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  • Outdated, discredited, or simply flat-out scientifically wrong hypotheses presented as real scientific controversies!
  • Pro-outdated-discredited-wrong ‘scientists’ persecuted, ostracized by TEH MAN!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 W. Kevin Vicklund
    June 14, 2009

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

    …in the first 28 months of the study. The follow-up studies show a much different picture.

    Progression to Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Is Influenced by CD4 T-Lymphocyte Count and Time Since Seroconversion. Kamilla Begtrup, Mads Melbye, Robert J. Biggar, James J. Goedert, Kim Knudsen, and
    Per Kragh Andersen. AJE 1997

    This paper included the same cohort as the paper cooler cited, plus an American cohort of similar size and demographics, from 1981-1995, 11+ years longer. Excluding those members that died of non-AIDS-related causes, the original 21 HIV+ men in the Danish study were joined by 48 the seroconverted during the study. Of these 69 men, 37 were diagnosed with AIDS by 1995 (a related paper shows that an additional 4 AIDS cases were diagnosed by September 1996)

    37/69 = 53% (and a higher percentage in the US cohort)

    The study also showed (for both the cohorts) that there is a very low risk of being diagnosed with AIDS within the first 3 years of seroconversion, after which it dramatically increases. The risk then remains fairly constant for 3-9 years, and then begins to decline after 10 years. Exactly what we’d expect if HIV (a) caused AIDS, and (b) had a long latency period.

  2. #2 Lee
    June 14, 2009

    Cooler, in the 14 months of that study, 18% of seropositive individuals developed either AIDS or ARC. The study was done with sera taken in 1981, in the very early days of the epidemic in Denmark – most seropositive men in Denmark in 1981 would have been very newly infected, within the previous year.

    By February 1983, within 2 years or less of the seropositive determination, almost 1 in 5 of those men were diagnosed with AIDS or ARC.

    Cooler, that study is a snapshot of the very early days of a tragedy in progress. That you can somehow read this to indicate that HIV has noting to do with AIDS, just shows how unbelievably committed you are to your ideology in the face of any evidence.

  3. #3 cooler
    June 14, 2009

    Yes, I’m sure most of those people were put on monster doses of the Cell Damaging drug transfusion inducing chemo AZT, were drugged out and terrorized with a diagnosis of death, that will cause you some damage!

    The sad part of all these studies is that is they don’t even control for these types of confounders. So your basically saying a non-controlled correlation where the hypothetical cause and effect is extended from 10 months to 10 years to save your hypothesis proves causality? Someone should get the Nobel for discovering yellow fingers cause lung cancer then. Pretty sad the entire HIV hypothesis is pretty much based solely on correlation.

    Since you guys are so obsessed with partial correlations, you’d be interested in the first 41 cases of AIDS/Kaposis as reported in the New York Times in 1981……….the article states most of the people were nitrate inhaling (a possible cause of Kaposis) drug addicts who had tons of sex! Since they are correlated it must be the cause right?

    http://www.aegis.com/news/nyt/1981/NYT810701.html

    They have injected over 100 Chimpanzees 20 years ago and they rarely if if ever die of AIDS, and this virus only infects a small % of T cells, in violation of Koch’s first postulate that says the microbe must be found in abundance.

    “All that has changed. As Warner C. Greene, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, explained in the September 1993 Scientific American, researchers are increasingly abandoning the direct cell-killing theory because HIV does not infect enough cells: “Even in patients in the late stages of HIV infection with very low blood T4 cell counts, the proportion of those cells that are producing HIV is tiny-about one in 40. In the early stages of chronic infection, fewer than one in 10,000 T4 cells in blood are doing so. If the virus were killing the cells just by directly infecting them, it would almost certainly have to infect a much larger fraction at any one time.”

    What causes AIDS? An open Question. Mullis et al 1994 Reason Magazine.

    Many experts admit it is difficult to explain the 10 year lag, even if direct cell killing occurred and every t cell was infected with HIV, wouldn’t the patient be dead in weeks/months, not ten years?

    My guess is that most of the people that died of AIDS died of AZT poisoning, mycoplasmas, severe drug abuse, the terror of a positive test and malnutrition in Africa.

    Since all you guys can come up with is weak partial correlations that Justified AZT’s release in 1987, one must look for other causes.

  4. #4 ERV
    June 14, 2009

    *amused again*

    cooler– Why does AZT (any NARTI, really) work against Hepatitis B, if they are worthless against HIV-1? Or do you also deny the existence Hepatitis B?

  5. #5 cooler
    June 14, 2009

    Well the evidence in favor of AZT was that 19 people died in the placebo group vs 1 in the AZT group in the original trials. Duesberg et al have looked closely at this data and have found it very misleading. According to Duesberg AZT caused such severe cell damage in the AZT arm that 30 people needed blood transfusions to stay alive, ie they would have died without them, while there were 5 transfusions in the placebo group (possibly due to patient initiated drug trading.)

    So if you count transfusions as deaths, which you should because they would have died without them there were 31 deaths in the AZT arm vs 24 in the placebo group. This doesn’t look so good for AZT anymore. Here is a debate in 1994 between Duesberg et al and medical experts that support the HIV theory, even the orthodoxy and the Editor of the Lancet Dr. Richard Horton express major concern about AZT’s safety.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zof7l4OH9oA&feature=PlayList&p=D93449600FC4E861&index=12

  6. #6 LanceR, JSG
    June 14, 2009

    So if you count transfusions as deaths,

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?? Wow, I guess he really *IS* that stupid!

    Can we mock him now? Plz?

  7. #7 cooler
    June 14, 2009

    Whatever loser Lance, that AZT study was totally crooked and only lasted 4 months. Yes I do count a side effect that is so severe it requires a major medical intervention to prevent death as a death. Especially when the only evidence available at the time in support of the HIV theory were partial correlations. Not a good trade off is it when many of the HIV positives didn’t even have any symptoms, and the medical establishment was just buying time extending the window period from 10 months to 10 years (Duesberg IAV) to save their weak hypothesis.

    Whats next, is the the FDA going to approve a drug that causes a persons skin to melt, and they’d only be kept alive with surgery and skin grafts, and they would count that as a success story? Sorry I count those as deaths caused by the drug that were only prevented with a major medical intervention.

  8. #8 Prometheus
    June 14, 2009

    “Whats next, is the the FDA going to approve a drug that causes a persons skin to melt, and they’d only be kept alive with surgery and skin grafts, and they would count that as a success story?”

    If it keeps you alive, erect or pain free?

    Yes.

  9. #9 Lee
    June 14, 2009

    cooler keeps saying:
    “the only evidence available at the time in support of the HIV theory were partial correlations”

    This is simply not true. It isn’t even true in the studies he is misrepresenting, one of which is a prospective study showing progression to AIDS at a very high rate, among people identified at risk for AIDS based on their HIV status – and also showed no progression to AIDS among people without HIV, even if their sexual preference and sexual activity status put them in the perceived high-risk group.

    There were also all the blood donor/recipient studies, which cooler very, very carefully avoids mentioning.

  10. #10 cooler
    June 14, 2009

    Lee, nearly all the studies you have cited to justify AZT’s release in 1987 are based on correlation. Sure looks like a half assed correlation to me.

    IgG antibodies to HTLV-III associated antigens in patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS in The Netherlands.
    Goudsmit J, Tersmette T, Kabel P, Miedema F, Melief C.

    Thirty-nine homosexual males, 11 of whom suffered from AIDS and 13 from Lymphadenopathy Syndrome (LAS), 18 healthy hemophiliacs and 12 healthy blood donors, not belonging to any AIDS risk group, were tested for IgG antibodies to Human T-lymphotropic retrovirus type III (HTLV-III) by indirect immunofluorescence. All tested people were from the area of Amsterdam or from elsewhere in The Netherlands. Five of 11 AIDS patients, 8 of 13 LAS patients and 5 of 15 healthy homosexuals had antibodies to HTLV-III. Five of 18 healthy hemophiliacs were seropositive for HTLV-III. None of the 12 blood donors was seropositive for HTLV-III.

    PMID: 6100824 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE

  11. #11 Chris Noble
    June 14, 2009

    Lee, nearly all the studies you have cited to justify AZT’s release in 1987 are based on correlation.

    In exactly the same way that bullets are merely correlated with death.

    What happened to ‘CommonSense’ he was more fun?

  12. #12 cooler
    June 14, 2009

    Bozohead Chris,
    Bullets reproduce the same effects in experimental animals, HIV doesn’t, bullets the cause and effect is instant, there is rarely ever a 10 year lag between getting shot and being injured, there is no mystery to how bullets tear flesh, and you can find bullets in abundance, unlike HIV that can only be found with the PCR.

    Oh gang, Garth Nicolson has found mycoplasma in 28/28 of gulf war vets with ALS and in none of the healthy controls. This is a 100% correlation! It must be the cause of GWI vets that have ALS right?

  13. #13 cooler
    June 14, 2009

    In short, the bullets cause injury/death is based on a lot more than correlation. Now if somebody got shot with a water gun and came down with Kaposis 10 years later, that is a more accurate description of HIV’s dubious causal role.

    Sorry it was 30/36 for Nicolson and 2% for MF in controls. Hey this about the same as Gallo. It must be the cause!
    http://www.immed.org/autoimmune/publications/JOCN_ALS_2002.pdf

  14. #14 cooler
    June 14, 2009

    “Polymerase chain reaction assays demonstrated the presence of C pneumoniae MOMP gene in the CSF of 97% of MS patients versus 18% of OND controls”

    ond= other Nuerological diseases……..

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/82001998/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

    Hey guys I found the cause of MS too! It’s chlamydia! There is a correlation! Its even better than HIV! Lets put all people who test positive with these microbes on AZT even if they are totally healthy! We can extend the latent period to get around that! And we’ll call anybody that objects a denier!

  15. #15 LanceR, JSG
    June 14, 2009

    Ooh! Someone has come a bit unhinged! Sounds like he’s getting a bit desperate since nobody buys his lies.

    What’s the matter, cooler? Your test come back positive? What’s with the desperation? Why do you ignore the transfusion angle? Why do you simply repeat the same debunked lies?

  16. #16 Lee
    June 14, 2009

    So, cooler has stopped even pretending to offer a substantive argument about HIV-AIDS.

  17. #17 Prometheus
    June 15, 2009

    Congratulations LanceR and Lee for systematically handing cooler his butt on a platter but the crown must go to Chris Noble for getting called “Bozohead”.

    The debate was over when cooler had to start counting people who were alive as dead to impeach a correlation he was claiming as false in the first place.

    When you introduce ‘Factor Zombie’, you are done.

    I’m hoping this becomes as stringent in hard science as Godwin’s has in social science based internet smackdowns.

    I learned a lot about seroconversion and AIDS diagnostics.

    Thanks Guys.

    P.S. I am crestfallen that the human roller coaster that is CommonSense has returned from whence he came(Potty? 25lbs/day of produce will do that to you.).

  18. #18 cooler
    June 15, 2009

    According to Duesberg and Culshaw and even the CDC latest statistics there has been around 1 million HIV positives each for the past 20 years, and an average of about 50 thousand AIDS cases each year, ranging from 10k to 80k, and not correlating at all with the the numbers of HIV positives. This means that less than 1 out of every 10 people with HIV has AIDS!

    The hypothesis is entirely dependent on a correlation that doesn’t exist! Wait what about the correlation between lung cancer and yellow fingers? What about wrinkles and people dying of old age! There is a correlation, it must be the cause! We were able to isolate with great difficulty HIV from 22/45 AIDS patients it must be the cause! Goudsmit J et al found antibodies in 5/11 AIDS patients it must be the cause! Levy found antibodies in many AIDS free people, lets invent a 10 year window period!

  19. #19 cooler
    June 15, 2009

    “So, cooler has stopped even pretending to offer a substantive argument about HIV-AIDS.”

    No, I just pointed out that other scientists have found high correlations between microbes and disease and unlike Gallo the fraud, they acknowledge that the correlation could be the effect, not the cause. Most scientists realize vauge correlations don’t prove causation.

    But it’s no wonder Gallo the fraud would lie about his paper, no wonder their was a congressional investigation of this clown, and all sorts of craziness turned up. I guess that is why he held a international press conference with a republican Lawyer, Margret Heckler, who headed the DHHS before his paper was published saying he had found the “probable cause” of AIDS in 1984.

    He knew that if he could convince a powerful crooked public health official, that’s all he needed. So before a single paper was published the HIV hypothesis was pushed by the federal government, and accepted mindlessly by many in the medical establishment. Many scientists were intimidated or brainwashed into believing the HIV theory because of the federal governments massive propaganda campaign. Some became so delusional that they suddenly believed vague correlations prove causality, when it is well known even 100% correlations don’t prove causality. It is easy to see how such a blunder could take place, since science is not democratic, it is run by Crooked public health officials and drug companies.

  20. #20 Tom Coward
    June 15, 2009

    What is it with these denialsits? Don’t they have jobs, families or (other) hobbies? First CommonSense leaves textbook-length posts that are then chopped up and debunked line by line by the “erv reception committee”, then cooler starts the same process again after CommonSense gives over. I barely have time to read all of this stuff in between having a functioning life!

  21. #21 NM
    June 15, 2009

    My guess from the Bordeaux reference is that NoSense may be related to Martin Barnes, “Public Relations Chairperson” of “rethinking AIDS”

    http://www.rethinkingaids.com/Content/QA/tabid/161/Default.aspx

    Barnes has just authored a brochure on HIV testing that includes false statements like:

    “Research has proven that “viral load” tests are useless in predicting who will get AIDS.”

    It’s illustrated by celebrity AIDS denier, R. Crumb.

  22. #22 W. Kevin Vicklund
    June 15, 2009

    That’s a very significant numerical difference. If true, that would be interesting, to say the least. But I notice cooler didn’t actually provide a source. Is this worldwide? Just the US?

    So what are the latest CDC estimates?

    HIV Incidence Estimate

    Incidence is the number of new HIV infections that occur during a given year.
    In 2008, CDC estimated that approximately 56,300 people were newly infected with HIV in 20061 (the most recent year that data are available). Over half (53%) of these new infections occurred in gay and bisexual men. Black/African American men and women were also strongly affected and were estimated to have an incidence rate than was 7 times as high as the incidence rate among whites. Visit the HIV incidence page for more details.

    1Hall HI, Ruiguang S, Rhodes P, et al. Estimation of HIV incidence in the United States. JAMA. 2008;300:520-529.

    Go to top

    AIDS Cases

    In 2007, the estimated number of persons diagnosed with AIDS in the United States and dependent areas was 37,041. Of these, 35,962 were diagnosed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia and 812 were diagnosed in the dependent areas. In the 50 states and the District of Columbia, adult and adolescent AIDS cases totaled 35,934 with 26,355 cases in males and 9,579 cases in females, and 28 cases estimated in children under age 13 years.

    So about 56,000 new HIV cases in the US per year and 37,000 new AIDS cases per year, about 2/3rds, not the less than one in ten that cooler was claiming (also note that there is, as cooler pointed out, a large variance on these numbers

    So where did that 1 million number come from? How about this:

    HIV Prevalence Estimate

    Prevalence is the number of people living with HIV infection at the end of a given year.

    At the end of 2006, an estimated 1,106,400 persons (95% confidence interval 1,056,400-1,156,400) in the United States were living with HIV infection, with 21% undiagnosed.1

    For more information see “HIV/AIDS in the United States.”

    1CDC. HIV Prevalence Estimates—United States, 2006. MMWR 2008;57(39):1073-76.

    In other words, cooler probably confused the number of current HIV cases with the number of new HIV cases. I’d hate to think he deliberately used false information.

  23. #23 cooler
    June 15, 2009

    I got my numbers of Aids cases per year from Averts Website.

    And on the 1 million total HIV positives in America, Duesberg has documented this for years. He’s got the references from government sources. Ever since HIV has been in the population there have been about 1 million HIV positives estimated.

    “American AIDS is new, because HIV is new in America. However, in America HIV is a long-established retrovirus #(Duesberg, 1992, see Chapter 6)#. Ever since the virus could be detected in 1984, an unchanging 1 million Americans are HIV-positive (Fig 1A) #(Curran et al., 1985; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 1994, Farber, 1995b)#. By contrast, a new microbe/virus spreads exponentially in a susceptible population (see V). Thus the non-spread of HIV establishes it as an old virus in America #(Duesberg, 1992)#.”

    How much longer can we afford the AIDS virus monopoly?
    Duesberg Genetica 1995
    http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch13.html

    “If HIV is the cause of AIDS, and the number of infected individuals is constant, then, other things being unchanged, the number of cases must remain constant. Although there are reasons why a virus might stop causing a disease (such as immunity, or drugs that confer resistance — although neither apply in this case), there is no defensible reason in the clear light of these data for thinking that HIV ever began to cause one in the first instance”

    Culshaw 2006

  24. #24 W. Kevin Vicklund
    June 15, 2009

    I got my numbers of Aids cases per year from Averts Website.

    You mean this site, which I just had up and has similar numbers to the CDC page I quoted? You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. “Living with” is not the same as “per year”

    As far as Duesberg’s claim of 1 million living with HIV in 1984, his scholarship seems to be a bit lacking:

    Estimating hiv prevalence and projecting aids incidence in the united states: A model that accounts for therapy and changes in the surveillance definition of aids
    P. S. Rosenberg, M. H. Gail, R. J. Carroll
    10.1002/sim.4780111302

    Abstract
    The AIDS incubation distribution is changing in calendar time because of treatment and changes in the surveillance definition of AIDS. To obtain reliable estimates of HIV prevalence and projections of AIDS incidence in the 1990s using the method of backcalculation, we constructed an appropriate incubation distribution for each calendar date of infection.
    We parameterized the impact of treatment on the incubation distribution by specifying the relative hazard for AIDS in treated versus untreated people as a function of duration of HIV infection. To account for trends in the incubation distribution, we modelled the prevalence of treatment, the distribution of treatment onset times, and the impact of the revision of the AIDS surveillance definition in 1987. We selected and evaluated backcalculation models based on consistency with external information. We defined a plausible range of estimates that took into account uncertainty about the natural incubation distribution and treatment efficacy, as well as bootsrap assessment of stochastic error.
    Using these methods, we projected that national United States AIDS incidence will plateau during 1991-1994 at over 50,000 caes per year. Projections exhibited substantial systematic uncertainty, and we calculated a plausible range for AIDS incidence in 1994 of 42,300 to 70,700 cases. An estimated 628,000 to 988,000 cumulative HIV infections occurred as of 1 January 1991. After accounting for AIDS mortality, we estimated that 484,000 to 844,000 people were living the HIV infection on 1 January 1991. Favourable trends in HIV incidence appeared in gay men and intravenous drug users. Plausible ranges for our estimates overlapped with those from a stage model approach to incorporating treatment effects in backcalculations. Our approach, however, tended to yield smaller estimates of epidemic size, mainly because the parameters used with the stage model implied that more treatment was in use and that treatment was more effective than in our model.

  25. #25 W. Kevin Vicklund
    June 15, 2009

    BTW, that paper is from 1992. The source I linked to is not clear on that point.

  26. #26 Chris Noble
    June 15, 2009

    And on the 1 million total HIV positives in America, Duesberg has documented this for years. He’s got the references from government sources. Ever since HIV has been in the population there have been about 1 million HIV positives estimated.

    We’ve already gone over this – repeatedly.

    From 2007 Denialism: “they don’t remember”

    The only reference that Duesberg gives for 1985 is Curran et al, Science 229:2720(1985), 1352-1357. The basis of the estimate comes from the San Francisco CDC cohort study with a total of 6875 subjects. In this cohort the seropositivity was found to have increased from 4% in 1978 to 68% in 1984. This is hardly indicative of stable prevalence. . . . Everybody except HIV Denialists now accept that the estimates from the mid 1980s were overestimates. They were not obtained by testing 100% of the US population. This is shown in the references that you give
J. M. Karon, P. S. Rosenberg, G. McQuillan, M. Khare, M. Gwinn and L. R. Petersen Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA, JAMA Vol. 276 No. 2, July 10, 1996.

    Official estimates of HIV incidence over the past 30 years can be found in this paper Estimation of HIV Incidence in the United States

  27. #27 Chris Noble
    June 15, 2009

    What is it with these denialsits? Don’t they have jobs, families or (other) hobbies? First CommonSense leaves textbook-length posts that are then chopped up and debunked line by line by the “erv reception committee”, then cooler starts the same process again after CommonSense gives over.

    They would both be much happier if CommonSense and Cooler had a nice romantic banana and lettuce dinner before disproving teh germ thoery of dis-ease by spitting in each others mouth.

  28. #28 cooler
    June 15, 2009

    Chris, If you didn’t have a 300 pound fat ugly wife I might have taken offense to that. (Just collapsed in complete laughter)

  29. #29 cooler
    June 15, 2009

    Hey guys! Guess I proved you’ll wrong again!
    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/Documento1.pdf

    Estimates from each year from 1985 on referenced from mainstream sources like the IOM. No explosion as Farr’s law states, just an average of around 1 million per year, infact the numbers slightly decrease over time.

  30. #30 Lee
    June 15, 2009

    What is with this disbelief that there can be a long latent period for a disease? Deusburg even says in the absurd monograph that cooler links, that there are no known diseases with long latent periods.

    Which is simply bullshit.

    Latent syphilis can last a decade, up to 50 years or more. Shingles is herpes zoster infection, with onset decades after the infection with chickenpox, and can occur even with subclinical chickenpox infections with no history of having had chickenpox. Genital herpes often has decade or more latencies with no symptoms at all, ever, until it suddenly has a major outbreak. Just off the top of my head, without having to do any research at all.

    Also, the idea that HIV has no effect for its latent period is just as much bullshit. ~ 50% of those infected suffer acute HIV infection – flulike symptoms 2-4 weeks after infection, typically lasting a week to a month or so – this is associated with very, very high blood levels of HIV.

    By the end of the acute phase, there are permanent and predictable losses in the immune system, with up to 60% of the CD4 cells killed, and permanent alterations in subpopulations of CD4 cells. I’m sure our hostess here could say a lot more about this.

    This is also the most infectious period, since there are very high titers of circulating HIV.

    During and after the acute phase, an often-persistent lymphadenopathy occurs. Remember that Montagnier named the virus LAV: lymphadenopathy-associated virus.

    Persistent and progressive changes in lymph nodes, thymus, T cell counts and functions, gut lining function, all continue throughout the course of the infection, even before there is acute clinical disease with opportunistic infections subsequent to collapse of the immune system.

  31. #31 Lee
    June 15, 2009

    cooler keeps citing “Farr’s Law” – and that Farrs’ Law required AIDS cases to have skyrocketed, and that therefore HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.

    This is looney tunes, of course.
    It also ignores the published record – of course. This is cooler, after all.

    Here is a publication from 1990, using Farr’s Law to predict that the epidemic would crest in 1988, and then fall thereafter.

    They were wrong too – but it is clear that “Farr’s Law”, to the extent that it says anything useful at all, does not say what cooler wants it to say.

    JAMA. 1990 Mar 16;263(11):1522-5.

    Farr’s law applied to AIDS projections.
    Bregman DJ, Langmuir AD.

    Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles 90033.

    Farr’s Law of Epidemics, first promulgated in 1840 and resurrected by Brownlee in the early 1900s, states that epidemics tend to rise and fall in a roughly symmetrical pattern that can be approximated by a normal bell-shaped curve. We applied this simple law to the reported annual incidence of cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in the United States from 1982 through 1987. The 6 years of incidence data closely fit a normal distribution that crests in late 1988 and then declines to a low point by the mid-1990s. The projected size of the epidemic falls in the range of 200 000 cases. A continuing incidence of endemic cases can be expected to emerge, but we believe it will occur at a low level.

  32. #32 cooler
    June 15, 2009

    Loser Lee,
    You are such a dope, that paper you cite talks about the increase in AIDS cases. Nobody denies that increased up to 80,000 in the early 90’s and then decreased. When Duesberg cites Farr’s law he saying that HIV has stayed at around 1 million for over 20 years. See the sources I posted above.

    Also your pathetic attempt to compare herpes to HIV, Herpes is basically an infection that only reemerges when people have weakened immunity due to stress etc. As far as Tertiary syphilis, this condition was probably due to the toxic mercury fumes people were forced to inhale among other toxic “cures” that caused brain damage. Koch’s postulates have never been met for tertiary syphilis.

    What Duesberg is saying is that HIV is one of the very few microbes to cause disease 10 years after being neutralized by antibodies, to the point HIV can only be found in in 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 40 t cells. Most viruses like mumps, chicken pox, the flu, and measles cause disease prior to antibody production, act rapidly and are neutralized by immunity. That’s why when the CDC quarantines people they suspect have viruses, they are quarantined for a few weeks, not ten years. Viruses reproduce exponentially.

    As far as ARS, anecdotal evidence suggests that this is a creation of the virus hunting establishment. Did Magic or Tommy Morrison ever complain of a single symptom before they were given a death sentence at a routing physical? No.

  33. #33 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    Keep in mind the CDC says there are 250k people HIV positive who don’t know it, which means they don’t have any symptoms, like ARS, and these people who supposedly get a flu like syndrome that can last a month don’t seek medical attention. Hell, you’d think the ER rooms would be full of people like this who come in with full blown AIDS. Seems like they only get deathly sick when they are terrorized with fear from a positive test and put on AZT.

  34. #34 Chris Noble
    June 16, 2009

    Keep in mind the CDC says there are 250k people HIV positive who don’t know it,…

    which highlights the uncertainties in the estimates of HIV prevalence from 1985.

    Hell, you’d think the ER rooms would be full of people like this who come in with full blown AIDS.

    Funny you should say that. Around 25% of people diagnosed with AIDS only find out that they are infected with HIV when they turn up in ER with full blown AIDS.

    Who Still Dies of AIDS, and Why

  35. #35 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    “A large proportion of these victims are indigent; many are intravenous-drug users—IVDUs, as they’re known in the official jargon, accounted for 21 percent of HIV-positive New Yorkers in 2006, but, as noted above, 38.5 percent of the city’s AIDS deaths”

    Thanks for proving Duesberg correct. The people get sick because of the extraordinary drug use, malnutrition, homelessness and being co-infected with every microbe you could think of.

    Funny how none of these 250,000 people seem to come from upper class non-risk groups.

  36. #36 ERV
    June 16, 2009

    I think its funnier how Deniers refuse to discuss basic science related to their claims.

    Last time Im asking this: Why does AZT work for HepB, cooler?

  37. #37 Lee
    June 16, 2009

    @ 235, I find it interesting that cooler is using correlation – without controls, without good evidence for a causal mechanism – to “prove” causation. Exactly what he claims (incorrectly) is all there is for linking HIV to AIDS, and dismisses as insufficient.

    Cooler, IV drug abusers have a lot of medical problems they get hepatitis, local and systemic infection, TB – lots of problems. But unless they are infected with HIV, they don’t get AIDS.

    The correlation you are using to claim that drug use causes AIDS isn’t even correct.

  38. #38 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    ERV,
    I have not read the studies on AZT being used on Hep B patients. I just read the CDC site and the wikipedia site and Hep b usually recovers by itself, in rare severe cases other antivirals are used, and a vaccine is considered the best protection.

    I do not think AZT is FDA approved or even used off label for this infection. Of course you can correct me if I’m wrong since I just looked into this claim. I’ve never heard of AZT being used for Hepatitis b, if there are preliminary studies that show some benefit, so be it, I don’t think the risk benefit ratio would be too good since AZT causes Severe side effects. And I think the slight chance A drug like AZT is beneficial it would be for very short term use, to kill the virus, limit the damage to healthy cells and avoid long term side effects. Like any chemotherapy long term use could kill someone.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_B

    “Acute hepatitis B infection does not usually require treatment because most adults clear the infection spontaneously.[39] Early antiviral treatment may only be required in fewer than 1% of patients, whose infection takes a very aggressive course (“fulminant hepatitis”) or who are immunocompromised. On the other hand, treatment of chronic infection may be necessary to reduce the risk of cirrhosis and liver cancer. Chronically infected individuals with persistently elevated serum alanine aminotransferase, a marker of liver damage, and HBV DNA levels are candidates for therapy.[40]

    “Although none of the available drugs can clear the infection, they can stop the virus from replicating, and minimize liver damage such as cirrhosis and liver cancer. Currently, there are seven medications licensed for treatment of hepatitis B infection in the United States. These include antiviral drugs lamivudine (Epivir), adefovir (Hepsera), tenofovir (Viread), telbivudine (Tyzeka) and entecavir (Baraclude) and the two immune system modulators interferon alpha-2a and pegylated interferon alfa-2a (Pegasys). T”

  39. #39 ERV
    June 16, 2009

    Shorter cooler:

    I know shit about virology. I know shit about antivirals. And I dont read ERV. I just comment here because the responses I get make me feel important.

  40. #40 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    What a joke, AZT is not used for hepatitis b, even the wacked out medical establishment wouldn’t give this blood transfusing cell killing agent for this.

    You’re the one that doesn’t know diddly sqwat. If you did know anything about virology you wouldn’t have such a difficult time answering this question. What were the papers that you read that convinced you HIV was a fatal infection that justified AZT’s approval in 1987? Describe them briefly.

  41. #41 ERV
    June 16, 2009

    Search my blag, numbnuts.

  42. #42 Prometheus
    June 16, 2009

    “Acute hepatitis B infection does not usually require treatment because most adults clear the infection spontaneously.”

    Wait. What? Does Wikipedia really say that?

    Acute hepatitis B=Walk it off dude.

    I don’t know shit about virology either (but I am at least curious).

    Is that statement remotely true?

  43. #43 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    This is a great excuse. I’d be making excuses as well if the only evidence was that Gallo and Levy had such an enormously difficult time isolating the virus (bc it was barely there) they could only do it in 26/72 and 22/45 cases respectively. When they couldn’t find virus they had to resort to finding antibodies, antibodies and barely detectable virus usually implied a virus that was defeated by immunity.

    When these same antibodies turned up in healthy people they just merrily extended the latent period from 10 months to 10 years.

    Anyways you guys have been duped. The only germ theory denialists are you people. Mycoplasma incognitus is the only microbe to worry about.

    M incognitus was found in abundance by EM in the damaged tissues of 22/34 AIDS patients. It was not found in any healthy controls. M. incognitus was isolated and grown in culture and shown to a unique microorganism. (1/3 the size of M fermantans.) 4 monkeys were injected with low doses of M incognitus, all had a fatal wasting disease and died in 7-9 months, the control monkey was fine. Mice injected also died, if you Read Lo’s patent, the mice developed AIDS like OI’s when near death. M incognitus was found and ruled to be the cause of 6 previoulsy healthy non aids patients with normal immune systems. It was found in abundance in the damaged tissues by EM in these autopsied patients. (Koch’s postulates fulfilled right there, the pathology report is easily available) Case studies from the Army show people near death with this microbe make who have normal immune systems make recoveries with Doxycycline. Now compare this To Gallo’s garbage, not only was there a correlation, it was found in abundance and low doses caused fatal diseases in injected animals. All this work was done by the Armed forces institute of pathology. References.

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

    It is no wonder those poor Gulf war vets were so sick! They had this in their blood! So when Chris babbles about people going to the ER this is what is probably making many of them sick, along with other toxins. When Dr. Garth (Winner of the NCI’s outstanding investigator grant) and Nancy Nicolson, two scientists at the University OF Texas found it in the blood of sick vets armed agents from the DOD warned them to stop their research, and their boss was shot in the head six times 15 minutes after he was told it was part of the bioweapons program! They’ve written a barely fictionilized version of the hell they went through entitled “Project Day Lily.” Rave reviews from several scientists including a Nobel laurete in medicine.

    What a huge blunder this is, HIV might be benign and Mycoplasma is the only microbe to worry about. This is exactly what Montagnier said as the 1990 AIDS conference. These types of blunders are what happens when science is not democratic.

  44. #44 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    6 previously healthy people non aids patients with normal immune systems that died in 1-7 weeks I meant to say.

    Lo SC; Shih JW; Newton PB 3d; Wong DM; Hayes MM; Benish JR; Wear DJ; Wang RY. Virus-like infectious agent (VLIA) is a novel pathogenic mycoplasma: Mycoplasma incognitus. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE, November 1989, volume 41, number 5, pages 586-600.

    Lo SC; Dawson MS; Newton PB 3rd; Sonoda MA; Shih JW; Engler WF; Wang RY; Wear DJ. Association of the virus-like infectious agent originally reported in patients with AIDS with acute fatal disease in previously healthy non-AIDS patients. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE, September 1989, volume 41, number 3, pages 364-376.

  45. #45 ERV
    June 16, 2009

    Prometheus– Acute HepB is ‘walk it off, dude’.

    Unfortunately some people dont ‘walk it off’. Chronic HepB leads to cirrhosis and liver cancer, and chronic Hep B is endemic in Asia– causes +80% of their liver cancer (or alternatively, HepB was created in the lab by evil scientists to get rid of Asian people. Asian HIV, if you will. lol!).

    So to control chronic HepB, you give people NRTIs. Though HepB is a DNA virus, it has a reverse transcription step in its life cycle which can be blocked by the same drugs used to block HIV-1 reverse transcription.

    So I was wondering why cooler was so against AZT, its so toxic you know, when its given as a HepB therapy to preserve the liver of chronically infected individuals. Seems like thats the opposite of what you would do, if NRTIs are so damaging and worthless.

    Buuuuuuuut he couldnt answer that, so we get more copy/pasted stupidity. Hurray!

  46. #46 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    What is your point? AZT is never used for hep b. Other Antivirals are used in rare instances.

  47. #47 Prometheus
    June 16, 2009

    Thanks for the explanation.

    A more pressing question is….How the hell do you attract these guys?

    I mean Meyers gets the run of the mill “Nuuuuhhh Uhhh its Jezbus!” trolls or Turkish spam bots but you get the bonafides

    “I’m Ponce De Leon for the win on my weekly 175 lbs of fruit and spit diet.”

    Now a Project Day Lily/Nazi Scientist/Paperclip/CIA Conspiracy super whackaloon whose rabbit hole goes all the way to the center of the earth.

    It’s like a Midas touch for tinfoil hats.

    What gives? Is it the lolspeak?

    Edit:I’m not complaining. It’s a blast. I like poking freaks with a stick as much as the next internet tough guy.

  48. #48 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    Other antivirals are used, like Viread. But Viread wasn’t even tested against a placebo!
    http://www.webmd.com/hepatitis/news/20080812/fda-oks-hiv-drug-viread-for-hepatitis-b

    It was tested against another drug Hepasera, Wouldn’t be surprised if that drug was tested against another drug. Another drug based on treating many people long term that have no symptoms or liver disease/damage at all, many just test positive for some surrogate markers or for an antigen that has been neutralized by antibodies. This would explain why most people chronically infected have no liver disease for decades.. These markers make big bucks for drug companies. Just like Halliburton needs war, these drug companies need disease.

  49. #49 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    Yes promoloser, citing peer reviewed evidence from the worlds top Army Pathologists, Nobel prize winners, Members of The NAS etc vs. a lowlife loser like yourself is real entertaining.

    Anyways I’m going to Hawaii in 3 days with my friends, just killing time at work with you clowns now.

  50. #50 Lee
    June 16, 2009

    So cooler, are you claiming mycoplasma is the cause of AID? Or maybe its just correlated with AIDS?

    Hard to tell, given that your cite mentions only a partial correlation between people who died of AIDS and mycoplasma – and you’ve already told us how you feel about partial correlations – and also mentions people that people who died of mycoplasma infection did NOT die of AIDS.

  51. #51 Prometheus
    June 16, 2009

    “promoloser” hmmmm it just doesn’t have the ooomph of Bozohead. C- lacks effort.

    Wheeeeeeee I’m an attention whore toooo.

    but

    I think you have a disconnect. You are discussing the hepatitis treatments for an HIV independent Hep B infection as opposed to AZT treatment for HIV positive/Hep B which results in hepatitis remission and resolution of hepatic inflammation.

    At least according to the conspiratorial escaped SS officer douche bags over at the CVI journal of the American Society for Microbiology.

    My condolences to Hawaii.

  52. #52 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    The cite I used much more than just correlation. Mycoplasma was found in abundance in the damaged lesions of about 2/3 of AIDS patients, low doses injected into monkeys caused a fatal wasting disease, mice injected died and experienced OI’s (lo’s patent) and there is a pathology report of 6 young previously healthy people non AIDS that died in 1-7 weeks of an undiagnosed infection, autopsy found m incognitus in the damaged tissues and army pathologists ruled it to be the cause and death and said this microbe was lethal in it’s own right.

    This is a lot more than just correlation that Gallo et al had. I don’t think it causes All AIDS cases since it wasn’t found in all AIDS patients, since many feel AIDS is multifactorial, this could be one of the several causes along with severe drug abuse and AZT chemotherapy.

  53. #53 Chris Noble
    June 16, 2009

    So cooler, are you claiming mycoplasma is the cause of AID?

    Watch AIDS & MYCOPLASMA: The crime beyond belief and you’ll understand everything.

  54. #54 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    Notice how Chris can offer no response Lo et al’s pathology report on how they found it in abundance in the damaged tissues of AIDS and Non AIDS patients and primates dying of an acute fatal disease. Chris is too enamored with Gallo’s adding stimulants, pooling patients blood together and barely finding RT activity in 26/72 AIDS patients. This, in his feeble mind is compelling evidence because he can’t really think for himself.

    Anyways. It would not be surprising if Saddam used biological weapons during the first gulf war.

    “I received the very first draft and read it with increasing amazement as I was going along. I knew Garth Nicolson from his days at the Salk Institute and knew he was (is) of sound mind. The implications, medical and political, of what is revealed in “Project Day Lily” are major. If you are interested in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, or the problems of our Veterans with Gulf War Syndrome, you will want to read this book, think, and wonder.
    Roger Guillemin, M.D., Ph.D.,
    Distinguished Professor,
    Nobel Laureate in Medicine
    The Salk Institute”

    http://www.projectdaylily.com/

  55. #55 LanceR, JSG
    June 16, 2009

    Wow. I am just stunned. They found an environmental pathogen in the bodies of people with suppressed immune systems? Amazing.

    Sometimes, the stoopid really does burn.

  56. #56 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    Dumbass, Army pathologists stated because they induced a fatal wasting disease in monkeys and mice with low doses and ruled it to be the cause of death in 6 previously healthy adults it was lethal and pathogenic in its own right, not just an OI.

    Now who knows more about virology, The Military’s brightest scientists and virologists, or a pathetic crackpot like yourself?

  57. #57 ERV
    June 16, 2009

    So HIV-1 isnt real. HIV-1 was created in the lab to kill black people and teh gays. But it wasnt, because the mycoplasma was created in the lab to kill black people and teh homogays via mycoplAIDSma. But AIDS isnt real, and Ill punch you if you say thats what killed Christine Maggiore. Except when it is real. Also, chronic fatigue syndrome was created in the lab to kill Iraqis, war veterans, and middle-upper-class American white women.

    Seriously, I want a Denier version of the acronym ‘TARD’. Cause thats some good TARD, right there.

  58. #58 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    The only tard is you. You haven’t read any of Duesberg’s papers, Lo et al’s from the Armed forces Institute of pathology, can’t even cite and explain the papers that justified AZT’s release in 1987! The best you guys can do is spam aidstruth something that would get you laughed out of a courtroom or a classroom!

    You guys haven’t even read the orthodoxies papers either, it’s like when Tara Smith admitted on her blog she’d never read the Padian or David Ho’s study until “Denialists” brought it to her attention! All of you guys are totally scientifically illiterate, Its pretty funny actually.

    Anyways, Duesberg has been dying to debate somebody on HIV, No wonder Ya’ll are scared to death to do it. Its no wonder you’re scared, he was elected to the National Academy of sciences, got Tenure at Berkeley at 36 and got California scientist of the year, while you guys live in your mommy’s basement. And Duesberg and the hundereds that agree with him had evidence, unlike those clowns that read the Durban Declaration.

  59. #59 jim
    June 16, 2009

    Psst… cooler…. some of the people you are calling dumbasses and such are university research scientists – in virology -. A few wiki searches and choice denialist links are not quite up to par with their working knowledge in the field.

    Go back to conspiracy theory land.

  60. #60 Lee
    June 16, 2009

    6 people died rapidly (1-6 weeks) not of AIDS but of an undiagnosed infection later attributed to mycoplasma. When you inject mycoplasma into lab animals they die of a wasting disease that is not AIDS. Therefore, mycoplasma causes AIDS.

    That’s one hell of a correlation you got yourself there, cooler.

  61. #61 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    *corrections
    cite and explain the papers that proved HIV’s causal role that justified AZT’s release in 1987

    unlike those clowns that signed the Durban Declaration.

    Anyways, it’s been a blast debating you guys and making you look like total fools!

  62. #62 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    Jim, you dumb little girl. I’m glad your here. Just do what these guys couldn’t. Cite and explain the papers that proved HIV was a fatal disease that justified AZT’s release in 1987.

  63. #63 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    Well Lee, it beats those over 100 chimpanzees that were injected that were just fine after 20 years, at least lo et al found it in abundance with the EM in the damaged tissues, pretty sad you can only find hiv with the most sensitive technique the PCR.

  64. #64 Lee
    June 16, 2009

    BTW, for onlokers.

    Dr. Lo did find and publish, in 1986, that he had found a ‘novel virus’ in AIDS patients. Later, in 1989, he identified hsi “virus like infectius agent’ as a new mycoplama, which he called Mycoplasma incognitus. Later, by the early 1990s, it was shown that incognitus is simply a strain of the already-well-known Mycoplasma fermentans, which is a common (and widely cursed) contaminant of mammalian cell lines in cell culture laboratories.

    Mycoplasma fermentans does occasionally kill otherwise healthy people in fulminant infectious episodes. There have been attempts to link it to various ailments, including Gulf War Syndrome – but it appeas that is most likely a common environmental pathogen that can infect to detectable or pathogenic levels when there is immune compromise.

    There is a link to AIDS – as an opportunistic infection, it is known to cause kidney damage.

    There is also evidence that mycoplasma potentiates the CD4-cell cytotoxicity of HIV, and also interferes with HIV reverse transcriptase activity – so it does interact with HIV in some interesting way.

    Note that the increased CD4 cytotoxicity operates by potentiating HIV – and that the HIV is still the thing that kills the CD4 cells.

    And cooler, your revered Dr. Lo published this. In his 1991 paper, he demonstrated the potentiating effect of Mycoplasma on HIV-caused CD4-cell death.

    Lo SC, Tsai S, Benish JR, Shih JW, Wear DJ, Wong DM. Enhancement of HIV-1 cytocidal effects in CD4+ lymphocytes by the AIDS-associated mycoplasma. Science. 1991 Mar 1;251(4997):1074–1076

    Funny, cooler hasn’t been citing this paper by Lo.

  65. #65 Lee
    June 16, 2009

    cooler, did you forget this?

    192

  66. #66 cooler
    June 16, 2009

    Lee, is of course either lying or totally incompetent.
    First of all the papers that Lee cites that proved HIV causal role that justified AZT’s release in 1987 are totally laughable in proving anything. If lee took a stats class he’s realize this. The virus was barely found in a less the half of AIDS patients, never found in abundance, so they had to resort to looking for antibodies……etc etc.

    Secondly on mycoplasma, m incognitus is not the same as Mycoplasma fermentans, Lo et al pointed out several major differences when they isolated it in culture. I’ll post the abstract. Also your suggestion that It was a contaminant is laughable, it is impossible for a contaminant to be directly identified in the damaged lesions of patients with the EM in the pathology reports.

    Antibody testing is not reliable for this microbe bc the monkeys and people infected had a weak antibody response only when near death, it has been found by PCR in sick vets. Anyways I’m gonna check this blog once more before I leave on Friday morning and you assorted nutcases can come up with more of your dumb one liners cause you don’t have much evidence, than I’m done with this blog.

    Virus-like Infectious Agent (VLIA) is a Novel Pathogenic Mycoplasma: Mycoplasma Incognitus
    Shyh-Ching Lo, James Wai-Kuo Shih, Perry B. Newton, III, Dennis M. Wong, Michael M. Hayes, Janet R. Benish, Douglas J. Wear AND Richard Yuan-Hu Wang
    American Registry of Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC; and Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland

    The newly recognized pathogenic virus-like infectious agent (VLIA), originally reported in patients with AIDS but also known to be pathogenic in previously healthy non-AIDS patients and in non-human primates, was cultured in cell-free conditions using a modified SP-4 medium and classified as a member of the order Mycoplasmatales, class Mollicutes. The infectious microorganism is tentatively referred to as Mycoplasma incognitus. M. incognitus has the unique biochemical properties of utilizing glucose both aerobically and anaerobically, as well as having the ability to metabolize arginine. Among all known human mycoplasmas, these specific biochemical characteristics were found previously only in a rarely isolated species, M. fermentans. In comparison with M. fermentans, M. incognitus appears to be even more fastidious in cultivation requirements and fails to grow in all tested mycoplasma media other than modified SP-4 medium. In addition, M. incognitus grows much more slowly, has a smaller spherical particle size and occasional filamentous morphology, and forms only irregular and very small colonies with diffuse edges on agar plates. Antigenic analysis using polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies and DNA analysis of sequence homology and restriction enzyme mappings in M. incognitus, M. orale, M. hyorhinis, M. hominis, M. pneumoniae, M. fermentans, M. arginini, M. genitalium, M. salivarium, Ureaplasma urealyticum, and Acholeplasma laidlawii revealed that M. incognitus is distinct from other mycoplasmas, but is most closely related to M. fermentans.

    Cytopathogenicity of Mycoplasma fermentans (including strain incognitus).
    Stadtländer CT, Watson HL, Simecka JW, Cassell GH.

    Department of Microbiology, University of Alabama, School of Medicine, Birmingham 35294.

    Mycoplasma fermentans strain incognitus, an organism recently identified in tissues of patients with AIDS and in tissues of otherwise healthy adults with an acute fatal respiratory disease, was evaluated for cytopathogenicity for tracheal tissue in vivo and in vitro. In this study, the organism produced a chronic infection of the lower respiratory tract in LEW rats following intranasal inoculation and induced both ciliostasis and cytopathology in experimentally infected tracheal explants from rats. The time of onset of ciliostasis, type of cytopathogenicity, and localization of organism in strain incognitus were different from those in other strains of M. fermentans as well as other species of mycoplasmas isolated from humans. The results strongly support, but do not prove, that M. fermentans strain incognitus is an unusually invasive mycoplasma, as it was the only strain found within respiratory epithelial cells both in vivo and in vitro. Detection of the organism within the lamina propria also supported the organism’s invasive potential. Further study of both the in vivo and in vitro models should provide insights into this potentially unique mycoplasma-host relationship.

  67. #67 Chris Noble
    June 16, 2009

    So HIV-1 isnt real. HIV-1 was created in the lab to kill black people and teh gays. But it wasnt, because the mycoplasma was created in the lab to kill black people and teh homogays via mycoplAIDSma.

    ERV didn’t you watch the video I linked to?

    It isn’t just any old mycoplasma. It’s weaponized mycoplasma. It has HIV-1 Env sequences in it. That’s why it causes AIDS. How do you think the HIV-1 sequences got into mycoplasma? Huh? That’s why mycoplasma causes AIDS and HIV doesn’t, because mycoplasma has HIV-1 sequences in it. And besides HIV has never been isolated so these are all endogenous sequences. Understand?

    If you still don’t get it then watch this video from the same scientific conference and learn about the connection between Chemtrails and Morgellans

  68. #68 Lee
    June 16, 2009

    cooler:
    “pretty sad you can only find hiv with the most sensitive technique the PCR”

    cooler continues to be full of shit.

    IV is commonly visualized in infected tissues by RNA in situ hybridization, and has been visualized in such tissues by EM.

    The panel at this link shows such an in situ study – one of many, many such studies. The image on the left is of lymph node tissue in an HIV-positive patient before beginning HAART. The green is the dye used to vizualize hybridization to HIV RNA – note that there is a LOT of free and intracellular HIV RNA present. The image on the right as after HAART. Nte that there is only one cell with intracellular RNA, and no detectable free HIV RNA – a dramatic response to HAART.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/102/41/14807/F1.expansion?ck=nck

    And here is a link to an article with a TEM image of HIV budding from tissue taken from an HIV patient. There are a lot more like this, if you just look for them:
    http://huehueteotl.wordpress.com/2008/02/23/immune-system-reactivated-in-adults-with-hiv-thymus-producing-new-t-cells/

    Cooler, it has been known for a long time – since at least the early 1990s – that free HIV RNA is highly concentrated in lymph nodes – thus the lymphadenopathy that is common in HIV infection. HIV has been visualize in lymph nodes since at least the early 1990s. If you aren’t aware of this, you are extraordinarily (and clearly intentionally and therefore dishonestly) uninformed for someone who pretends to know that everyone has it wrong about HIV. If you do know this, you are simply extraordinarily dishonest.

    Which is it?

  69. #69 Lee
    June 16, 2009

    Anyone else notice that cooler never includes dates of publication in his abstract cut-and-pastes?

    Also, did anyone notice that cooler attempted to refute my statement that M incognitus is a strain of M fermentans, by pasting an abstract from a paper that shows that M imcognitus is a strain of M. fermentans?

    Let me help with the dates of the papers:

    1986 – Dr Lo finds something in AIDS patients that he identifies as a novel virus:

    Lo SC. Isolation and identification of a novel virus from patients with AIDS. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1986 Jul;35(4):675–676

    1989 – Dr. Lo publishes that his “virus” is a novel not-yet-identified virus like infectious agent, and that it kills animals:

    Lo SC, et al. A novel virus-like infectious agent in patients with AIDS. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1989 Feb;40(2):213–226

    Lo SC, et al. Fatal infection of silvered leaf monkeys with a virus-like infectious agent (VLIA) derived from a patient with AIDS. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1989 Apr;40(4):399–409.

    Later 1989, Dr. Lo publishes that his novel virus-like infectious agent is a novel species of mycoplasma:

    Lo SC, et al. Identification of Mycoplasma incognitus infection in patients with AIDS: an immunohistochemical, in situ hybridization and ultrastructural study. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1989 Nov;41(5):601–616.

    Lo SC, et al. Virus-like infectious agent (VLIA) is a novel pathogenic mycoplasma: Mycoplasma incognitus. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1989 Nov;41(5):586–600. [PubMed]

    Also in 1989, Dr. Lo publishes that his novel mycoplasma is associated with non-AIDS deaths in non-HIV patients.

    Lo SC, et al. Association of the virus-like infectious agent originally reported in patients with AIDS with acute fatal disease in previously healthy non-AIDS patients. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1989 Sep;41(3):364–376.

    1990, 1991, Saillard and Stadtlander show that M incognitus is a strain of M. fermentans:

    Saillard C, et al. Genetic and serologic relatedness between Mycoplasma fermentans strains and a mycoplasma recently identified in tissues of AIDS and non-AIDS patients. Res Virol. 1990 May–Jun;141(3):385–395.

    Städtlander CT, et al. Protein and antigen heterogeneity among strains of Mycoplasma fermentans. Infect Immun. 1991 Sep;59(9):3319–3322.

    And finally, in 1991, Dr. Lo publishes that his AIDS-associated mycoplasma (note that he no longer calls is M incognitus): interacts with HIV and potentiates CD4 cytotoxicity:

    Lo SC, et al. Enhancement of HIV-1 cytocidal effects in CD4+ lymphocytes by the AIDS-associated mycoplasma. Science. 1991 Mar 1;251(4997):1074–1076

  70. #70 LanceR, JSG
    June 16, 2009

    Wow. At the risk of repeating myself, finding an environmental pathogen in the bodies of people with compromised immune systems? Shocking.

    Weaponized mycoplasma? Yikes. The *paranoid* stoopid burns even hotter.

    Try citing something more recent than the early 90s, cooler. It is irrelevant at this date *what* people knew in the 80s. AZT works. It works even better when used in conjunction with other antiviral drugs. You can whine and pule all you want, but the evidence is clear.

    Cue lies and ranting in 3… 2… 1…

  71. #71 jim
    June 17, 2009

    Again cooler… your one paper question is a strawman. That and your Gish Gallop style avoidance of questions pointing to the holes in your logic mean that this will be the last post to you from me.

    Science does not work by one paper proclamations. It works by a summation of observations that support a hypothesis over the others. The data to date clearly supports HIV as the causative factor in AIDS. Read it all, and not the ones on your conspiracy theorist web pages then get back to us.

    The “nail in the coffin” experiment would be to knowing inject some people with it, and a control group without, then control all other risk factors and watch what happens. A little side complication – 1st degree murder, forced confinement and torture charges, as well as a fundamental respect for human life – is keeping researchers from doing this exact experiment.

    There is no sense debating you. No more than there is sense in debating a fundamentalist creationist on the matter of evolution. You blindly believe the crap you are saying, and nothing will make you think rationally about the matter. Enjoy living in denial, but be glad that the rest of the world is not as deceived as you, or we would be suffering the same AIDS related catastrophy as the unfortunate African nations being lead by superstitious fools.

    Hell, there’s even a wiki page (that golden standard source of information you keep citing) trashing you little religion / superstition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism

  72. #72 Prometheus
    June 17, 2009

    @257 ERV’s 2nd Request

    “Seriously, I want a Denier version of the acronym ‘TARD’. Cause thats some good TARD, right there.”

    I was kind of waiting for a prize like Pocky or Rule 34 on Luskin but you explained the HepB thing so nicely. Sooooooo

    My submission:

    ‘INANE’

    I
    Need
    Attention
    Not
    Explanations.

  73. #73 Cooler
    June 17, 2009

    Jim, I never asked for just one paper. I asked for the the “papers” and and a explanation as to how they proved HIV was a fatal disease that justified AZT’s release in 1987. The simple fact that you would create a straw man shows how utterly delusional and idiotic you are. Hey Jim, you can always spam AIDStruth, or some other websites, something that would get you laughed out of any courtroom or classroom! Thanks for basically admitting you have no evidence and have just taken everything on faith.

    Lance, You pathetic idiot. None of the New aids drugs are tested against placebo, except for the original crooked AZT trials. And you are complaining about old references? Well almost every reference from the Durban Declaration is from the previous century as well.

    Lee, wow big deal you found a a couple viruses! But as your idol Lance says HIV , like Mycoplasma could just be an OI when the AZT and the severe drug abuse depletes immmunity. Oh and Lo et al authored a chapter in a book in 1992 where they he still used the term “M incognitus” and still said it was lethal in it’s own right due to the reasons stated above. He could be wrong or right, but one must dispassionately read scientific papers to come to correct scientific conclusions, since most of you guys are non thinking shills that don’t read any papers, orthodox or dissident, this is impossible.

    Most of you guys have never read Duesberg, Piatak, Gallo, Levy, Ho, Lo, montagnier etc. I’ll give credit to Lee for at least trying, even though anyone that took a stats class would know he made fool of himself.

    Anyways this has nothing to do with evidence. It has to do with psychopaths that have no personalities. Being a miserable person that can’t think leaves one no choice to just mindlessly believe what your told. So there is no honest debate in dealing with people that have no capability to read papers and think critically. So I not going to be posting here again. I’ll be gone on vacation while you clowns can come up with your stupid one line zingers that are not even funny. What I find funny is how grown adults can still use LOL talk, but coming from people that are pschycopaths that have no personality and can’t think I wouldn’t excpect anything more. Have a nice Day!

  74. #74 LanceR, JSG
    June 17, 2009

    Yep. Lies and ranting. And one of the worst ad hominem rants I’ve seen recently.

    Yeah, his test came back positive. He’s not going to Hawaii… he’s going to start his HAART therapy, and this is how he vents.

  75. #75 Lee
    June 17, 2009

    We’re all miserable mindless psychopath clowns with no personalities and an inability to read or think critically.

    Can we party now?

  76. #76 Prometheus
    June 17, 2009

    “Can we party now?”

    Why not?

    We already have Clowns, Zingers, Spam,….who’s bringing the tequila to “Burning Strawman” this year?

    LanceR, JSG predicted:

    “Yeah, his test came back positive. He’s not going to Hawaii… he’s going to start his HAART therapy, and this is how he vents.”

    The dead giveaway was when he said he was going with “friends”.

    Shit dude, tell us are going with supermodels or mutant Galligators. If you are going to fantasize, go for broke.

  77. #77 jim
    June 17, 2009

    cooler said, Jim, I never asked for just one paper. I asked for the the “papers

    Oops. You are correct, and I apologize for missing the “s”.

    But the point remains, start with the link I supplied. It has a large number of reference that may help you out (and also discusses the issues with the references you seem to hold as gospel). After that there are textbooks, full of references and explanations. And Pubmed searches on AIDS research will fill you in with the new stiff. I think you have about a year or more of reading to catch up on.

    I’ll ignore the personal attacks and get directly to the point. Have you read anything outside of the few known denialists and their slanted interpretations of papers? If no, then there is nothing to discuss. Show us that you have actually though about his and not just swallowed the rhetoric at the websites you mentioned. Then maybe the people here will take you seriously and discuss your questions. Being an ass will not convince anyone to spend the months that appear to be required describing the whole HIV thing to you.

  78. #78 Lee
    June 17, 2009

    jim – Don’t make the mistake of thinking that cooler has questions. He has certainty – which is impervious to any response.

    I don’t expect to change his mind in anything – his responses when we show that he was simply dead-to-rights wrong on the basic facts shows how impervious to change he is.

    But I am curious, often, as to where the crumbs come from for the denialist crap. It was interesting to dig into the Lo story, see what Lo actually did and reported, and also see what small part of that the denialists latch onto and what parts they are forced to utterly ignore.

    Lo’s work is interesting. He found a previously unknown, more virulently pathogenic strain of M fermentans, showed that it was frequently present in AIDS patients, showed that it interacts with HIV infection in ways that are potentially clinically significant in AIDS cases – and his work ended up being perfectly congruent with, and supporting the fact that HIV causes AIDS. His new strain of fermentans also ends up being clinically interesting for other reasons – it can, rarely, kill people all on its own.

    I had known some of that, I learned some of just in the last day looking into the actual science behind the crap cooler spewed, and I was happy to post it – and that it dismantled cooler is a nice side benefit, because I consider his dangerous brand of misinformation to be worth no more than a good dismantling.

    Sometimes, I like to Nom.

    But then, I’m a shill, and incapable of critical thought – cooler told me so.

  79. #79 jim
    June 17, 2009

    jim – Don’t make the mistake of thinking that cooler has questions. He has certainty – which is impervious to any response.

    I do get it, but it’s in my nature to try to engage and point out the problems. Not enough direct contact with ID/no-vaccinate/denialist/911 conspiracy/ etc crowds and too much time as a teaching assistant, I guess.

  80. #80 JohnV
    June 17, 2009

    Chemtrails, morgellons, day lily? OMG I’M SO CLOSE TO CONSPIRACY THEORY BINGO.

    Also, I’m really curious about an answer to why sham inoculations and inoculation with certain mutant strains of a bacterium don’t cause disease while the wild-type causes a lethal infection.

  81. #81 Mike Caton
    June 18, 2009

    I was remiss to wait so long to check CommonSense’s response to my question about medical education (which must be a big conspiracy if we’re all promulgating lies):

    “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.”

    If the idea of medical education is to produce people who won’t rock the boat, why is the amount of research built into medical curriculum increasing? Why are some of the highest-prestige positions research positions? Why is some of the biggest news made when the received wisdom is shown by well-controlled studies to be false? It seems to me that this system is trying to rock the boat as much as possible, to uncover any myths or inaccurate beliefs?

    In fact CommonSense, I’ve been managing clinical trials for twelve years and you know what – sometimes the drugs we’re testing drugs don’t work! And when we find that out, do we cover it up and try to sell them anyway, to promote our drug-and-disease-based picture of medicine? No. Even if we were that dicky, the public (through the FDA, advocacy groups, physicians, and our colleagues at other companies and academia) would be onto us in two seconds. Can you imagine ERV letting us off the hook for something like that?!?!? So we drop that molecule and try another one, or try another approach altogether. No torchlit room with Big Pharma execs in black robes chanting the dark liturgy of Bristol Myers. We have a drink that night, and then we try again.

    And thanks for your heads-up about the evil pharmaceutical industry and its Mammon-like tricks to ensnare naive physicians. I might be able to steer clear of those on my own, thanks.

  82. #82 Pikemann Urge
    July 24, 2009

    Cooler, if you’re still around, can you shoot me an e-mail? I may have some questions for you (and also maybe some conversation).

    It’s kdghantous
    at
    photo
    dot
    net

    No big deal if you can’t.

  83. #83 red rabbit
    August 3, 2009

    The flaming stupid is starting to hurt.

    @commonsense: I am a physician with a small apple/cherry/pear orchard way out in the middle of nowhere.

    1. I don’t spray with any manner of pesticides or use chemical fertilisers due to not being overly concerned with what I produce: even if the birds get most of it I will still have enough for personal use. I do pick the produce and use it.

    I can assure you that healthy, bumper-crop-producing “organic” trees do indeed have fruit rot on the limb.

    2. Please don’t inject yourself with HIV infected blood. I may think your views are batshit crazy, but that doesn’t mean I wish you any ill.

    3. You have no clue what goes on in medical school. Accredited medical schools have statistics and epidemiology and “how to spot falsified data” lessons which encourage critical thinking.

    They can teach us whatever they want, in essence, but they give us the skills to spot the lie.

    4. I do find it rather incredible that anyone at this late date could think the germ theory of disease to be untrue. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have the studies at my fingertips, that would be one hell of a slog. It’s just so… basic. I have READ the studies, BTW, very elegant.

    Seriously, cholera (par exemple) really sucks, and current prevention and treatment really work….

    5. You are shooting yourself in the foot with your comparisons of KS in HIV patients in the Americas vs in Africa. AIDS has a much shorter course in the malnourished and these folks will have no time to develop KS for the most part.

    6. I hope you put butter on those veggies or eat lots of avocados and peanuts. Yeeps.

  84. #84 marie
    August 11, 2009

    I slept with a hiv positive man, got terribly sick a few weeks later but am not hiv positive. Now I have constant swollen glands and skin that looks acidified. I am not on any medication. The doctor can’t explain it, an autoimmune disease. I believe a virus causes AIDS under the right circumstances and it might be HHV6A not HIV which usually occurs together. I’m the one dying of this strange autoimmune disorder so I have the right to question hiv.

  85. #85 LanceR, JSG
    August 11, 2009

    so I have the right to question hiv.

    Nope. Sorry. Do feel free to try again next week.

  86. #86 W. Kevin Vicklund
    August 12, 2009

    marie, how long ago did this occur?

  87. #87 ERV
    August 12, 2009

    I cant figure out what this comment is trying to say– ‘skin that looks acidified’ doesnt mean anything. Thats not a description. Does she mean her skin is peeling?

    And autoimmunity and AIDS are completely different things. AIDS is ‘acquired immunodeficiency syndrome’, not ‘autoimmune deficiency syndrome’, which is impossible (you dont have an immune response, but you have autoimmunity).

    Its completely nonsensical.

  88. #88 W. Kevin Vicklund
    August 12, 2009

    marie may be “murmur” over at AIDS Myth Exposed, in which case it appears only 3-4 months have passed since the initial infection opportunity (though I may be reading too much into her writing). IIRC, the older versions of the initial screening test for HIV are not reliable until about 6 months after initial infection – and I’m not sure if the current version is any better. The reason for this is that the initial screening doesn’t actually detect the presence of HIV (unlike a number of other tests), but the presence of antibodies. Keep in mind, however, that I am an engineer, not a doctor, and that this is based upon my memory of what I read while participating in this discussion a few months ago.

    Also, what ERV said. Though you could just be using imprecise or inaccurate language.

  89. #89 Mark
    August 17, 2009

    Bit late to this discussion – I agree with that Commonsense guy who was posting around June 10 – His diet is 100% and I agree with most of what he has to say – viruses, bacteria are ubiquitous and are part of the natural process – where there is disease you will find them scavenging on toxic debris – kind of like flies at a rubbish dump. The medical profession have been flogging a dead horse with germ theory for decades now – time to admit defeat – even the common cold is beyond them.If there is such a thing as an HIV virus – highly debatable – then it probably has use as a marker for identifying those who are in a highly diseased state – further than that I would say the actual virus is harmless.

  90. #90 phantomreader42
    August 17, 2009

    ANOTHER germ theory denying idiot?

    Mark, you’re a fucking moron. The very existence of antibiotics proves you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. You are denying facts that have been known and demonstrated in countless ways long before you were born. You reject all evidence and substitute bullshit.

  91. #91 Anton Mates
    August 17, 2009

    I cant figure out what this comment is trying to say– ‘skin that looks acidified’ doesnt mean anything. Thats not a description. Does she mean her skin is peeling?

    Maybe she means that her skin looks the way it does when she drops acid. You know, mouths opening up in it and whistling showtunes that morph into chartreuse hummingbirds bearing messages from God.

    Yet all she took today is a cocktail of shrooms and horse tranquilizers! How do you explain that, you allopathic running-dogs of the medical establishment?

  92. #92 whereistheproof
    August 23, 2009

    I am HIV+ for 22 years and reading through this thread is an insult to me.

    for the first 5 years i was a patient at the kobler centre in london and i saw people die. i got sick myself taking azt on the concorde trial and later from combo therapy and haart.

    then i started asking questions. how exactly does hiv cause aids? where exactly has hiv been isolated? i came across duesbergs site and got off all meds.

    i never looked back. i have never been as healthy as right now, cycle to work regularly (40 km one way!) and my rowing team broke the local record just last week.

    the only thing that will kill me is the pharma industry and their cronies pushing all these worthless drugs onto the market.

    and they are not only doing it to people that test positive with questionable tests for hiv. they push their drugs quite legally to those that are depressed, suffer diabetes, arthrities, etc. any illness thats long-term – they just love that. they dont want you to be healthy. they want you to be sick, but not sick enought to die, so you keep taking their crap.

    wake up people – its incredible to see how many of you have been brainswashed into believing all this nonsense. they use you to make more money for themselves. of course there are a few good men and women in the system as well – but they cant speak up or they will lose their jobs.

    any one who is telling me that hiv is the cause of aids is also responsible for all the death that result from:

    – arv’s
    – suicide

    the world does not need more poison! if you want to eridacate AIDS you need to tackle poverty, war and corruption.

  93. #93 Tyler DiPietro
    August 24, 2009

    “I am HIV+ for 22 years and blah blah blah…”

    Please die soon.

  94. #94 NM
    August 27, 2009

    In the comments section for a New Scientist article on denial, “whereistheproof” wrote:

    “i owe peter duesberg my life. in the early 90-ties when on the concorde trial i became pretty ill on azt. before i was actually not sick at all – other than being hiv positive. none of my doctors were really able to explain to me why i was getting ill. the headaches were pretty awful and i had skin rushes as well as increasing amount of diarrhea. that was when i started looking into alternatives. and so i came across peter duesberg. i emailed him, explained my situation and his advise was invaluable: stay off azt. so i did. even my counselor at the time advised me to do the same. but the pressure was on at the kobler centre to stay on the trial. many did. those who weren’t on the placebo arm didnt look so well after some time – unless they did what i did: flush azt down the toilet. ever since peters advice i never looked back. i am living a ‘normal’ life today (if you can call being discriminated against normal), and once off the arv’s i recovered my health completely.”

    So in this version, a little AZT, felt sick, hello Dr. Duesberg, drug down toilet. Apart from the non-sequitur about “arv’s” plural, anyway.

    Here they write: “i got sick myself taking azt on the concorde trial and later from combo therapy and haart.” How is that consistent with “ever since peters advice i never looked back.”? What were they doing taking ” combo therapy and haart”?

    Someone is not being truthful, methinks.

    The crappy AIDS denial movie House of Numbers is now being “four walled” by a company called Moxie that I think essentially hires movie theaters to show films.

    http://movieswithmoxie.com/
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/MOXIE/89110227827?v=info

    So not only did the filmmakers get funded to fly around the world deceiving people, they seem to have money to be paying to get it shown. They won’t say where the funding comes from. Someone on AME reported that there were 5 people in the theater in LA.

    Moxie is also hosting a run at The Quad in New York and having a party to celebrate:

    http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=241672885033&ref=mf

    Thursday, September 3, 2009
    Time:
    8:00pm – 11:00pm
    Location:
    Hibernia Bar
    Street:
    401 West 50th Street

  95. #95 Telemann
    September 9, 2009

    Screening well is the best revenge-You who have not seen the film can natter all you like, but apparently some who actually have seen HON have found something of value in it.

  96. #96 Telemann
    September 9, 2009
  97. #97 TeeDUK
    September 11, 2009

    That Facebook page says the film is an “official selection” of Paley Doc Fest.

    But it isn’t listed as showing there:

    http://www.paleycenter.org/paleydocfest09

  98. #98 Telemann
    September 12, 2009

    They will show it in November, I believe on the 9th. They have not posted anything past October as of yet, please be patient.

  99. #99 Telemann
    September 12, 2009

    Pardon me, November 1 is date for HON at the PaleyDocFest

  100. #100 TeeDUK
    September 13, 2009

    The Paley website says: “Paley DocFest, a look at politics & culture, New York, October 2009.”

    Where does it say it’s continuing into November?

    The House of Numbers Facbook page doesn’t say November 1, it says:

    “Start Time: Sunday, November 1, 2009 at 6:30pm
    End Time: Monday, November 30, 2009 at 9:30pm

    House of Numbers will screen at the PaleyDocFest in NYC sometime in November.”

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