infected with HTLV-III (see Lancet, 1985, i, 275-276).]
    D.W. FitzSimons

    Oh jeez here goes your correlation, out of 22 antibody positives only 2 went on to get AIDS!

    Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984;289:573-575 (8 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.289.6445.573
    Seroepidemiology of HTLV-III antibody in Danish homosexual men: prevalence, transmission, and disease outcome.

    M Melbye, R J Biggar, P Ebbesen, M G Sarngadharan, S H Weiss, R C Gallo, W A Blattner
    Sera taken from 250 Danish homosexual men in December 1981 as part of a prospective study of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) were examined for the presence of HTLV-III antibody with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Antibody was present in 22 (8.8%) of the men. Seropositivity was most strongly associated with sexual exposure to men in the United States (relative risk 3.5; p less than 0.007). Increased frequency of anal receptive intercourse was also independently associated with seropositivity (p less than 0.05), but age, years of homosexual experience, number of homosexual partners, and use of nitrite inhalant were not independent risk factors. The frequency of seroconversion from absence to presence of HTLV-III antibody appeared to be about 1% a month in this community during December 1981 to February 1983. Of the 22 men who were originally seropositive, two (9%) subsequently developed AIDS as defined by the Centre for Disease Control and two (9%) others the AIDS related complex. Blood was taken in addition from two of the men to develop AIDS earliest in Denmark (diagnosed 1981) at the same time as the initial survey in 1981; both were seropositive. The spread of HTLV-III from high to low risk areas and the subsequent appearance of illnesses related to AIDS in the seropositive group support the hypothesis that HTLV-III is causally related to the development of AIDS.

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