HIV's Kitzmiller v. Dover?

Andre Chad Parenzeeis a sociopath no matter what side of the debate you are on. HIV/AIDS may be a fatamorgana but the scare is very real. If he indeed is guilty then he deserves a life sentence of being b...h-slapped...along with a few thousand hysterical, fear-mongering AIDS activists.

I wonder if Papadopulos-Eleopulos advocates coffee enemas, or agrees with the twit on late-night/weekend tv who tries to sell colon-scouring as the secret to perfect health.

So if Papadopulus and Turner are right, my cousin who died in the early days of the epidemic did not pick up a virus from blood given during an emergency surgury. He had been having lots of anal sex that nobody knew about. And all the people, gay or straight, having anal sex over the last 100,000 years or so either got very lucky, or died of AIDS and nobody noticed. Am I dense, or is this highly implausible?

She was asked by prosecutor Sandi McDonald whether "you would have unprotected vaginal sex with a HIV-positive man".

"Any time," replied Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos.

I say we run an experiment using Ms. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, and reserve a Darwin Award for her.

So if Papadopulus and Turner are right, my cousin who died in the early days of the epidemic did not pick up a virus from blood given during an emergency surgury. He had been having lots of anal sex that nobody knew about.

Not to mention Ryan White:

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

If these morons are right, he must have done an amazing job at keeping his double life hidden . . . especially considering he was only 13 when he was diagnosed.

The irresponsibility of these people really angries up the blood.

Hi Tara,

there's some interesting stuff on South African AIDS denialists over at www.badscience.net

tom

Well, the out on folks like Ryan White is in the claim that AIDS is the result of an "oxidation" process in the body. With much hand-waving, one could argue that transfused blood -- or invasive surgery -- are both major oxidation sources.

Of course this ignores the fact that much more invasive surgical techniques were being practiced in, say, 1930 -- and no one seemed to be getting AIDS then. (And, heh heh, wouldn't the ancient Greeks have mentioned it?)

Finally, wouldn't "decomposing" semen similarly oxidize in a woman's vagina? So why aren't essentially all heterosexual women developing AIDS?

"Finally, wouldn't "decomposing" semen similarly oxidize in a woman's vagina? So why aren't essentially all heterosexual women developing AIDS?"

No, Warren, you don't get it at all. It's not just semen being in the body that leads to the oxidation sickness... it's semen in the body with sin. That's why some heterosexual women do wind up with AIDS, because they're really slutty... or maybe they read Harry Potter. That'd do it.

That's also why men so rarely get AIDS through het sex: the gendered double-standard on sexual behavior is endorsed by God!

It's not just semen being in the body that leads to the oxidation sickness... it's semen in the body with sin. That's why some heterosexual women do wind up with AIDS, because they're really slutty... or maybe they read Harry Potter. That'd do it.

Fraternity boys everywhere rejoice at the proof that lesbian sex is a Good Thing. . . .

Wow. I was under the impression HIV denial consisted of claims that HIV exists but is harmless, and that AIDS is caused by medication targeting HIV. (I think it may be that this is the sort Orac tends to mention.) The variety you describe is new to me, and even more bizarre.

Yeah, it's very much like creationism, and how they run the spectrum from young earth who deny everything, to almost accepting of evolution. The Perth group is definitely the YEC end of the spectrum.

Welcome to the world of denialism. You'll find bizarre claims of all shapes and sizes related to the scientific theory being denied. Evolution has its Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, and a seperate group for every religious creation myth under the sun. The only common link between all of them is that something in their belief system has trumped rationality, and has underminded it.

It will be very interesting to compare this case to Kitzmiller v. Dover. It seems that the Perth group have even less going in their favor than the ID supporters at the Dover trial.

Will we also see "expert witnesses" for the denialists decline to testify? Others lie through their teeth under oath? Hemming and hawing about the "acceptable" definition of AIDS / HIV?

Given that the court finds against Parenzee, I doubt it will change the minds of the hard-core AIDS skeptics. But hopefully their reasoning will be shown as ludicrous and unconvincing as the "evidence" that ID is not Creationism.

Well thankfully the main HIV/AIDs denier is no longer in power in South Africa.

Article on government denial in South Africa

http://africa.resurrectionsong.com/archives/001138.html

But the South African government is changing course, they got rid of their stupid health minister South Africa's former health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who claimed Aids could be treated with garlic and beetroot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,,1961396,00.html

Thought you all might enjoy this one, since Tara brings up HIV researcher John P. Moore's AIDSTRUTH (or should I say AIDSTRUTHINESS website.

A couple of days ago, I had sent Dr. Moore a copy of Andrew Maniotis letter to the BBC, which was written in response to a letter sent to the BBC by Dr. Moore that declared the NIH sponsored testing of AIDS DRUGS on ORPHANS is ETHICAL. Maniotis letter to the BBC about using orphan children to perform clinical trials of AIDS DRUGS.

Dr. Moore responded to my email to him with the following:

Thanks Geiger! What you sent contains useful information we can use against you people! And we will!,

"Dan" has it exactly right when he says: "If they are able to "justify" their actions, it's most likely because they simply see this as WAR. War against the "denialists". Nothing more. When you're in a war, there are no rules".

This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly (at least the more influential ones; foot-soldiers like you aren't worth bothering with).

John P. Moore

Is this what modern science has turned into? Is this childish and emotional? Is this the attitude of an unbiased scientist that welcomes challenge to a hypothesis? Does this sound like a scientist whom is sure his science is sound?

Or does this declaration of war pretty much sum up the entirety of the emotionality of the argument against the thousands and thousands of dissenters of the theory that HIV is the Cause of AIDS? Just what is John P. Moore and the AIDS Establishment so afraid of?

Thought you all might enjoy this one, since Tara brings up HIV researcher John P. Moore's AIDSTRUTH (or should I say AIDSTRUTHINESS website.)

A couple of days ago, I had sent Dr. Moore a copy of Andrew Maniotis letter to the BBC, which was written in response to a letter sent to the BBC by Dr. Moore that declared the NIH sponsored testing of AIDS DRUGS on ORPHANS is ETHICAL. Maniotis letter to the BBC about using orphan children to perform clinical trials of AIDS DRUGS.

Dr. Moore responded to my email to him with the following:

Thanks Geiger! What you sent contains useful information we can use against you people! And we will!,

"Dan" has it exactly right when he says: "If they are able to "justify" their actions, it's most likely because they simply see this as WAR. War against the "denialists". Nothing more. When you're in a war, there are no rules".

This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly (at least the more influential ones; foot-soldiers like you aren't worth bothering with).

John P. Moore

_________________________

Is this what modern science has turned into? Is this childish and emotional? Is this the attitude of an unbiased scientist that welcomes challenge to a hypothesis?

Or does this declaration of war pretty much sum up the entirety of the emotionality of the minstream argument that underlies the lack of good science to be used against the thousands and thousands of dissenters of the theory that HIV is the Cause of AIDS?

Wow even nutcase IDiots like Hovind don't say that viruses aren't real. When you think you have seen the depths of human insanity some real super duper ultra nutcase comes out of the wood work and hits a home run for the CrAzIeS.

Also, I notice that very few people on the blog (including the host) discuss scientific facts on this issue.

Thankfully, Seed has provided some facts -- such as

Microbicides: AIDS Dream is Dealt a New Blow"

These AIDS idiots, after failing to devise a vaccine for 25 years, are now producing drugs that actually spread HIV, faster than placebos.

No wonder why the host throws out these red herring posts -- to mask utter, abject scientific failure.

Ah, Michael. So good to see you again. (hy the "Wiggles" pseudonym?) Indeed, Seed already addressed that story, and I don't have much to add besides what they already wrote--why exactly do I need to repeat them?

Hello Tara! Hope all is well with you and yours. I tried to post under my name, but the blog was held, so I had my friend Wiggles post it, and fortunately it went through.

Well, now that Dr. JP Moore has informed us that we are at War, looks like good science and rational thinking will continue to take a back seat to other agendas, huh?

Now I understand why so many people have been so vocally and irrationally against the AIDS rethinkers and all they represent. After all, as to HIV being the cause of AIDS or not is not about science, it is about WAR! It has not been about science since the early 1980's.

Myself, I don't see it as a war, as much as I see it as the frailty of human egos that have taken a position and are unable to rationally look at anything that disproves the egos prior position. Seems to me that is what the debate has always been about, ever since Peter Duesberg was censored from publishing his findings to other scientists. Even Dr. Moore was one of the prime Duesberg bashers back then, instead of allowing Peter's views to be properly aired and either proved or disproved. The "WAR" mentallity also kept anyone from taking an unbiased look at Robert Gallo's silly work, wherein he showed only 36 of 72 of his original "AIDS" patients tested as reactive to his search for HTLV-III, later renamed HIV.

The "WAR" mentallity also helps me to understand why 300,000 to 500,000 mostly otherwise healthy but terrified people diagnosed as HIV positive from 1987 to 1993 suffered the iatrogenic poisoning of high dosage AZT.

The "WAR" mentality also explains why doctors are still giving highly toxic ARV treatments that cure nothing to hundreds of thousands of otherwise healthy people around the world. After all, this is WAR dammit, if not against the invisible virus, then at least against those who would go against the warriors to expose the flaws of the mainstream theory.

Who cares if the leading current cause of death in American HIV positives is currently liver failure and nothing viral? After all, this is a WAR, and what is a few hundred thousand casualties when your at war?

Oh well, such is life with our very frail and human egos that keep many of us in denial and yet projecting our own denial at those who would wake us up to the facts of reality. If there is one thing an ego can not tolerate, it is admitting that one made a mistake. To feel publicly shamed. This is a very natural and human occurence that we deal with every day in ourselves and our fellow man over the most minute of mistakes. Let alone our biggest mistakes.

And HIV=AIDS is turning out quickly to be one helluva mistake!

But fear not, as the indomitable spirit of man, as time passes, and given over to just a moment of humility, we humans shall overcome our fears and our mistakes, and we shall go on to a bright new world. All it takes is just a tiny bit of humility, and a simple admission that one has been a bit too hasty in judging. I know, this is always much easier said than done. Such are the fragile egos of man. Especially with something as big as the global terror and paranoia of HIV/AIDS.

Anyhow, Tara, I am confident that one way or another mankind will survive all of this, one way or another, and move on.

I didn't realise that the Parenzee's mother had spent $250,000 on her son's defense. Add to that the huge amount of money that the court case will cost Australian taxpayers and it just makes me sick. I think it is highly unlikely that the judge will even award the Perthies "expert witness" status. The whole thing is just a massive waste of time and money.

I just hope that once they lose the appeal they'll shut up. I somehow doubt it. My predictions is that "rethinkers" will appeal to conspiracy theories to explain the defeat.

My predictions is that "rethinkers" will appeal to conspiracy theories to explain the defeat.

And my prediction is that the sun will come up tomorrow.

Try something hard, Chris!

:)

Well, setting aside the deniers for the moment, there is some progress that has been made in the field. For example, I remember that there is a fellow out east, of Indian descent I believe, who has designed a new drug that is tailored to protease in such a way that it attatches to the entire backbone. As such, it makes it a great deal more difficult for protease to mutate around it. Moreover, it is much smaller than other protease inhibitors, which means less toxic affects upon the patient. the protein can be manufactured - which means greatly reduced costs.

I remember his descent because India has the potential for an african style epidemic. It already has more infected people than South Africa. In South Africa about 30% of the population is infected, but given the much greater population of India, it outnumbers South Africa in absolute terms with just 1% of the population being infected. He said specifically that he wanted the drug to be inexpensive so that it would be more affordable in third world countries.

PS

I believe he "designed" the drug through test-tube evolution. Obviously, he didn't know what the target was, particularly with the complexity of protein folding, but through a stepwise process involving a fair number of generations he was able to reach "the target" nevertheless.

Amazing how well that approach works!

Sex Has Nothing to Do With AIDS

David Rasnick, Visiting Scientist, UC Berkeley
rasnick@mindspring.com
January 20, 2003

I challenge [doctors] to come up with the names, even one will do, of the persons documented to have shown that AIDS or HIV is sexually transmitted. I know of no such study.

In fact, the scientific, medical literature is full of evidence that neither AIDS nor HIV is sexually transmitted. It is only assumed that they are.

The results of the world's best scientific study that attempted to measure the efficiency of heterosexual transmission of antibodies to HIV was conducted by Nancy Padian and her colleagues (Padian NS, et al. 1997: Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in northern California: results from a ten-year study. Am J Epidemiol 146: 350-7).

The most striking result of the ten-year study is that Padian et al. did not observe any HIV-negative sex partners becoming
HIV-positive from years of unprotected sexual intercourse with their HIV-positive partners. I repeat?NOT ONE HIV-negative sex partner became positive during the 10- year study. Therefore, the observed transmission efficiency was ZERO.

However, to avoid reporting a zero efficiency for the sexual transmission of HIV, Padian and colleagues assumed that the
HIV-positive sex partners in their study must have become positive through sexual intercourse before entering the study. Using that assumption, they estimated that an HIV-negative woman would have to have sexual intercourse 1,000
times with HIV-positive men before becoming HIV-positive herself. Even more astounding, HIV-negative men would have to have 8000 sexual contacts before becoming HIV-positive.

Virtually identical figures have been reported by others (Gisselquist, D., et al., HIV infections in sub- Saharan Africa not explained by sexual or vertical transmission. Int J STD AIDS, 2002. 13: p. 657-666; Jacquez, J.A., et al., Role of the primary infection in epidemics of HIV infection in gay cohorts. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 1994. 7: p.1169-1184).

Given these figures and that the US Centers for Disease Control estimates that one million Americans have antibodies to HIV raises an enormous problem for sexually transmitted HIV. Since there are around 280 million men and women in the USA, that means that on average an HIV-negative woman would have to have random sexual intercourse 140,000 times?and a man eight times that number?in order to become HIV-positive (assuming equal distribution of HIV between the sexes).

Below are additional examples in the literature that neither AIDS nor HIV is sexually transmitted.

- None of the husbands of HIV positive women became antibody positive to HIV over a three-year period. (Lancet ii: 581 (1985), Stewart et al.}

- No transmission of HIV was observed between couples in which all of the women were HIV positive and in which at least 100 sexual contacts occurred. (JAMA 259: 3037 (1988), Padian et al.)

- After a mean of 3-1/2 years of unprotected intercourse, with an average of 50 sexual encounters per year, only one hemophiliac wife became HIV positive. (American Journal of Medicine 85: 472 (1988), Kim et al.)

- No transmission of T-cell abnormalities from hemophiliacs with AIDS to their spouses. (JAMA 251: 1450 (1984), Kreiss et al.)

- "The number of American and European heterosexuals who have had sexual relations with a prostitute, who have no other
admitted risk factors (such as drug abuse), and who have subsequently developed antibody to HIV can be
counted on the fingers of one hand. Sex with a prostitute is not even listed as a risk category by the American CDC." (Rethinking AIDS, Root-Bernstein, 1993)

- "Non-drug abusing prostitutes have no higher risk of AIDS than other women." (AIDS: the second decade, report from the
National Academy of Sciences USA, 1990)

The same is true for prostitutes in Germany, Zurich, Vienna, London, Paris, Pardenone (Italy), and Athens. (Klinische
Wochenschrift 65: 287 (1987), Luthy et al.; Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 98: 697 (1986), Kopp & Dangl-Erlach; Lancet ii: 1424 (1985), Brenky-Fandeux & Fribourg-Blanc; British Medical Journal 297: 1585 (1988), Day et al.; Scand J Infect Dis 21: 353 (1988), Hyams et al.)

Typo alert--your post says "calvary" where it means "cavalry"... unless, of course, you meant that there was an impending crucifixion.

Given these figures and that the US Centers for Disease Control estimates that one million Americans have antibodies to HIV raises an enormous problem for sexually transmitted HIV. Since there are around 280 million men and women in the USA, that means that on average an HIV-negative woman would have to have random sexual intercourse 140,000 times?and a man eight times that number?in order to become HIV-positive (assuming equal distribution of HIV between the sexes).

Amazingly, Rasnick manages to even get his bad maths wrong.

Pathetic Statistics from HIV/AIDS Denialists

Thanks Jim, missed that.

What DOES cause AIDS? (read more at http://NotAIDS.com)
It is not unreasonable to imagine a scenario where a gay man, having contacted an STD or two in a 6 month period, is dosed with potent antibiotic therapy. He isn't advised to balance the deleterious impact of the good bacteria-killing antibiotic, and hence develops a Candida problem.

As the yeast matures unchecked in the gut, it sends roots (hyphae) into the gut's tissues and this eventually causes tears in the lining. This Candida overgrowth, which is actually the fungal form of the commonly occuring yeast of the same name, signifiantly impairs his body's ability to digest nutrients.

(Look up IBS - irritable bowel syndrome, common among gay men right before the 'GRID / AIDS' and the dawn of the antibiotic era.)

Add to this man's Candida problem a parasite like cryptospordium, and this individual would exhibit all the classic "signs of AIDS" - weight loss, night sweats, persistent diarrhea. Rimming, much to the dismay and disbelief of gay men, is a sure-fire way to catch a parasite.

Parasites are also easily caught from the practice of drinking water in sub-Sahran Africa where less than one-half of the population has access to filtered, potable water.

(They do however, thanks to Bob Gallo, UNAIDS, Tara, and her kind, have antiretrovirals which will make them feel even worse, not resolve the parasites, and hasten their death.)

In Africa, it is Malaria or tuberculosis which compounds the problems of parasites. It is obvious that given these endemic illneses, which are easily prevented with technology the West uses, a person's immune system will be overpowered, and AIDS will become evident. The UN seems to agree, as the Bangui definition does not require an HIV test to call this person's symptoms AIDS.

Wouldn't it be something if even some of the AIDS money went to building water treatment facilities, mosquito nets, moderate servings of insecticide, and critical care for those with parasites, malaria, tuberculosis, and education about how to avoid these individual illnesses instead of preaching to gays and Africans about sex.

TREAT THE PARASITES
RESOLVE THE CANDIDA
FIGHT MALARIA
CURE TUBERCULOSIS

Leave the healthy ones alone.

HIV is a holographic concept that exists because it is a huge money-maker.

Carry on...get back to your name calling and continue to pat each other on the back. Yep, you're all doing a great job with eliminating AIDS, right!? GO TEAM.

(They do however, thanks to Bob Gallo, UNAIDS, Tara, and her kind, have antiretrovirals which will make them feel even worse, not resolve the parasites, and hasten their death.)

Clinical trials and years of use show otherwise.

Wouldn't it be something if even some of the AIDS money went to building water treatment facilities, mosquito nets, moderate servings of insecticide, and critical care for those with parasites, malaria, tuberculosis, and education about how to avoid these individual illnesses instead of preaching to gays and Africans about sex.

I think clean water, mosquito nets, and prevention efforts are all great things. Indeed, in a talk I give to med students each semester on global health, I emphasize just how many people in the world don't even have access to basic sanitation and clean water. No doubt it's a tragedy. But so is depriving Africans and others of drugs that have been shown to lengthen lifespan in HIV-infected individuals.

I also doubt I'm the only one who finds it a bit ironic that you start your post by railing against "potent antibiotic therapy" yet advocate to

TREAT THE PARASITES
RESOLVE THE CANDIDA
FIGHT MALARIA
CURE TUBERCULOSIS

How does one treat parasites, resolve candida, fight malaria, or cure TB without involvement of drugs? OK, so you could "fight" malaria with insecticides and mosquito control, but curing TB certainly takes "potent antibiotics"--do you have any idea what the antibiotic regimine is like for someone diagnosed with TB?

30% of SA is now infected? You mean the way Uganda was in the 90's?
The "estimated" AIDS deaths don't even fit in the mortality rate but no one cares to check this. Do the math. Read the mortality data, consider that most of your "estimated" HIV sufferers aren't even on meds and then call back with your downward correction. Last time we heard from Unaids et al. we were at 5 million infected and this blogger now claims 12 million. The sky is indeed the limit, eh?

We'll hit the 110% mark any day now.

It's been a while, Tara, since you wrote about your own HIV/AIDS denial.

I think that must be what you mean. You show such a flagrant contempt even for those blights and disasters that are acknowledged by the AIDS leadership itself, you and your readers dispel any and all credibility.
Here, for example, is Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, original founder of AmFar, quoted by the most strident dissident hater in all AIDS media, Bob Lederer, on the subject of AZT's history AND early cocktail/Ho/Hit Hard Hit early history:

Sonnabend concurs, "Sadly, the orthodox AIDS medical leadership has made mistake after mistake," he says. "1,200 mg a day of AZT [the first approved dose in the '80s] killed thousands," as did so-called early intervention.

Have you no shame Tara? No heart?

All you seem capable of is parrot-screeching "denialist!!!" at anybody who dares point out the elephantine blunders, exploitations, iatrogenic deaths, mass panic, and racist lunacy that characterizes the paradigm you seem to love.

Every time I check in on your blog I am left clinically nauseated.

Celia, as usual, I'll challenge you again to point out my "flagrant contempt" for those "blights and disasters". Every time you comment here you bring in your emotional arguments, your accusations of me and others being cruel and heartless, but you bring nothing to the table but rhetoric. But I guess that's your MO, right?

I bring nothing to the table but rhetoric?

Let me attempt this one question at a time.

I have been researching HIV/AIDS by way of people, doctors, scientists, nurses, villagers in Africa, people at homeless shelters, you name it, since 1986, Tara.

I have crossed Africa a few times. I have interviewed recearchers at the highest posts of science, including Nobel Luareates. You can try to reduce them to "morons," but you would be fashioning only your own fool's cap in so doing.

I accept your challenge. Let's start with AZT.

Do you admit or do you not admit that AZT was a catastrophe, by whuch I mean, killed people in the tens of thousands between 1987 and 1993. Some estimates are as high as 300,000. The surviving loved ones of these people come to me often. I take down their stories, in great detail. I tell them I am sorry for what happened to them.

What would you say to them, Tara?

If you dispute my statement, please be clear, and I will return with a panoply of citations. This is just the starting point, then we can move on.

Also, since you stated that my 'MO' is ..."Nothing but rhetoric.." and you link that statement to the embarassingly titled AIDSTruth.org, which came into being to undermine the credibility of my March 2006 article in Harper's, "Out of Control: AIDS and the Destruction of Medical science," I must insist upon some clarification.

The Harper's article was 15 pages long and was fact checked for over three months. Please point out passages where it relied on rhetoric to the point of this being stamped as my very "MO."

My recollection is that both myself and Harper's editors shared the view that the piece should be constructed from fact and documentation, not rhetoric.

And it was.

Try to identify one error. Bear in mind that an indepenedent team of international researchers found not one.

But go ahead--try.

I'll debate you point by point. If you can't prove me wrong, you will have to offer a public apology.

I am ready whenever you are Tara.

Celia Farber once again attempts to blur the distinction between valid skepticism about the cost versus benefits of early antiretroviral treatment with AZT to the blatant denialism of the "Perth Group" who claim that HIV does not exist.

I have read some of the court transcripts from the trial in Adelaide and they are truly surreal. At some points the defense lawyer, in an attempt to discredit Robert Gallo's testimony, asserts that he "stole" Luc Montagniers LAV isolate. This is in a case where the central defense claim is that HIV does not exist. How can someone steal a virus that doesn't exist?

Time after the time the defense lawyer, apparently "educated" by the self-professed Perth Group experts, asks asinine questions only to be given clear and reasonable answers. Most of the defence involved playing silly word games and attempting to take quotations of "orthodox" scientists out of context. All of the "Perth Group" assertions have been refuted time and time again. This didn't stop them dragging the same old bullshit.

Why are the Perth Group pursuing this avenue? Because they have completely failed in the normal scientific procedure. They have been trying to initiate a trial like this for some time. The only question is whether they will finally shut up after it's over. It's clear from the Kitzmiller case that "rethinkers" won't accept the court verdict they will just continue to "rethink" reality.

Why didn't Duesberg appear to support the defense? Was he not keen to be associated with lunatics that deny the existence of HIV?

It is pointless to discuss the issue of AZT with someone like Celia Farber unless we first establish whether she accepts that HIV exists and causes AIDS. On the whole AZT was given to people that were already extremely ill with either serious opportunistic infections or low CD4 counts. Despite Duesberg's lies Kimberly Bergalis was extremely ill with weight loss, systemic candidiasis, PCP and a CD4 count less than 50 before she was given AZT. I fully accept that there were asymptomatic HIV+ patients that were given AZT and a proportion of these suffered severe and even fatal side-effects. The estimate of 300,000 is however completely baseless.

Where have I called anyone "morons," Celia? Putting words in my mouth again? And yes, I dispute your 300,000 number, and your characterization of AZT as a "catastrophe," so go ahead and follow up with your references.

Try to identify one error. Bear in mind that an indepenedent team of international researchers found not one.

Interesting, then, that another team of international researchers found enough to fill 35 pages.

One of the most deceptive aspects of Farber's Harper article was the blurring between valid concerns about Joyce Ann Hafford and HIV Denialism.

Most people are very disturbed by the death of Joyce Ann Hafford. There are very valid questions about the frequency of serious side effects from nevirapine. There are very valid questions about how in this case these side effects were apparently not monitored.

But in no way does this add support to Duesberg's contention that HIV does not cause AIDS.

Farber clearly uses an emotional response to the death of Joyce Ann Hafford to support her wider HIV Denialist beliefs.

Farber's assertion that an "independent" team of international researchers failed to find any errors in her article is rhetorical nonsense. The "independent" researchers are of course the very HIV Denialists whose opinions she is parroting. How surprising that they don't admit to their own errors.

I'll debate you point by point. If you can't prove me wrong, you will have to offer a public apology.

How do you define "prove me wrong"?

Is this when you admit you were wrong? As there is no indication that you will ever admit to significant errors on your part there is little chance that anyone can "prove you wrong".

This is after all the defining characteristic of the Denialist movement.

Celia Farber wrote:

"Try to identify one error."

From your article:

"With all other viral diseases, by the way, the presence of antibodies signals immunity from the disease. Why this is not the case with HIV has never been demonstrated."

This, as even you acknowledged on another blog, is a basic error of fact (although apparently not a serious one, in your opinion). There are many viruses that can cause disease in the presence of antibodies: Dengue, CMV, herpes zoster, hepatitis B & C. Although mechanisms of antibody escape have been well described for HIV, this hardly matters because the premise that leads into the second sentence is deliberately, misleadingly false. Propaganda targeted to a lay audience, in fact, a far cry from journalism. Although shortly after you acknowledged this error, you claimed to the New York Post that the only error in your article related to what, Cuckoo clocks. To me, this demonstrates that you are fundamentally (and self-servingly) dishonest.

From your article:

"no one has ever demonstrated how a sexually transmitted virus can manage to restrict itself overwhelmingly to gay men and other AIDS risk groups instead of spreading randomly through the population, as do all other infectious diseases."

Another basic error of fact. Reflects as poorly on Harper's fact checkers as it does on you, although I have to presume you had editorial assistance that helped you avoid having to correct this and the many other false statements contained in the article. Here are Wolf Szmuness and colleagues on the epidemiology of hepatitis B circa 1975:

Ann Intern Med. 1975 Oct;83(4):489-95.

On the role of sexual behavior in the spread of hepatitis B infection.

Szmuness W, Much I, Prince AM, Hoofnagle JH, Cherubin CE, Harley EJ, Block GH.

There is a significant excess of serologic evidence of hepatitis type B infection in two high-promiscuity populations: patients with venereal diseases and their unrelated sexual contacts (15% to 18%) and male, but not female, homosexuals (37% to 51%). Spouses of asymptomatic chronic carriers of antigen had a higher prevalence (26% to 28%) than spouses of noncarriers (10% to 11%); however, the prevalence in the former is relatively low when compared with rates seen in other relatives of carriers. Persons who had a higher-than-average probability of exposure to potentially infective partners or whose patterns of sexual behavior made such exposure more likely (large numbers of sexual partners, long duration of homosexuality, involvement in predominantly anal intercourse) were found to have serologic evidence of hepatitis B more frequently than those with other patterns of sexual behavior. This study showed a strong association between serologic evidence of type B hepatitis and patterns of sexual behavior. However, whether or not transmission of hepatitis type B virus occurs through vaginal intercourse could not be ascertained.

From your article:

"His (Duesberg's) exhaustive analysis of the peer-reviewed scientific literature has revealed more than 4,000 documented AIDS cases in which there is no trace of HIV or HIV antibodies. This number is significant, because there are strong institutional forces deterring such descriptions and because the vast majority of AIDS cases are never described in formal scientific papers."

Pure fiction. I've read Duesberg's "exhaustive analysis" and these do not represent "documented AIDS cases in which there is no trace of HIV or HIV antibodies." What Duesberg's analysis represents is a shocking and gratuitous misrepresentation of the papers that he cites (e.g. the Curran paper he cites as part of this analysis, where he counts HIV negative drug using gay men as AIDS cases based on his own theory that they will develop AIDS because of their drug use. The paper itself showed just the opposite: HIV infected gay men progressed, uninfected drug-using gay men did not. You might have considered that such fundamental dishonesty on the part of Duesberg is a more parsimonious explanation of his plight than the one you offer in the article.

"Orthodox AIDS researchers have failed to demonstrate, using large-scale controlled studies, that the incidence of AIDS-defining diseases is higher among individuals infected with HIV than among the general uninfected population."

Blatantly false. Try a Pubmed search for "HIV natural history" there are many, many studies dating back to the 80s, some with thousands of participants.

From your article:

"Consequently, it could very well be the case that HIV is a harmless passenger virus that infects a small percentage of the population and is spread primarily from mother to child, though at a relatively low rate. (This hypothesis would tend to explain the fact that the estimated number of HIV-positive Americans has remained constant at about 1 million since 1985.)"

Ridiculous, and "explain the fact"? What fact? The million estimate from 1985 represents not a fact but Duesberg's taking the high end of an early CDC estimate that was based on such a small sample that it wasn't a specific number it was a huge range, like 500,000-1 million. More dishonesty.

And I'll stop there and people can read the rebuttal that Tara referred to for many, many more examples like this. The best I could say is that you don't grasp that you're being lied to by Duesberg, but your seeming ability to admit your errors and then go back to saying you never made any suggests otherwise. In other words, I think you're as duplicitous and culpable as they are. When your agenda is so transparent, why would you be in any way an appropriate person to write about HIVNET 012 or the case of Joyce Ann Hafford? You're viewing everything through Duesberg's dishonest, propagandizing prism.

It's impossible to respond to such an array of wild pies from so many directions inferring what I never implied, and not even coming from the person I addressed, that would be Tara, not Chris Noble.

I believe in addressing one point at a time. I was not, in my original post, conflating AZT deaths with Perth's argument. I was clearly reacting to the kultur of this blog which issues constant streams of invective and pre-supposes that ALL "denialist" trains of inquiry are wrong, backward, etc. The commentators here, urged on by the condescending esprit of their hostess, Tara, thinks it suffices to screw up faces, stick out tongues and shout "denialist" each and every time a matter of deep importance to a great many people on earth emerges, such as is now happening in the Australian case. A man's life is at stake. The conduct here is precisely that of children in a schoolyard. It is Lord of The Flies. It is very low class.

Now then: I might ask you all whether you actually believe that HIV positives who have unsafe sex should be jailed, because in that case, there's a case to be made for arresting Andrew Sullivan, who as you are well aware was found to have solicited bareback sex on the Internet some time back.

You'd have to sweep up and arrest the bareback culture and "movement" in its entirety.

Anybody interested in that?

I didn't think so.

As for my journalistic veracity, all I have to say is that in the almost two years of constructing, reporting, revising, and editing the lengthy article that ran in Harper's in 2006, I asked as one of the terms of the arrangement that the article be drained of any single inference or emotion or bias that could only be mine and not immediately reflected in the text itself. They agreed. Hence, it was a joint project between myself and the editors and fact checkers at Harper's, who read all original materials, and with whom careful conversations ensued about whether the wording was balanced and fair.

In most cases where the wording tilted toward the more edgy, it was their decision.

They felt, and expressed, that the material they were now reading and discovering was so appalling so as to constitute a mecicinal and scientific "disaster."

The Gold Standard for whether my article was rife with errors is Harper's itself. It reviewed the TAC/Gallo et al error manifesto, and found it baseless. Had Harper's found errors that needed to be conceded, you can be certain they would have appeared in the letter's page as "corrections."

I suppose none of you know how top periodicals in America operate.

But now over to you Chris Noble: You have conceded:

"I fully accept that there were asymptomatic HIV+ patients that were given AZT and a proportion of these suffered severe and even fatal side-effects. The estimate of 300,000 is however completely baseless."

(Incidentally, I have never personally signed off on the 300,00 estimate and do not yet know its source.)

But my question to you Chris is this: Who were the journalists who warned about AZT, at the time it was being given to both sick and healthy the latter (at least) of whom suffered "severe and even fatal side effects?"

You will find if you look up the history, that they were all those who you would now spitefully call denialists, who deny reality. (And I can count us on one hand.)
How do you explain this? They (we) apparently had the capacity to discern reality in advance of the rest of the herd at the time, so when did their (our) capacity for processing information reverse itself into this state of fulminant "denial?"

Does the world owe a debt to those journalists who sounded the alarm about AZT starting in 1987, or does it not? Were they correct or were they not?

Let's focus on one name: John Lauritsen.

Was John Lauritsen correct about AZT?

Celia Farber wrote:

"The Gold Standard for whether my article was rife with errors is Harper's itself. It reviewed the TAC/Gallo et al error manifesto, and found it baseless. Had Harper's found errors that needed to be conceded, you can be certain they would have appeared in the letter's page as "corrections.""

That's am amazing revelation Celia. Harper's feels that all infectious diseases do spread randomly through the population! That antibodies always signal immunity to viral infections!

"I suppose none of you know how top periodicals in America operate."

I certainly had no idea they were so comfortable unilaterally dismissing long-established scientific facts.

"Was John Lauritsen correct about AZT?"

No. Your persistently expressed concern about whether the world owes you and you ilk some kind of debt is as solipsistic as it is nauseating. And no rational person who reads your work could ever consider you a journalist. You're a propagandist.

First of all, everything in that article that pertained to the biological views of Peter Duesberg was pegged as being WHAT DUESBERG HAS ARGUED. IT WAS FACT CHECKED AGAINST DUESBERG HIMSELF. IT WAS INSIDE A SECTION ABOUT PETER DUESBERG'S SCIENTIFIC ASSASSINATION AND HARPER'S DECIDED THE READER HAD TO FIRST KNOW WHAT HE HAD SAID BEFORE THEY WOULD CARE AS MUCH ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM. SO SECTIONS ABOUT DUESBERG'S ESSENTIAL ARGUMENTS WERE FASHIONED. LIKE I SAID HARPER'S CHECKED THEM AGAINST THE GOLD STANDARD FOR WHAT DUESBERG SAYS AND THAT IS DUESBERG. BIOLOGY AND VIROLOGY ARE RIFE WITH DISAGREEMENT AND IT TROUBLES ME NOT AT ALL THAT MR. JEFFRIES HAS CONTRARY ARGUMENTS. DUESBERG AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN TRYING FOR 20 YEARS TO STAGE A PROPER DEBATE AND HASH THESE THINGS OUT BUT HAVE BEEN REFUSED EVERY TIME AND NOW I REPEAT THE CHALLENGE AND INVITATION: WOULD YOU MR. JEFFRIES CARE TO DEBATE WITH DR. DUESBERG ON THESE AND OTHER POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT IN AN APPROPRIATE FORUM? YOU SEEM TO BE QUITE CERTAIN OF YOUR BIOLOGICAL PROWESS. COME DEBATE, THEN. IF NOT, I CANNOT SEE HOW YOU CAN MAINTAIN YOUR POSITION THAT YOU ARE A TRUTH-SEEKER AND I AM A PROPAGANDIST. IT IS PROPAGANDISTS WHO ARE ANTI-DEBATE. I AM PRO-DEBATE ALL THE WAY. DUESBERG IS PRO-DEBATE. ALL HIV SO CALLED DENIALISTS ARE PRO-DEBATE. WHY WON'T YOU HAVE A DEBATE IF YOU ARE SO SURE YOU ARE RIGHT? I ASK YOU HERE AND NOW MR. JEFFRIES IF YOU WILL DEBATE DR. DUESBERG AND IF YOU SAY YES I WOULD EXPECT BOTH SIDES TO ELECT AN APPROPRIATE FORUM. There are so many stories that need to be factored in to this greatly fractured history. I suggest you read the stories here, for a start: www.livingwithouthivdrugs.com. Tell those people their own lives did not happen to them, if you like. I expect your arrogance has no bounds whatsoever.

Now, as for the other quite ugle accusations you made against me: My concern is not for a debt of gratitude--I get that from hundreds of readers around the world who tell me in vivid detail how my work saved either their lives or the lives of loved ones by urging them to do their own research and to THINK and READ and ASK.

Not long ago I was contacted by a man who lost his beloved older brother from AZT; The brother had been asymptomatic when they put him on the drug. His face partly disintegrated. "My brother melted," the man told me. I sat with him for 12 hours, and rest assured Mr. Jeffries, I am very much a journalist, and everything you people have done, all that you have destroyed of what was held sacred, from living human beings to standards of ethics and science--has been recorded for posterity.

People despise you. And their numbers are growing. I in fact am often trying to argue in your favor, argue for forgiveness, because I believe in it. But these ghosts are getting louder and more clamorous, and I am not sure what to do with them anymore. So many dead. From ARVs. From the propaganda of you and your ilk. From a dearth of courage and a dearth of real journalism.

No, my concern is not for "gratitude." Rather, I would like to see reparations made to those whose loved ones were needlesly killed. THEY want an acknowledgement and they want it from YOU lot.

The idea that you people dare show your faces in public, much less scissor around on blogs with your denialist venom, is breathtaking.

My concern is not for gratitude, (the work is the work) but rather, for maintaining a relationship to "truth" in an age of cheap media, under the influence of pharma-bought propagandists calling themselves "activists" such as yourself. The idea of YOU calling ME a progagandist is so hilarious I will dine on it for months.

You seem to be very upset Mr. Jeffries. I would be too if I were you.

The line in your little manifesto, that has now gone around the world, expressing your shocking callousness over the death of Joyce Ann Hafford, namely: 'Farber cites the death of a single patient and implies this is significant to HIV research...' is all we need to know about you.

If you have lost sight of that life is precious, death is tragic and that nobody owes to offer up their own mother to your "HIV research" machine, then I see no reason why I should care what you think about my journalism, other than to be quietly thrilled that you hate it. That's a good sign.

The feeling is entirely mutual. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a life, and I have work, and I have deadlines.

Celia, you have an impressive flair for hysterical rhetoric laced with self righteous indignation. Sadly, while it may make for good journalism it doesn't make for good science.

Well. Typical. A call for debate followed by leaving in a huff. The debate is over. It occurred in the scientific literature, which obviously has different standards of proof than Harpers. Calls for public debate, when the denialist claims cannot even be defended in a blog, are ridiculous. We have no reason to "debate" something that has already been argued in the literature. The denialist arguments are confused and unfounded in science. We show our faces proudly because we are moving forward, supporting good science, while denialists have made a cottage industry of shouting loudly and calling for debate. Ms. Farber can rely on misinterpreted data and long abandoned hypothesis, preached to the public with hyperbole and logical fallacy, but it does not change the facts.

Was John Lauritsen correct about AZT?

No.

The serious side-effects of AZT have been published in the literature since 1987. "Orthodox" scientists have been very honest right from the start.

The studies that lead to the reduction of the dose of AZT given were done by "orthodox" scientists. The studies that demonstrated that AZT monotherapy was not beneficial for asymptomatic HIV+ patients were performed by "orthodox" scientists. The studies that developed newer ARVs were done by "orthodox" scientists.
"Rethinkers" have been almost enirely peripheral.

While "orthodox" scientists have been honest about the serious side effects of AZT and other antiretrovirals "rethinkers" have consistently exaggerated the toxicity of these drugs and denied their benefits. Moreover, the "rethinkers" have also consistently either denied the existence of HIV or that it caused AIDS.

If the "rethinkers" were to any degree right about AZT then they have effectively placed themselves out of the scientific discourse with their pseudoscientific denial of the the existence of HIV and its role in AIDS.

If "rethinkers" were really just concerned about the toxicity of AZT then they could have made a positive contribution by a) finding less toxic ARVs and b) looking for host/viral factors that are associated with LTNPs. The second point is important. If you know if someone is likely to progress to AIDS then you can make a better judgement about the cost/benefits of treatment.

Incidentally, I have never personally signed off on the 300,00 estimate and do not yet know its source

The source for this figure is a recent fiction book by a non-scientist Stephen Davis. If you have actual evidence for this claim please present it.

The point is that when anyone presses you on claims like this you always fall back into the "I'm not a scientist. I'm a journalist" defense and claim that you are just reporting the other side of the story. This is just bullshit. You mentioned this estimate of 300,000 because it agreed with your preconceived ideas and bias. It's a big number designed to get a big reaction. It is also completely baseless. To accept this number you have to also deny that HIV causes AIDS and that people were dying before AZT was available.

Stop pretending you are some sort of an objective reporter. You are completely and utterly in the Denialist camp

I've just checked the 300,000 killed by AZT figure.

In Stephen Davis' fictional account he claims that all of the people that died from AIDS in the US between 1987 and 1997 in fact died from AZT. Davis claims that all of these AIDS cases were caused by AZT and not by HIV.

This is totally ridiculous. It doesn't explain waht was killing AIDS patients before 1987. AIDS deaths was already exponentially increasing before 1987. Why did this exponential rise sduudenly stop in 1987 only to be replaced by AZT deaths. It also doesn't explain people that were only diagnosed as HIV+ when they presented with opportunistic diseases such as PCP and KS. It also doesn't explain that most people were prescribed AZT only after they progressed to AIDS.

Anyone that repeats this claim that 300,000 people were killed by AZT without doing any fact checking is not an objective journalist but a propagandist.

Celia Farber also says that Duesberg is calling for a debate but fails to answer why Duesberg did not appear as a witness in the hearing in Adelaide.

It is remarkably similar to Dembski bailing out of the Kitzmiller case. On the one hand they call for debate and on the other they fail to take an opportunity when it appears.

Tara, Mr. and Mrs Noble and Jefferies, unfortunately for you, the party is over. It ended with Number ONE: Gallo's own admission in the trial and verified in the trial transcript, was that his EM photo of what he claimed was HIV was actually cellular debris that he now blames on Luc Montagnier. That his electron microscope picture of supposed HIV, as he pounded on everyone as his proof of AIDS, and as was presented in his original evidence published in "Science", was actually a mistake!

Secondly, right in the trial transcript, Gallo now admits that he never found HIV! It's about time.

Gallo Transcript, Page 1317

Lawyer, Kevin Borick, to Gallo:

"In 1994, did you say they (HIV viral proteins), have not been found in the tumour cells of Kaposi Sarcoma"?

Robert Gallo cuts off the lawyer and answers: "Sure that's true".

Lawyer, Kevin Borick: "I have to finish your quote. It was: "We have never found HIV-"

Robert Gallo cuts off the lawyer again, and answers: "I agree with you, I agree with you, YES".

Lawyer: 'We have never found HIV DNA in the tumour cells of Kaposi Sarcoma. In fact we have never found DNA in T Cells'.

Gallo: "What? In T Cells?

Lawyer: "Yes".

Gallo: "Did you say T Cells"?

Thirdly, and RIGHT IN THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, Gallo admits that only 40 percent of his AIDS patients showed evidence of HIV, and Gallo also admits, right in the trial transcript, that 40 percent is NOT ENOUGH to be considered the cause of the disease.

Sorry, boys and girls. The little 25 year long, 100 billion dollar jig is up, and the party is over, other than mopping up the uninformed and therefore as yet "DENIALISTS", that still believe that there actually is proof that HIV was isolated, and that still believe there is proof that it causes AIDS.

Lincoln,
Yoiur ability to read appears to be the same as other "rethinkers".

Gallo did not admit/confess that any EM of HIV were cellular debris.

He does agree that one of the isolates was contaminated by an aggressive strain of HIV. In fact the same strain had already contaminated Montagniers cultures. The EM is of HIV. That particular virus strain, however, originated from one of Montagnier's patients.

The particular quote that is attributed to Gallo:
We have never found HIV DNA in the tumour cells of Kaposi Sarcoma. In fact we have never found HIV DNA in T Cells is of doubtful authenticity. It appears to originate from an article that John Lauritsen wrote in 1994.

Rather than believe what John Lauritsen said Robert Gallo said it is more scientific to read scientific papers. In Gallo's original 1984 series of papers in Science he published evidence that they had in fact detected HIV DNA in T-cells.

I have pointed this out to the Perth Group in 2004.

Where is the evidence for the existence of the "HIV" genome

Between 1984 and 1994 when Lauritsen there are thousands of papers providing evidence that HIV DNA is consistently present in T-cells of HIV+ people.

The fact that the Perth Group continue to rely on John Lauritsen's version of something that Robert Gallo did or did not say rather than the actual evidence is indicative of their dishonesty.

To make such a claim once could be ignorance to repeat it again and again is simply dishonest.

The whole tactic of using quotes like this is a pathetic word game that is a common feature of pseudoscience and Denialism.

Your assertion that the theory that HIV causes AIDS is about to collapse is as reliable as the constant claim that evilution is a theory in crisis.

This is a true Kitzmiller moment.

The defense lawyer asks the archetypal Denialist rhetorical question "why haven't we yet got one single photograph of the virus" after several witness have in fact produced a number of electron micrographs of HIV and the judge finally starts to get annoyed.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Borick you are putting these questions but where is the evidence? You have got a witness who says she has never seen a picture of the virus. I have now got half a dozen witnesses all who say they have seen a picture and so have produced it.

MR BORICK: When I present my outline of argument, I will say that that statement is wrong, they have not told you that.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Borick, I have been in a different courtroom to you.

Chris, you are at this point simply a boring wackamole denialist.

When Mr. Borick presented his outline, which was topped off at the very moment that Gallo had admitted his picture of HIV was a fraud, the party was over.

Please get your drunken and deluded butt off the barstool, sober up, and go home, as we have many more denialists such as yourself to deal with. Now sober up please and go home, you are such a mess.

Undoubtably, the whackamole HIV-is-the-cause-of-AIDS spouting denialists, will no doubt claim a rethinker conspiracy to be afoot when the case is found in the defendants favor.

By the way, Chris, you were wondering why Dr. Duesberg did not testify. Firstly, it was not even necessary, and secondly, we are saving him and 20 other emminent scientists for the upcoming trials in Canada, and in the states and the even bigger one at Nuremberg, unless of course, the defendants are willing to reach an agreement to admit their errors, and there is ever so slight a chance that we may show mercy, although I can't promise that we will be able to hold off the masses from wanting someones head on a plate. Perhaps you yourself or RJ or Ta or one of the other HIV spouting denialists that post here would like to volunteer to stand in?

I would say it is fairly obvious which way Judge Sullan is leaning by what he said to Barrister Borick after the grilling of all of the high faluting "HIV Experts" by Defendants Attorney Kevin Borick: Page 01117 932, lines 27 to 38:

HIS HONOR: "Unfortunately, our resources are stretched but this matter really must start to take priority!-It HAS to take PRIORITY! because IT IS UNFAIR TO THE DEFENDANT TO KEEP THIS MATTER GOING ANY LONGER THAN I POSSIBLY HAVE TO."

The truth of Robert Gallo's damning and self incriminating testimony is now and forever in black and white transcript recorded at the Supreme Court of Australia, for all the world to see! Read it and weep boys and girls.

The following letter was sent to the reporter covering the trial for Australia's largest newspaper, "The Australian".

To: Mr. Jeremy Roberts @ The Australian;
Mr. Roberts, this message to you is also being blind copied to every news and magazine editor and every TV, Radio, and news station possible in the United States and Europe. Gay and Straight alike.

Jeremy.

Thank you for your reportage and for your unbiased covering the Chad Parenzee HIV Infection trial and for covering yesterdays Australian Supreme Court testimony of HIV discoverer Robert Gallo in Australia's largest newspaper, "The Australian". It was almost the only coverage of this epic event in the entire world.

As big of a deal as it should have been for the entire world news, to have had the presumed discoverer of HIV, Dr. Robert Gallo testify on the stand in Australia, there has been absolutely NO coverage of this event in any of the American or European Newspapers or Radio or TV stations.

Why this has been ignored, I cannot tell you. This should have been huge news, but not a word on tv or newsprint. Not even a single word in any of the worldwide gay publications either.

Is this not a huge and amazing event, for each and every single person on this planet to have the supposed discoverer of the supposed worst virus causing the supposed worst disease on the planet to be testifying in a superior court case of Australia yesterday trying to prove HIV's very existence and its commonly believed causation to AIDS?

Is the entire world caught up in a Keanu Reeves type of "The Matrix" with this issue?

I was shocked by performing an internet search and "googling" the words "Robert Gallo AIDS TRIAL AUSTRALIA". You will only find it mentioned on the dissident websites and your own Australian newspapers. No-where else.

This lackadaisical attitude of the entire world of this potentially world changing event,wherein for the first time in 25 years that Robert Gallo has testified in a court room and faced some of his critics on the issue of HIV/AIDS, comes across to me as quite surreal in that it has not been covered whatsoever by mainstream media.

My oh my, is it me, or do the people of this planet seem to be so in love with their HIV/AIDS beliefs to not have given this epic trial and Supreme Court testimony of Robert Gallo even a passing glimpse.

Cheers,

And again, I thank you for your unbiased coverage and reporting of the trial and of Robert Gallo's own self incriminating and damning testimony in "The Australian".

HIV sceptics beyond stupid, says top scientist
By Jeremy Roberts
February 13, 2007
The Australian

THE man jointly credited with discovering HIV has blasted the Supreme Court of South Australia for wasting time hearing a case that questions the existence of the killer virus.
Robert Gallo, the American scientist who established the link between HIV and AIDS in 1984, appeared for the prosecution yesterday in the application for an appeal by an HIV-positive man convicted of exposing three women to the virus.
"I can't believe that it occupies the time of the court - it is that absurd," Professor Gallo said.

Defence witnesses - medical physicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and emergency doctor Val Turner - have testified that the science behind HIV is flawed, that the virus has not been purified, that tests for it are indirect and unreliable, and that it is not sexually transmitted or the cause of AIDS.

They appeared for Andre Chad Parenzee, 36, who was convicted in February last year on three counts of endangering life.

Professor Gallo said he had reviewed much of the defence testimony and rejected it as "misunderstanding" at best, and "misrepresentation" of HIV and AIDS research, at worst.

He called on numerous medical fields and his vast research experience to describe HIV, its first laboratory isolation in the 1980s, its attack on the immune system, and the success of treatments and blood screening.

Professor Gallo's testimony was a coup for prosecutors, who have fought Parenzee's application in more than three weeks of hearings since March last year.

Professor Gallo gave evidence by satellite, appearing in the corner of an office at his research institute in Baltimore, Maryland, about 9pm Baltimore time. He described the defence testimony as "beyond stupid", "sad", "deeply nonsensical" and "extremely wrong".

He suggested the defence witnesses, members of the HIV dissident study circle the Perth Group, were using the case as "a ploy" to advance their theories.

He lost patience with defence lawyer Kevin Borick's "provocative" questioning of the accuracy of HIV tests.

"You are driving me nuts with this ... for God's sake," he said.

Claiming "no one knows more about HIV testing than me", he said his work had contributed to the cleansing of HIV from Australia's donor blood supply in the late 1980s. "I don't expect a thankyou but I don't expect to be provoked to that degree," he said.

Since 1996, Professor Gallo has led the Institute for Human Virology, which employs more than 100 scientists researching chronic viruses, including HIV.

He was the most-cited scientist between 1980 and 1995. In the past 20 years he has been rated third in the world in "impact factor", which measures scientists' influence outside their field.

He has 27 honorary degrees and has twice won the Albert Lasker Award in Medicine, the most recognised award for biomedical science in the US.

But it was possible his appearance backfired yesterday, when he appeared to take exception to the court inquiring into the science of HIV and AIDS. He was asked by prosecutor Sandi McDonald to consider the defence's proposition that HIV does not cause AIDS. "That's a silly comment ... It is a sad commentary," he said, prompting judge John Sullan to comment: "Not everybody would say that."

What? No smart ass comeback or comment there Chris? Chris? Are you there? Hello Chris.....Helloooooo..... Chris, did you fall out of your chair again Chris? Nothing to say Chris? What was that Chris? Did I just hear you say......: "OH SHIT!" Chris???????

Up above, we had a lovely comment by Jim Lippard/February 12, 2007 04:58 PM :

Jim wrote: Typo alert--your post says "calvary" where it means "cavalry"... unless, of course, you meant that there was an impending crucifixion.

Jim, my man, what makes you think Tara's use of the word CALVARY was a typo?

Perhaps many an impending crucifixion IS yet in store if the upholders of the paradigm are unable or unwilling to grow and learn from their own and others mistakes, or, face the facts at hand.

Those who forget the lessons of the past are most often doomed to repeat them. Take for instance such as the lesson all should have learned from the experience of Galileo, a man in the minority. Galileo disagreed and stood up to the white lab coat robed leaders of the Church Of all Truth and Knowers of all Science of that time. And it only took the white robed leaders of the Church 400 years to admit their error that time.

This time around, I don't think it will take mankind quite as long to deal with a simple though world impacting error, as I am sure that man has evolved a bit since then.... Or perhaps the IDers or Creationists would just consider that we have somewhat grown in spirit since then. Whatever the case may be!

Lincoln,

Are you a parody of a bad HIV denier or something? Geez, Dean Esmay thinks you're ridiculous.

Celia Farber,
I was told that you were "reasonable" by an HIV positive man you convinced to discontinue all treatment and tests. I hope that he does well. I hope you can live with whatever happens to him.
I have also read your comment
If you have lost sight of that life is precious, death is tragic and that nobody owes to offer up their own mother to your "HIV research" machine, then I see no reason why I should care what you think about my journalism, other than to be quietly thrilled that you hate it. That's a good sign.
Celia, modern medicine is based partly on statistics. Not because doctors and scientists are heartless. No, because their business is saving lives. When a drug goes through clinical trials and works and saves lives, it is wrong to deny it to sick people who are clamoring for it just because one person may have had a bad reaction to it.
Mourn for that one person. Confirm that the drug was responsible. Take steps to prevent more deaths. But don't condem the thousands of sick people who benefit from the drug.
Where would you draw the line, Celia? When would you pull a drug?
1000 deaths prevented, one death caused?
100 deaths prevented, ten deaths caused?
51 deaths prevented, 50 caused?
Of course to you not a single death is ever prevented by HAART. Would any amount of evidence ever change your mind on that?

By the way Celia I see you and your pal Harvey have still got the tin cup out on "YBYL." Mebbe now you'll stop faulting HIV scientists for earning money for what they do?

Hey Wic, You said: "When a drug goes through clinical trials and works and saves lives, it is wrong to deny it to sick people who are clamoring for it just because one person may have had a bad reaction to it".

You would be absolutely right, in most circumstance, because almost all other drugs are tested against placebo's and in long term, not Fast Tracked studies. But you forget, my friend, that pharma has managed to get ALL HIV drugs through very quickly and with very little testing on "Fast Track" status since 1987! This means they have not had placebo trials, other than the original cut short to 4 month original AZT trial, before they simply agreed to hand the AZT out in megadose to all who were HIV positive, whether they showed any symptoms of illness, or not. No HIV drug has had any long term testing, and NONE have been tried against simple placebo or doing nothing at all. Additionally, Very little long term followup has been studied either, because this costs pharma extra money. There have been several notices over the last several years in postings in major papers and magazines that the Fast Track system, was, is, and continues to be, quite broken.

Come on there Wic, who are you trying to kid? Are you trying to underplay the disaster that has happened? Are you trying to underplay that the leading cause of death in HIV positive Americans for the last 10 years is LIVER FAILURE, and not anything caused by HIV???? You don't by any chance have stocks in the AIDS drug companies in addition to stocks in Viatical settlements, such as many others in this game have been found to have, including the former of owner of the largest HIV drug chain on the west coast, Priority Pharmacy!

Just to put into public record and for expanding the knowledge and understanding of all reading this, the dossier kept by dissidents on Mr. David Zeiger.

Mr. Zeiger owned a small pharmacy in the gay district of San Diego, called Priority Pharmacy that he purchased in the mid 1980's. After Robert Gallo had done his short in vitro study of AZT in 1985, and just after AZT had just gone through its 4 month long and cut short study that was done by Dr. Douglas Richman of the AVRC clinical AIDS drug trial group, the drug was quickly run through the FDA with the prodding and assistance of current NIH NIAID director Tony Fauci.

Back to David Zeiger. Zeiger was the first pharmacy owner to get an insurance company to pay for AZT. He was very soon rolling in money from the AZT sales. Priority became the 3rd largest HIV drug selling pharmacy in the country. The largest on the West Coast. In a very short period of time after the roll-out of AZT, the death rate of gay HIV positives began to skyrocket. Mr. Zeiger, flush with the fortune he is accumulating from the sale of AZT, started one of the very first Viatical Life Insurance Settlement businesses so that the gay men whom he sold AZT to, could cash in early on a partial settlement of their life insurance settlements sold to Mr. Zeiger for a fraction of their value. Mr. Zeiger would continue to pay on the policy until the gay man died, at which time Zeiger then would cash in on their life insurance policies. And it did not take long. When the AZT poisoned gay man would die was usually within 8 months to 1-1/2 years of initiating the AZT therapy. This brilliant idea soon took off nationwide. Mr. Zeiger kept this going for about 10 years, from about 1987 to 1997, when he gave his soon to be ex-wife the Viatical business as a divorce settlement.

Mr. Zeiger last year sold Priority Pharmacy to "Moms" HIV drug pharmacy chain. He pocketed more than 7 million from the sale, and he pocketed a couple of more million from the property. He continues to own Priority Wholesale business, mostly based on HIV drugs. He currently lives in a very exclusive part of San Diego called Rancho Santa Fe at "The Bridges" on a golf course where he continues to cash in on the wholesaling of HIV drugs. He is not alone, and there are more than Mr. Zeiger who have been cashing in on selling the poison and then profiting on the deaths they caused. Many doctors were also and currently still are taking kickbacks from the HIV drug manufacturers for giving prescriptions to these drugs. This is often done in the form of calling the doctor a "consultant" and disguising the payments as a consulting fee for the drug company.

Mr. Wic, Mr. Jefferies, Mr. Noble, and of course, you too Tara, are hereby informed that you have been notified, again, of exactly what Mr. Zeiger and others, including doctors, have done to snowball AZT profits into further profits obtained from the deaths of mostly gay American men, along with many blacks, as well as even women and children. You have been notified repeatedly and over and over in the last year right on this blog site.

Lincoln, the reason that Duesberg did not appear as a defense witness is that he would have been obliged to answer questions regarding the existence of HIV. The core argument of the defense is that HIV does not exist.

I somehow doubt that Duesberg would approve in any way with the defense position in this hearing. I am under the impression that Duesberg thinks the Perth Group are idiots.

Lincoln,
So you deny Celia Farber is trying to make money in the denial industry? Hell knows she can't make much, but she does gots herself a neat market niche!
All those "alternative medicine" types and "homeopathic physicians" and "independent journalists" and weak-minded "I just wrote the same damn book that about 20 denialists already wrote except I also wrote about how I misunderstood HIV as a kid and was horrified by AIDS graffitti in public bathrooms" book authors who signed the HIV doesn't cause AIDS petition never made a cent from AIDS fear?
Who are YOU trying to kid?
Everyone's making money in this field. Some more than others. The market speaks. Most HIV-positive people want medicine and treatment instead of soothing lies and crystal "therapy."
Or mebbe society should just ban everyone from making money. I never pay my mechanic par example. If I did, he would have a conflict of interest. He would be making money from a car's suffering.
Teachers should never be paid for teaching kids. They should do it for the love.
Doctors should never earn money. They should cure patients just because they want to help them.
The stock market should be abolished. No more toxic drugs! No more drugs at all!
"From each...." Yo mon like Bialy says we know where that goes.
By the way, Lincoln, do you have any money in your pocket? Because if you do, you're unreliable. You've your own conflict! Only the destitute and uneducated should be believed on any topic.

Wic, your approval of behaviors such as undisclosed conflicts of interest to the general public is duly noted.

Your approval of Mr. Zeiger's selling a deadly drug and gaining great wealth from the deaths caused by the drug he himself sold to those patients is duly noted.

Your approval of very toxic and very dangerous drugs being fast tracked with no placebo comparison and no long term study, and very little oversight by an overwhelmed and handicapped FDA is also duly noted.

Your approval of doctors being paid on the back end for product prescriptions is duly noted.

Your approval of ignoring what can only be considered a fear and terror driven genocide by the unbiased is duly noted.

Your approval of science and scientists whose work is not backed up by anything other than the belief in that work by the masses is duly noted.

Your stern disapproval of those who would warn the wary of these issues is also duly noted.

By the way sticky wic, have you bothered to read HIV/AIDS Dissident Rebecca Culshaws latest book? It was just released a month and a half ago. Did you take note that on the first page it says: all profits have been donated to the Serge Lang Memorial?

By the way, sticky wic, not that it is any of your business, but how much do you suppose Celia has made by giving 20 years of her life to bringing awareness of this issue to the public in mostly unpaid forums such as this blog? Funny, I didn't see her advertising for her book on any blog anywhere.

Wic, it is a mistake to imply that any of the HIV "rethinkers" have financial motives. There are a few possible exceptions like Matthias Rath and Hulda Clark etc who sell "cures" for AIDS, cancer and heart disease etc but most HIV "rethinkers" probably believe the nonsense they spout. This doesn't mean that they have any less capability for doing untold harm to millions of people.

They really believe that they are members of an elite minority that has access to the "truth" and that everyone else is a) ignorant b) stupid c) corrupt. That is what it basically boils down to. They then use this "righteous" anger to justify their nonsense.

It is a good illustration of how dangerous group-think cults can develop. Once you accept the basic "rethinker" framework then you can ignore or discount any evidence that contradicts your believes because the person conveying that information is either a sheep blindly following the "orthodoxy" or they are evil pharma-shills.

Many "rethinkers" have sacrificed a large portion of their lives to AIDS "dissidence". The amount of personal investment is huge. There is an enormous psychological attachment to their own personal worldviews.

History is full of people that sincerely believed in their own delusions. They have a much greater capacity to cause the deaths of millions of people than those that are simply interested in money.

Lincoln negelects to mention that complaints about David Zeiger were first raised by AIDS activists. The main complaint was that he charged higher prices for AZT than other pharmacies and that this depleted money available from life insurance policies.

The claim that AZT killed patients in an interval between 8 months and 1.5 years is completely without support. In fact all available evidence contradicts this claim. The Concorde trial showed that the 3 year mortality on AZT treatment (immediate arm) was 92%. This was not significantly different from the deferred treatment arm 94% although amount of AZT taken by patients in the immediate arm was much higher.

The whole idea of trying to make money from selling something that supposedly kills between 8-18 months does not make business sense. If you are going to invent conspiracy theories at least make them semi-plausible.

Chris, there's a scale of financial motives. Youre right it's probably not the biggest motive for deniers. But I don't get a cent for defending anyone. You don't. Tara doesn't. Who does? Why, Ms. Celia Farber. She's the new assistant editor at BarnesWorld. Bialy put out the contribution tin cup for her.
Your words are so true, Chris, History is full of people that sincerely believed in their own delusions. They have a much greater capacity to cause the deaths of millions of people than those that are simply interested in money.
You can trust a greedy bastard. Greedy bastards go where the money is. Very predictable.
You can't trust a zealot. A zealot will lie and lie and believe she's telling the truth the whole time.

Lincoln, your repetition of duly noted is duly noted.
I read Culshaw's book. Waste of fifteen bucks. I noted duly the Serge Lang contribution thing. Actually read it all duly. Did you?
What did you think I duly meant with this?
...weak-minded "I just wrote the same damn book that about 20 denialists already wrote except I also wrote about how I misunderstood HIV as a kid and was horrified by AIDS graffitti in public bathrooms" book authors
Culshaw duly lifts the weakest arguments of Duesberg duly combines them with some Farber hysteria and duly blends in her own unique misunderstanding of biology. Culshaw doesn't even duly understand elementary maths. Page26-27 she duly says the drop of absolute numbers of AIDS deaths duly comes from the 93 redefeinition of AIDS that doubled AIDS cases. Duly. Hello? Earth to Math PhD? Numbers versus percentage? Anyone?
Yeah and Lincoln I'm a grad student ok? I don't have money to invest in your Geizer pharmacutical guy. I couldn't pay rent in Celia Farber's neighborhood.

Lincoln I forgot something.
You said Bob Gallo did a short in vitro test of AZT. Not true. But as Rebecca Culshaw knows, don't let facts get in the way of your convictions. You know, just put Gallo's name on everything you don't like about science. It's exciting it's fun it's excitingly fun.
Really here's how it went down. Bob Gallo gave a strain of virus to peeps at NCI in 1984. Mitsuya and Broder probably some others. They screened a 300 compound library of chemicals that inhibited mouse retroviruses. They used Gallo's strain. Fifteen compounds stopped reverse transcriptase of HIV. They decided AZT was the best because it stopped RT without killing cells. Oh. Odd. without killing cells Welcome to the world of pharmacology where poisons can save depending on dose. Not so difficult or strange. Bob Gallo's part in AZT was sending the virus to these people and mebbe discussing results and helping with the pub.
But didn't the great Spokesperson for Denial Culshaw write this?
Reverse transcriptase inhibitors are nonspecific cell killers and attack all growing cells. They will naturally attack those cells that are dividing the fastest" page 28 of her remarkable book "Science which I don't understand Sold Out according to me, with a forword where Bialy genuflects to Darin Brown for many paragraphs and also mentions me once or twice."
Yes she did but it's wrong and if I quoted every untrue statement in her book I would have to write a book that was hmmm about 100 pages long. I would even give the proceeds to charity.

"How does one treat parasites, resolve candida, fight malaria, or cure TB without involvement of drugs?"

Certainly not by giving them more drugs.

I was an HIV-negative sufferer of severe candidiasis (had all of the classic symptoms of AIDS, including other opportunistic infections.

I stopped going to the doctors who were feeding me antibiotics for recurrent sinusitis since this was causing all of my problems. I've spent 2.5 years getting my health back using the recommendations of natural hygiene which includes eating a simple, healthy diet and supplementation with vitamins and minerals and hefty doses of probiotics. I've also used colonics and yoga, but by all means, the single most important thing to beating the candida was stopping the frequent use of antibiotics. I've also used wormwood and diflucan to treat the candida and both work fairly similarly, but the wormwood has far fewer side effects!

Most of the posters on this site seemed far more interested in achieving "personal glory" on a messageboard (which is pathetic) than in actually finding out what's really going on with HIV/AIDS.

You're post was excellent Hollywood. Candida is much more common than modern medicine will admit and it is usually caused by prescription drugs with frequent antibiotic use being the primary culprit.

Kevin

"But in no way does this add support to Duesberg's contention that HIV does not cause AIDS." -- Chris Noble

What about about patients like me? Patients who consistently test HIV-negative yet develop the opportunistic infections associated with HIV. Over the course of my illness, I've been diagnosed and treated for systemic canidiasis, PCP, and histioplasmosis (among other HIV-related conditions). Does my health history support Duesberg theory? You are a liar if you profess otherwise. Duesberg's explanation of drug-caused AIDS has not been given due treatment by the scientific community, and patients like me have suffered by what is essentially an on-going act of criminal negligence. The corporatization of human health concerns has met with tragic results and no amount of hand-waving by the scientific consensus will change that.

I'm in nearly perfect health now, but will offer no thanks to any of the doctors who have treated me over the last 3+ years. I only recovered my health after cutting off all the constant negativity that I was exposed to at every doctor visit. By finally admitting to myself how dangerous modern medical care has become, I was able to make the necessary changes to recover my health. My life has changed completely.

I knew nothing of the HIV debate when this all began, but after following a more natural path to recovered health, I definitely find the dissident position to be more meritous than the conventional explanation. It's certainly not very difficult for me to be believe that AZT killed 300,000, after my own experience with iatrogenic poisoning.

Kevin

"I believe in addressing one point at a time." -- Celia Farber

Good luck getting that kind of civility on this site. From my brief experiences here, it is clear that rigorous, pointed debate is eschewed by the defenders of the faith, in much the same way that bible-thumpers refuse to debate individual contradictions in their Holy Book. AIDS apologists like to compare dissidents to born-agains, but an unbiased, capable audience can see that those traits are more readily identifiable in the bankrupt arguments of the apologists, particularly those tirades that rest almost entirely on appeals to overwhelming consensus and Pubmed citations. As I've noted previously, most scientific inquiry today is highly political and the dearth of sincere studies regarding alternative medical care merely shows that Pubmed's library is one-sided, which is to be expected in such a highly politicized medical environment, of course.

Kevin

Kevin I'm sorry I didn't realize we were discussing your personal medical history. Mebbe you'd put up your med charts too for our benefit.
I'll paraphrase the intelligent Rebecca Culshaw from the second to last paragraph on page 27 of her groundbreaking book
The many stories of Kevin rising from his deathbed after chewing wormwood to a renewal of good health and vitality are just that--stories.

It sucks how PubMed is so one-sided. Like Kev says there's a dearth of sincere studies regarding alternative medical care ( ) Pubmed's library is one-sided.
If only there were some studies on Artemisia (that's wormwood, Kev) and its effects on fungi! But there aren't because scientists think candida doesn't exist outside HIV. And they just don't care about Kevin.

But wait! My bad. There ARE studies on Artemisia. Silly me.

Setzer WN, Vogler B, Schmidt JM, Leahy JG, Rives R. Antimicrobial activity of Artemisia douglasiana leaf essential oil. Fitoterapia. 2004 Mar;75(2):192-200.

Masotti V, Juteau F, Bessiere JM, Viano J. Seasonal and phonological variations of the essential oil from the narrow endemic species Artemisia molinieri and its biological activities. J Agric Food Chem. 2003 Nov 19;51(24):7115-21.

Juteau F, Jerkovic I, Masotti V, Milos M, Mastelic J, Bessiere JM, Viano J. Composition and antimicrobial activity of the essential oil of Artemisia absinthium from Croatia and France. Planta Med. 2003 Feb;69(2):158-61.

Juteau F, Masotti V, Bessiere JM, Dherbomez M, Viano J. Antibacterial and antioxidant activities of Artemisia annua essential oil. Fitoterapia. 2002 Oct;73(6):532-5.

Kalemba D, Kusewicz D, Swiader K. Antimicrobial properties of the essential oil of Artemisia asiatica Nakai. Phytother Res. 2002 May;16(3):288-91.

Tang HQ, Hu J, Yang L, Tan RX. Terpenoids and flavonoids from Artemisia species. Planta Med. 2000 May;66(4):391-3.

Tan RX, Lu H, Wolfender JL, Yu TT, Zheng WF, Yang L, Gafner S, Hostettmann K. Mono- and sesquiterpenes and antifungal constituents from Artemisia species. Planta Med. 1999 Feb;65(1):64-7.

"No. Your persistently expressed concern about whether the world owes you and you ilk some kind of debt is as solipsistic as it is nauseating. And no rational person who reads your work could ever consider you a journalist. You're a propagandist." -- Richard Jefferys

I've been trying to understand why Celia Farber was defending her work on this blog, since it's disproportionately peopled with goons such as yourself, Richard. Granted, I'm not very familiar with your posts, but if anyone can be labeled a propagandist, I'd say that shoe more snugly fits your flat feet.

If you asked my friends to name their "most rational" compadre, the majority would quickly point to me. That said, I've never had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Farber, but while trying to make sense of my own health experiences, this rational human being discovered her writings and found them to very insightful. Yours, on the other hand, are certainly less insightful than hers, based on your blog contributions, anyway. For example, your accusation of propaganda would be better applied to your own postings

You wrote:

"Pure fiction. I've read Duesberg's "exhaustive analysis" and these do not represent "documented AIDS cases in which there is no trace of HIV or HIV antibodies." What Duesberg's analysis represents is a shocking and gratuitous misrepresentation of the papers that he cites (e.g. the Curran paper he cites as part of this analysis, where he counts HIV negative drug using gay men as AIDS cases based on his own theory that they will develop AIDS because of their drug use. "

As an HIV-negative past sufferer of AIDS-defining illnesses, I find nothing wrong with Duesberg's theorizing in the above quote. In fact, I'd say it's about time that drug-use, both recreational and prescribed, is thoroughly and unbiasedly evaluated as a contributing cause of AIDS. After all, my only risk-factor was frequent PRESCRIBED drug-use in the form of powerful antibiotics. After eliminating this factor, I've been able to recover my health, though it has taken me almost 3 years of disciplined living. Regardless, it's charlatans like you who are the propagandists, Richard. You and your ilk seem to take pride in misrepresenting the facts, but even more disgusting is your love of slinging accusations at those who are courageous enough to risk their own careers to ask the really difficult questions. Any rational follower of this debate can't help but come to this conclusion when faced with the dismissive, religiosity that defines most apologist attack.

I'm sure that Celia Farber's many important contributions to the literature doesn't please Big Pharma, but as an interested, capable layperson, I've found them invaluable and offer my thanks to Celia Farber, and to all those who have maintained this fight, which is just now beginning to get the exposure it deserves. They've sacrificed much, but the truth about the shoddy science and the destructive medicine supporting HIV cannot be hidden away, any longer.

Kevin

"Kevin I'm sorry I didn't realize we were discussing your personal medical history. Mebbe you'd put up your med charts too for our benefit." -- Wic

If I thought it would bring enlightenment to dolts such as yourself, then I would gladly further sacrifice my privacy, but alas, most apologists don't like to consider that there are actual human lives in the balance, lives that are being negatively affected by their unproven, yet "overwhelming" belief system.

Ah,Wic, my smug audience of one, you certainly don't have to "believe" my story since I know it doesn't fit easily into your perfect HIV worldview, but it's certainly as real as the DNA markers you and your ilk have fallen in love with, and it requires no amplification to discern. In fact, I'd be happy to offer you a personal account, via email, if you'd be interested in a real case study. Of course, my story doesn't appear in Pubmed, so I guess it will never be real enough for you. But, tell me, does it upset you that an HIV-negative case study has come out of the woodwork to ruin your "blog party"?

"I come in Peace. ACK! ACK!"

Kevin

I should add this to my offer, Wic, dear old pal. Just for you, in my story, via email, I would give you names and contact for all the doctors involved in my treatment, so that you could verify everything, good and proper.

Even with the ridiculous patient load that most HMO doctors have today, I should be fresh on their mind, since I fairly recently made return visits to all of them so they could see just how well my recovery went, absent their "care." It costs me a $15 for each of them (3) but it was worth every god*damn penny!!!

sincerely,
Kevin

"It is a good illustration of how dangerous group-think cults can develop." --Chris Noble

Wow, what a charltan, you are, Chris Noble. Most come to this debate after being personally harmed in some way by the prevailing HIV belief system. Yet, we are further maligned by pansied foot-soldiers like Wic, for taking an interest in our own health. After all, scientists and doctors are perfect and never make mistakes. Right? I don't personally have contact with any prominent dissidents and never have, but I've encountered more than a few doctors who weren't capable of helping me get well. I guess I picked the "right" cult.

You, Chris Noble, are the most easily recognizable member of the AIDS group-think cult, which just so happens to also be a death cult. Are you wearing your purple nikes? What will all the true AIDS "denialists" do when the masses wake up from this nightmare? My experience and I imagine that of anyone who comes to this discussion as an outsider will find that dissidents represent people from all walks of life and that the cult-ish tendencies are most definitely more visible in the apologist camp.

Kevin

Nope, not interested Kev. Write that essay about your bowel movements for someone else.
You wouldn't know it but PubMed has hundreds of references for antibiotics as risk factors for fungal infections. Your immune suppression was not caused by HIV. For other people it was. Doesn't prove HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
Do you know one way AIDS was first discovered? There was this drug called pentamidine. Rare, controlled by the government CDC in Atlanta. Used for antibiotic-resistant PCP (thats pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, Kev, it's a fungus). From 1967 to 1979 it was requested all of two times for fungal pneumonia not tied to cancer or immune suppression therapy. In the first three months of 1981 it was requested nine times in New York alone for fungal pneumonia. A fifty-fold increase in med-resistant PCP cases. That's when the CDC said, huh, what the hell's goin on?
OIs were around before HIV exploded and there still here in the HIV negative population. Everyone knows it. Don't let it ruin your delusions Kev you've got a great suffering genius/self pity party thing going on but your friendly fungi doen't prove HIV doesn't exist.

I have been away on a writing hiatus for five days and not engaged in the commentary that followed my reply to Richard Jefferies. I felt it to be fruitless and so walked away. I don't know the rules of the Internet enough to know whether walking away can ever be permitted without an accusation that one is evading necessary portion of blog crucifixion. I will keep my statement to a minimum now:

1. I have never made any money on this AIDS 'beat.' The only money I ever made in journalism was on the OJ Simpson beat which was assigned to me by first Esquire and later Rolling Stone. I don't want to broadcast my degree of financial struggle over the years, but I can assure you that financial gain is a fiction.

2. I hope I can end speculation about my motives, why I 'do" this by stressing once more that I have never "done" anything beyond what I was assigned to do by a particular periodical. Lewis Lapham asked if I would pitch him science stories; I did. I pitched a story originally that did not touch Duesberg's HIV/AIDS work with a bargepole. It was altogether centered on his aneuploidy/cancer theory and the excitement that was generating. Everything I have "done" since the publication of the article: "Out of Control: AIDS And The Corruption of Medical Science," (Harper's March 2006) has been a result of the AFTERMATH, ie the attackology, and my attempts to defend myself, alternating with my attempt to play dead or disappear because you people are so unfathomably dishonest, pernicious, destructive, and depressing.

I think I have answered enough, addressed enough, taken enough lashings. I have no interest in having the people who dwell at this blog decide my work is more sound than not. I did the work at the time. Harper's editors and I developed that article over a period of two years. It was they who designed it and guided it. They were exceptionally talented editors. I use the plural lest you latch back onto any particular editor by name, and start abusing him or her. The fact checking lasted three months.
I had made a special request that nothing I write or report--nothing--be allowed to go unchecked, and asked that in the end, the text be something all could sign off on, meaning not the byproduct of my own subjective experience.

That was a very important control.

That some of you found the article to be propaganda is not something I can address further. I can only do the best that my training, instincts and profession tell me to do. One doesn't do what one wishes in these situations--one follows the editorial directives one is given.

I am not obsessed with this topic and I am not a passionate denialist or progapandist. I have written about many many other things and wish primarily to write about "other" things in the future.

You may have heard the joke about the Chorus Girl's Lament?

"Who do I have to sleep with," she cries, "to get OUT of this show?"

In parting, and with all best wishes for reconcilliation of this schism in 2007.

CF

That's just great Celia way to keep it to a minimum.
How bout if we reconcille the schism by sharing your pocket change from YBYL?

"Nope, not interested Kev. Write that essay about your bowel movements for someone else." -- Wic

Pooey!!
I was hoping you could offer "a reading" of my BMs since you seem to think you're quite the prognosticator -- a veritable Magic Eight ball and about as useful, too.

"You wouldn't know it but PubMed has hundreds of references for antibiotics as risk factors for fungal infections." -- Wic

And to think my doctors kept testing me for HIV, over and over and over again, when all they had to do was query PubMed for the answer. Not to mention, a couple of them seemed rather peeved when I suggested that all the antibiotics my be contributing to my ill health.

"Your immune suppression was not caused by HIV. For other people it was."-- Wic

Oh, so that's how it works. You seem to know me better than I know myself. Let me get this straight...Candidiasis, without HIV, is different than candidiasis with HIV. I kind of agree with that, I mean, it sure was a lot easier to get well and to overcome the hopeless thoughts without everyone telling me I had a "killer virus." I wonder if HIV+ "AIDS" patients might benefit from such encouragement. I found that stress made it impossible to make any headway against sytemic candida, but I guess that's not relevant when there's a killer virus hiding out in one's body, surreptiously gobbling up killer T-cells, in some indirect way, of course. Right, Dr. Wic?

"Do you know one way AIDS was first discovered?" -- Wic

Please, do tell. All this time, I thought there was only one way that AIDS was FIRST discovered.

"There was this drug called pentamidine..."

Is this a bedtime story? And now for the finale and the only worthwhile quote from yet another puerile post by Wic:

"OIs were around before HIV exploded and there still here in the HIV negative population."

You can cease with the remedial explanations, Wic. I probably know far more about fungal infections than you, since I've spent 2.5 years overcoming a very severe iatrogenic infection of that very cause, and all you've done is prove that you can navigate PubMed better than most HMO physicians.

Kevin

After I tested positive in the mid '80s, I declined AZT mono-therapy by not going back to the doctor. I watched two friends die on AZT, their hair fell out as they wasted away. This was proof of the drug's toxicity, as no AIDS patients today lose their hair as a result of HIV infection. Unfortunately, doctors talked me into the cocktails of the late 1990s. As a result, I've spent $10,000 to restore my disfigured face and can barely walk. The doctors admit these horrors are drug side effects. I see no reason not to explore alternate causes of AIDS as the current HIV paradigm has not lead to any vaccines, cures or even mildly toxic treatments (as opposed to very toxic) in the past 26 years.

I'll repeat myself again. I don't think money is a motivation for Celia Farber or most other "Rethinkers".

I also agree at least to some extent with Kevin and Wayne. A large number of "rethinkers" are people that were diagnosed with HIV infection in the past and have not yet progressed to AIDS despite not being on ARVs or they have taken ARVs and suffered severe side-effects. If people consistently progressed to AIDS within weeks or if ARVs were 100% effective and free from any sife effects there would not be any "rethinkers" - people would have forgotten about Duesberg and the Perth Group.

In the same way there are people that are a) misdiagnosed with cancer b) undergo spontaneous remission from cancer without treatment c) suffer severe/fatal side effects from chemotherapy. This is afterall what drives the "alternative" cancer theories and "alternative" cancer treatments. It is no accident that people like Matthias Rath, Hulda Clark and the Perth Group offer both "alternative" theories and cures for cancer and AIDS.

I don't blame the people who are personally affected by HIV or cancer for the choices they make. They are making decisions based on the information that they have. I blame people like the Duesberg, the Perth Group, Matthias Rath etc for distorting the science and deceiving their supporters.

Chris, you said:

"I blame people like the Duesberg, the Perth Group, Matthias Rath etc for distorting the science and deceiving their supporters".

You may choose to blame them if you wish, as you are more than entitled to your own opinions. However, I think your blame to be misplaced, as Duesberg, The Perth Group, Mathias Rath, Claus Kohnlein, and other rethinkers have their own mailbags full of letters from those who thank them for having saved their lives, or the lives of their loved ones. Perhaps you would like to read several thousands of these letters? If so, let me know, and I will be glad to post them.

A point of information, Wayne,

-- are you currently alive ?

-- could that be also a drug side-effect ?

To understand the real horror of HIV drugs and abuse of HIV positive children with these drugs, one need only look at todays news story.

Just click on this link.

Just released: The absolute best explanation of HIV that I have ever read to date is found by clicking on the link contained here.

Although quite simple, it encompasses a full explanation of Duesberg, Perth, as well as mainstream findings and evidences.

I have no doubt that Duesberg and other "rethinker" leaders receive many letters thanking them.

One such letter from Raphael Lombardo can be read here.

Dear Dr. Duesberg, My name is Raphael Sabato Lombardo, ...

The unfortunate thing is that Rapahel Lombardo died from AIDS shortly after writing this letter to Duesberg. Many "rethinkers" go on to develop AIDS and die despite not taking ARVs. I doubt that Duesberg keeps track of how many of his supporters die after sending him fan mail.

There are also thousands of people that attribute their survival to ARVs. You generally won't find them on "rethinker" webboards/blogs though. By surrounding yourselves with people with similar experiences and opinions you form an insular community with a distorted view of reality.

Hi Chris.

You claim that the unfortunate Mr. Lombardo, who lived many years free of AIDS drugs before he died, AS YOU CLAIM, of "AIDS". And you present us with even his letter of thanks to Dr. Duesberg, for having extended his life. This may frighten someone that is not educated about these issues, Chris, but not us rethinkers. First of all, Chris, no-one ever died of AIDS. AIDS is not a disease, it is a definition of 30 often common diseases that people die of every day. The difference being that if they are diagnosed as HIV positive, then whatever they actually die from is lumped together and called AIDS. Perhaps, Chris, you would share with us what the EXACT cause of Mr. Lombardo's death was. We may in fact, find it to be along the same line of Kevin above, as a case of overuse of antibiotics leading to systemic fungal infection.

It may also have been due to his being surrounded by people such as yourself, whom constantly filled his head with fear and terror that he would die of AIDS if he did not take the medications. Stress, as you yourself admitted and agreed with on www.newaidsreview.org is well known to be a common reason why even HIV negative people may not recover from illness.

Even Kevin above, shares with us the fact that stress was taking a toll in his own illnesses. I am quite sure that Kevin is correct that it would not have helped him whatsoever to be surrounded by those who would further instill fear of HIV and yet more stress into his life when he was contending with illness.

Perhaps you should investigate Lombardo's death further, and share with us the exact cause of death, as well as share with us any possible contributing factors, such as stress and antibiotics useage before you proclaim to us that he died of something caused by HIV?

And perhaps, Chris, you might want to take a good long look at how the fear filled belief in HIV projected upon the uneducated masses has contributed to human illness.

Have you, Chris, been contributing to other peoples stress and immune problems, by projecting your belief in HIV being the cause of AIDS out into an unwary world, and by projecting upon them that their HIV diagnosis means a certain death from any of the 30 aids defining illnesses such as pneumonia or fungal infection? Do you really believe that is a helpful thing for anyone, presently sick or well, to hear?

Whatever, Celia. The simple fact is that you bought into a baseless conspiracy theory, and the Harpers editors, perhaps in the interest of sensationalism, perhaps blinded by bullshit, published a tragic example of pseudoscientific yellow journalism. The article would never have made it past a scientific peer review. That should have told you something, but you seem to have trouble admitting mistakes.

Hey Robster, You said:

"The simple fact is that you bought into a baseless conspiracy theory"

Is that really a simple fact, or is it just your simple opinion?

Perhaps you will reread Celia's beautifully written and fact checked piece, and show us where in all of it's 15 pages, she called it or even inferred that is was some type of "conspiracy".

I find very few if any of the rethinkers believe in conspiracy, but we are all convinced of unfortunate and simple human ignorance. All of human history confirms this.

"There are two things that are unlimited. The universe, and human ignorance. And I am not sure about the universe".

A quote from Albert Einstein

But Robster, I am sure he could not have been referring to you.

Robster,

it seems the Supreme Court judge in Australia may not necessarily be agreeing with you. The following are his words right from the transcript after the grilling of 8 HIV scientists defending mainstream science of HIV in Australia:

HIS HONOR: "Unfortunately, our resources are stretched but this matter really must start to take priority!-It HAS to take PRIORITY! because IT IS UNFAIR TO THE DEFENDANT TO KEEP THIS MATTER GOING ANY LONGER THAN I POSSIBLY HAVE TO."

Perhaps the judge has not researched this issue over the last year as deeply as you have Robster?

Lincoln,
Raphael Lombardo came down with several opportunistic infections - PCP, MAC, Kaposi's Sarcoma and candidiasis. You can repeat "rethinker" mantra's about nobody dying of AIDS but rhetoric won't change the reality of what happened to him.

Stress and antibiotics are just more examples of ad hoc explanations used by "rethinkers" to explain the death of HIV+ people from AIDS when they don't take ARVs. Anything and everything causes AIDS if you listen to "rethinkers" - semen, aspirin, antibiotics, stress, liver flukes, HHV6, syphilis. However, there is one thing and one thing alone that correlates consistently with AIDS - HIV.

Duesberg's reaction was even worse. He now claims that Raphael was lying about not taking drugs. This is reprehensible. Duesberg accepts positive testimonials as being evidence but then after Raphael dies he reverts to claiming that he was a liar.

Proof by testimonial is simply not scientifically valid. Every pseudoscientific quack has testimonials from supporters thanking them for saving their lives.

Hulda Clark Testimonials HIV/AIDS

lincoln. Nice quote mining of the judge. And Einstein (While I have done ignorant things, denying scientific knowledge is not among them).

I read Celia's article. It was crap. Well written crap, but crap nonetheless. Evidence-wise, it was severely lacking.

Chris, please! Your own testimonial is proof that what you yourself said: "Proof by testimonial is simply not scientifically valid".

Robster, I am glad you enjoyed Celia's work.

But now, you have both upset me, so I am gonna have to play hardball:

This is the picture that Robert Gallo tried to present to the court as proof of the moment he found HIV from a gay man. No wonder the judge seems to be leaning toward the defendant.

Seems that damn virus you guys are all blabbering about turned that poor gay guy right to stone. Obviously another one of its deadly effects!

"...the Harpers editors, perhaps in the interest of sensationalism, perhaps blinded by bullshit, published a tragic example of pseudoscientific yellow journalism." --Robster

Harper's is about the only honest mainstream media outlet left. They've proven to be very prescient regarding a number of issues that other "respected" journals have unprofessionally ignored. One such contemporary issue is the unprecendented "housing bubble" that bursting before our very eyes. Ignored by all mainstream media, this phenomena has the potential to destroy the solvency of the American middle class, and to do so, in short order. In May of last year, Harper's cover story was entitled, The New Road To Serfdom and the accompanying article pulled no punches. I've been following this story since 2003 and the best site to get educated about the coming financial problems created by this bubble, is here. There are a lot of excellent bloggers there, and the members of that "goon squad" really know what they are talking about.

Ahh, serfdom...maybe that'll wake up the masses?

By the estimation of anyone who still values uncensored truth, Celia Farber is held in the highest esteem, and her article in Harper's only confirms that, both now in it's role as a piece of honest journalism and in the future, when it will be viewed as landmark.

Kevin

And yet, Kevin, Harpers is not a peer reviewed scientific journal. In those you can find actual evidence and research regarding the science of HIV and AIDS.

Life according to Robster Garp: "If someone working for the government in a lab coat says it, it must be true".

Working for the government?

Lincoln,

If you mean working for a PI,
funded by grants from various organisations, some gov, some not,
at a University or research institute,
backing up their statements with evidence,
which is strong enough to convince peers of its value,
and it provides a best fit for evidence explanation,
then it is likely correct...

Than yes.

Well, I don't doubt that you, Robster, are much smarter than the supreme court judge in Australia whom is at this moment pouring over testimonies by eight such people, including Robert Gallo himself, but nonetheless, in a couple of short weeks we will find out if, after reading the evidence for himself, the judge believes their reports to be most likely correct as you do. Now won't we?

Lincoln,
what will you do if the Judge rules that the Perth Group failed to demonstrate that their "HIV doesn't exist" defense has any validity?

Might I suggest that he cries foul and ignores yet another setback? Or perhaps goes the way of the creationists and claims victory in utter defeat (the post does mention the Dover trial).

Anyway, the only real verdict that matters is reality. HIV exists and is the causal agent of AIDS. The judgement of a court in Australia has no effect on the scientific evidence. It is only an appeal to authority. When accompanied by evidence, such an appeal gains credence. When it lacks evidence, no matter how many Nobel laureates one has, it doesn't make a hypothesis more acceptable.

There's this sight called NARnia Kev where you comment ad nauseum I think.
You once said there you won't find a single reference to antibiotic-induced candidiasis in the medical literature.
And now you claim that you probably know far more about fungal infections than I do.
How could you know so much without even being aware of the medical literature?
Just curious Kev.
But now youve switched the topic to your other obsession the impending economic collapse. PS its been impending since the middle ages.

Re:

A point of information, Wayne,

-- are you currently alive ?

-- could that be also a drug side-effect ?

Posted by: _Arthur | February 19, 2007 08:00 PM

Reply:

Good point. Well, one could argue that I'm alive now only because I "hid" from the AZT prescribed to me by a doctor in 1987. I didn't return to him for the follow up or fill the Rx, and told his office I was moving out of state and said I would get care at my new location. Of course I did not really move. Subsequently, two friends of mine died while on AZT mono-therapy, one in 1992 and one in 1995. Their daily doses had 67% more AZT than prescribed in today's Combovir (AZT + 3TC). I lived with no health problems for 13 more years until I went on HAART. Note that Combovir is now out of favor, as the once daily pill Atripla has no AZT. A doctor at thebody.com wrote yesterday that Combovir has had its day; they now don't recommend AZT for their patients.

As for the HAART cocktails, they may have prevented my death. But I do not know for sure as I was not clinically sick when I started. My quality of life is extremely low, as the drugs' side effects have taken their toll. My point is for more effective therapies, not ones that simply keep people alive. There is evidence that pharmaceutical companies are developing antivirals that work off similar principles at the expense of immune-system boosting therapies and vaccine development.

"How could you know so much without even being aware of the medical literature?" -- Wic

Do you aspire to look like a loser, or is that an unfortunate consequence of a mediocre mind? There's this thing called "experience", but you'd probably find little value you in it since it requires a degree of self-awareness that you obviously lack. However, you could move beyond your limited understanding of the world, if you learned to compare your experience with what you read. It does require critical thinking which may be beyond your abilities, but I highly recommend you give it go, anyway.

"But now youve switched the topic to your other obsession the impending economic collapse. PS its been impending since the middle ages."-- Wic

Just trying to help all the "head in the sand" folks around here, and they are legion. If you weren't such a pompous loser, you might could learn something by visiting the links from my previous post. Apparently, there are more than a few others who share my obsession. By clicking here, you'll see that there were over 455 comments posted to this one article in less than 24 hours. Of course that just proves that the masses are finally waking up to the fact that they've been swindled by easy money lenders and that their greed, though great, pales when compared to the controlling elite, i.e. bankers, hedge fund managers, etc. Since you appear to be ignorant of history by your Middle Ages comment, perhaps you should do some research on recent economic crises such as the hyperflation during Germany's Weimar Republic and our very own Great Depression. It only has to happen once in a lifetime to leave an impression, even on simple minded folks, such as yourself.

I do see a silver-lining in all this, though. When our corrupt leaders have sufficiently weakened our economy and individual Americans can no longer live the comfortable lifestyle to which they've become accustomed, higher standards of accountability will be revisited. Maybe then, all the ham-fisted research scientists will lose funding for pet projects like HIV, and perhaps even, there will be renewed interests in research endeavors that actually benefit humankind. It's fairly obvious to those who are self-aware that human health is deteriorating rapidly in the modern age, and it has less to do with microbes and more to do with the corruption and incompetency that is required to obtain research funding. Thus, your own obsession with "the medical literature" and PubMed, in particular, is ill-founded since you obviously don't possess the intellectual prowess to properly scrutinize the mine of field of modern research.

___________________________________________

"I also agree at least to some extent with Kevin and Wayne. A large number of "rethinkers" are people that were diagnosed with HIV infection in the past and have not yet progressed to AIDS..." --Chris Noble

In the future, you can refrain from misrepresenting my views as similar to your own, Chris. I never made the statement in the above quote, and you are engaging in manipulation, yet again, by conflating disparate comments. Not everyone who has been harmed by HIV has tested positive. Once again, any self-aware individual can easily see the smoke-screen of HIV when provided with the access to the truth. It's the horror of digesting the inhumanity of it all that isn't so easy.

Kevin

Sorry KEv just trying to see why you lied about the medical literature. Did you lie or didn't you know?

I wish you well, Wayne, and like everyone else, I hope researchers find a safe and effective cure for AIDS. And cure you from the HIV virus.

It's fairly obvious to those who are self-aware that human health is deteriorating rapidly in the modern age, and it has less to do with microbes and more to do with the corruption and incompetency that is required to obtain research funding.

Ummm. Human health has improved, as measured by life expectancy.

Thus, your own obsession with "the medical literature" and PubMed, in particular, is ill-founded since you obviously don't possess the intellectual prowess to properly scrutinize the mine of field of modern research.

Wic seems to be doing better than you, although you do a great job of pompous self promotion. The scientific literature is solid, with evidence reporting experience regarding large study groups, as opposed to uncontrolled anecdotes.

Re:

I wish you well, Wayne, and like everyone else, I hope researchers find a safe and effective cure for AIDS. And cure you from the HIV virus.

Posted by: _Arthur | February 20, 2007 01:46 PM

Reply:

Thank you Arthur. I am discouraged at sites like this were everyone digs in their heels and are not open to listening or being proved wrong. It seems to be human nature for us to want to be "right."

I encourage everyone to go to the Project Thames website (www.projectthames.org) and see what the organization has to say about the current approach to AIDS. These people are not dissidents, in that they see an HIV connection. Started by Micheal Barr, formerly of amfAR, ActUP, and the NIH AIDS clinical trials, PT shows how AIDS research into immune-enhancing therapies and vaccines are being suppressed, how the few people that make treatment guidelines are heavily funded and influenced by pharmaceutical companies, and how no one will consider co-factors necessary for AIDS. Click on their links under "projects" for fascinating reading.

It is probably too late for me but I'd hate to think 20 years from now we are simply managing the disease.

"Sorry KEv just trying to see why you lied about the medical literature. Did you lie or didn't you know?

I've posted several comments on this blog and/or at NAR describing my familiarity with "the literature" regarding antibiotics and fungal infections, including detailed accounts of having taken printouts from PubMed to my doctor visits -- printouts that documented Mayo Clinic studies from as far back as 1999 showing that "chronic sinisitis" is exacerbated by antibiotic use and perhaps even caused by it. Sadly, my doctors, like most of their contemporaries, work in a system that doesn't allow, much less encourage, them to stay educated; consequently, any relevant research that does not directly increase the profit margins of pharmaceutical companies is more often than not ignored. I agree that there is valid research being conducted and some of it is even happening in the field of human health, but I also understand that such research is doing very little to help improve human health. It seems to me that doctors and scientists are only on the same page when they are reading from the same book, provided by the same drug company, and that is exactly what is wrong with modern medicine.

If you're looking for lies, Wic, perhaps you might want to revisit Chris Noble's blog legacy. He'll fabricate the most vicious of untruths, if he thinks it'll win a convert. I'll stand by everything I've written online, because I've only ever written the truth.

Kevin

Chris, you asked:

"what will you do if the Judge rules that the Perth Group failed to demonstrate that their "HIV doesn't exist" defense has any validity?"

I will tell you what I will do Chris. I will agree to shut up eternally on the dissident issue and I will refrain from ever again posting any dissident beliefs on this or any other site, and furthermore, I will take up arms with the opposing side, and I will henceforward be twice as determined to espouse only the establishment views, if, and only if, you will agree to do the same regarding ending the postings of establishment views and espousing twice as hard the dissident views if the judge rules in favor of the appeal. Agreed?

By the way, Chris, sweetheart, as well as Tara, and Richard Jefferies, and Robster, and all those who have valiantly struggled to defend HIV and mainstream HIV science:

I forgot to wish you all a happy valentine's day, and belatedly wish to extend you such.

But I see the NIH offered you all a valentine on February 14th. It was quite interesting that they would make such a claim, that a picture of HIV has now been obtained, just 5 days after Robert Gallo admitted that his picture of HIV was "cellular contamination".

How convenient, just 5 days after Gallo's damning admission. But, perhaps a bit too little and a bit too late.

And I loved the quote at the end of the puff piece about an atomic photo of HIV having just been taken, which is attributed to Tony Fauci, director of NIAID:

"I don't think there's any one particular thing that, in and of itself, is the show-stopper. But I don't think we could really make substantial, fundamentally scientifically based progress until we got this very important information," he said.

But I can't help but wonder if he was simply referring to the supposedly just obtained picture of HIV or if he was really referring to the testimony of Gallo and the trial in Australia.

Lincoln, you are operating under a false impression. A judge can rule that pi = 3 but it won't change the reality. Science is done in laboratories and peer-reviewed journals and not in courts.

It is only "rethinkers" that think that courts are important. You obviously think that the courts decision is important. I just want to know what you will do in the inevitable case that appeal will be turned down.

Lincoln,
Learn the difference between electron microscopy and x-ray crystallography before attempting to demonstrate your brilliance.

Interesting article though.

Structural definition of a conserved neutralization epitope on HIV-1 gp120.

Chris Noble, again you ask:

"I just want to know what you will do in the inevitable case that appeal will be turned down."

And again I tell you what I am prepared to do:

I will agree to shut up eternally on the dissident issue and I will refrain from ever again posting any dissident beliefs on this or any other site, and furthermore, I will take up arms with the opposing side, and I will henceforward be twice as determined to espouse only the establishment views, if, and only if, you will agree to do the same regarding ending the postings of establishment views and espousing twice as hard the dissident views if the judge rules in favor of the appeal.

My turn to ask a question dear Chris. Do you agree to do this or not, sweetheart?

A simple yes or no, my love, is all that is asked of you.

Perhaps, my love, my proposal is just too much pressure for you, so I will withdrawl my terms. I will put it another way.....

What I will do in the case that the appeal is turned down....

I will agree to shut up eternally on the dissident issue and I will refrain from ever again posting any dissident beliefs on this or any other site, and furthermore, I will take up arms with the opposing side, and I will henceforward be twice as determined to espouse only the establishment views.

Now, I ask you the same question, my dear. What will you, Chris, yourself do, if the case is found in favor of Mr. Parenzee?

Lincoln,
if on the off chance that the Perth Group manage somehow to convince a judge with no scientific training and no prior knowledge of the subject that there is a controversy about the existence of HIV I am not going to change my opinion that is based upon several years of reading the scientific literature.

So my answer is a most definite no.

You on the other hand seem to think the judges opinion is important.

And, um, yes Chris, the paper on the "Structural Definition of a Conserved Neutralization Epitope on HIV-1 gp120" was quite fascinating, but to me, Chris, the paper just released:

What if HIV was simply a natural signal of cellular death (apoptosis)?

is a paper that to me is perhaps far more interesting and far more logical.

Thoughts?

Chris, you said: "I am not going to change my opinion that is based upon several years of reading the scientific literature".

Well, certainly Chris, I expected no less from such a valiant defender and believer than for you to continue to uphold such a long held positionj, regardless of any courts findings.

But, um, just what would change your own opinion, other than to somehow obtain a willingness to change it, which does not seem to be in evidence in your own make-up or personality at this time?

I mean, if Gallo and Tony Fauci, and Mark Wainberg, and John Moore all together held a press conference on the white house steps tomorrow, the same as Gallo had done in May of 84 when he declared HIV to be the cause of AIDS, and if tomorrow they declared at this conference to the press and TV cameras of the world that the current science of HIV was found to be lacking and if they claimed that HIV was no longer considered the suspected cause of AIDS, would you then be willing to change your own firmly embedded opinion, or would you simply attribute their proclamation to still be wrong due to all of the scientific literature that you have read in the last several years?

Would you still, after such an event, continue to espouse that HIV was still the true cause of AIDS?

Just what would it take for you, Chris, to gain the ability and willingness to "rethink" the issue for your own self?

Lincoln, that isn't a paper in the scientific sense, and it is not pubbed in the forum of a peer reviewed journal.

Sad.

Ummm. Human health has improved, as measured by life expectancy. -- Robster

Aren't you insightful.

Try using that excuse to assuage the burden that an increasing number of parents are experiencing, namely raising autistic and/or diabetic children. The former is a condition that has been unjustifiably ignored due to its apparent ties to mercury poisoning and childhood vaccinations, which is par for the course with modern medicine. Iatrogenic illnesses will never be properly diagnosed and treated as long as pharmaceutical companies direct patient care. With that said, throwing presciptions drugs at the epidemic of childhood Type II diabetes isn't going to solve that problem either, but that's exactly what most physcians do. After all, it's much easier and much more profitable than actually treating this disease for what it really is, a lifestyle disease that is best treated with diet and excercise. I'm sure you'll say that doctors do recommend diet changes, etc, but the results of their care are apparent: American teenagers are getting fatter and less healthy, by the minute, and your longevity defense will prove to be misguided as we all watch the current generation age less gracefully and die earlier than its predecessors--to say nothing of the diminished quality of life.

These are just two examples of how modern medicine has failed us. There are many more, but you do have every right to continue living in your dream world, Robster, just don't expect the rest of to share your religious fervor for HMO-based healthcare. Some of us are simply not willing to compromise our intellectual integrity to save an outdated ideal. It's also intellectually dishonest not to admit to the obvious conflicts of interest inherent to any healthcare system that is primarily designed to produce "health consumers", but I certainly don't expect you to understand that reality, either, since it is a severe blow to the fundamentals of your dream world.

Kevin

Ummm. Human health has improved, as measured by life expectancy. -- Robster

Its the old quality vs quantity argument. You can keep people alive for far longer than they would wish so yes, medicine made us live longer but are we living happier in our diapers and wheel chairs? For some it is true and for others it is merely a prison and those who wish to go are simply not allowed to. Quantity is the measuring stick in medicine, not quality and that is sad.

Oh lincoln how fun. Your like Becky C. who says no one has debunked Duesberg in the scientific literature so he's absolutely right then turns around and says the NIH and Durban were debunked thouroughly. Well not in the scientiifc literature of course but consistency is for dopes right?
the paper just released: "What if HIV was simply a natural signal of cellular death (apoptosis)?" is a paper that to me is perhaps far more interesting and far more logical.
This is not a paper its an internet assay and you don't enttitle a paper "What if..." The evidence Umber gives boils down to I wonder if HIV is not simply a natural signal of cellular death? Jean Umber or John as he calls himself on NARnia is an expert on apoptosis like i'm an expert on egyptian hiroglyphics. PS i'm not.

Yo Kev when did Noble lie? I didnt see it.
did write this on NARnia three weeks ago and now you say you didnt or was that anyohter Kevin

There's a few hundred articles bud.
You lied Noble didn't

Kevin, thanks for the laughs.

First, there is epidemiological data that there is no connection between autism or diabetes to vaccination or thiomersal. That you espouse multiple forms of woo should surprise no one.

Second, regarding Autistic spectrum, there is solid data linking the disorders to genes regulating early development of the nervous system, primarily one of the Hox genes. There are three other genes that have been linked to the spectrum, but I don't remember their names offhand. Autism starts in the womb and is a genetic disorder presenting at different levels, not after a vaccination.

...Robster, just don't expect the rest of to share your religious fervor for HMO-based healthcare.

I want a single payer system. Making the assumption that I support HMOs is. dare I say... intelectually dishonest.

Pat,

Do you really think that life 100, 200, or 300 years ago was medically better than life today?

Pat,

Do you really think that life 100, 200, or 300 years ago was medically better than life today?- Robster

No I don't, quite the contrary. I simply mean that "longevity" is the wrong measuring stick. I would be the first to hail the benifits to mankind made by science but my enthusiasm is greatly tempered by my own experience with medical quacks and useless medicines that only inflate my premiums and make it harder and harder to get appropriate coverage (I look like a liability) and by the current commercialisation of science where financial bottom lines rule over health benefits (cures threaten the bottom line; chronic conditions and disease "management" beef it up)

"I want a single payer system"

I'm glad to share that view with you.

"I want a single payer system"

I would even take that a step further and want medical discoveries to be public domain and do away with the starngulation caused by patents and private-interest driven research, but that is just me.

It is only "rethinkers" that think that courts are important. -- Chris Noble

As usual, Chris, you're a little slow realize the importance of events that fall outside of your accepted worldview. Wic wants proof of your penchant for "lying" and the above quote is a perfect representation of your favorite form of dishonesty--the use of half-truths and manipulative language to prejudice opinion. That said, an honest re-statement
of your quote might look something like this:

It is only "the conscientious citizens of our society" that think that courts are important.

Isn't that better? Can you see the difference, Wic-i-boy? If not, I'll give you one more hint as to why Chris Noble's disingenious remarks are unworthy, even though the importance of this branch of government should never have to be explained. Anyway, here it is in simple, unbiased language: Court decisions are very important since they establish precendents that are used to create and/or interpret the laws of a given society.

Sad.

Kevin

Court decisions do not determine reality.

That you espouse multiple forms of woo should surprise no one.

Careful there, Robster, Chris Noble's bad habits are rubbing off on you. After all, one man's "woo" is another man's "poo", and vice versa, of course. What should surprise no one is that you are resorting to character attacks rather than engaging in pointed debate.

Now, I have gathered that you despise real journalism, and I will admit that this is an assumption based partly on your hateful attack of Celia Farber and her very important work that was published in Harper's. Nevertheless, here, you'll find a link to an article that appeared in the Boston Globe in 2005. I'm sure it will bring you even more laughs, but there may be others here who are not so allergic to the truth. They may find that the conflicting reports regarding the safety of Thimerosal-containing vaccines warrants an independent study. Furthermore, it may also cause them to reconsider, or rethink, the veracity of other information profferred by research studies that are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Either way, they most certainly will not share the same degree of certainty that you express here:

Autism starts in the womb and is a genetic disorder presenting at different levels, not after a vaccination.

And what an impressive degree of certainty, that is. Let's see how it holds up to counter evidence. In case readers don't want to read the entire article, here are a few of my favorite excerpts from the article:

In the early 1990s, public health officials dramatically increased the number of Thimerosal-containing vaccinations without considering the cumulative impact of the mercury load on developing brains.

In a 1991 memo, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck's vaccination programs, warned his bosses that 6-month-old children administered the shots on schedule would suffer mercury exposures 87 times the government safety standards.

My, my, that sure is a hefty increase in mercury exposure, which would seem to be bad, especially considering that pregnant women are advised to moniter their dietary intake of fish because of the associated mercury risk even with this nominal exposure.

He recommended that Thimerosal be discontinued and complained that the US Food and Drug Administration, which has a notoriously close relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, could not be counted on to take appropriate action as its European counterparts had.

In 2000, the CDC met with pharmaceutical companies and the FDA in secret to review its findings linking Thimerosal with the dramatic rise in neurological illnesses.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

Dr. Bill Weil told the group, ''You can play with [the results] all you want. They are statistically significant." Dr. Richard Johnston admitted he feared his grandchild getting a Thimerosal-containing vaccine.

It appears that even these FDA-sanctioned physicians find my "woo" compelling.

I'll close with the aforementioned "statistically significant" numbers from the study, and readers can make their own decisions about whether or not you are a source of reliable information, Robster.

Mercury is a known brain poison...A decade ago the American Academy of Pediatrics estimated the autism rate among American children to be 1 in 2,500. Today, the CDC places the rate at 1 in 166, or 1 in 80 boys. Additionally, one in six children is now diagnosed with a related neurological disorder.

Kevin

Somebunny didn't like my tags so I'll try again. Kevin wrote on another site weeks ago "After all, you won't find any Pubmed articles that explain how frequent antibiotic use causes severe candidiasis in otherwise immuno-competent patients, but it happens, a lot. "
Did you write it kevin or was that a different conspiracy theorist with the same name and widely disseminated medical history.

Somebunny didn't like my tags so I'll try again. Kevin wrote on another site weeks ago "After all, you won't find any Pubmed articles that explain how frequent antibiotic use causes severe candidiasis in otherwise immuno-competent patients, but it happens, a lot. "

Of course, I wrote it and I stand by the statement. See, Wic, you are not a careful reader, or perhaps, you are just too dimwitted to make sense of the important distinctions that you consistently miss. Let's examine the above comment, contextually, shall we?

Severe candidiasis in immuno-competent patients is not recognized by 99.9% of practicing physicians. I had to travel several hundred miles to another state to find an MD willing to provide the care, the RX antifungal, that I needed. It is a disease that is considered only to occur in patients with HIV or people on immuno-suppressive therapy, which did not fit my case. As such, the bulk of any PubMed articles that I've seen dealing with candidiasis have that prejudice built-in. As I have pointed out to you on multiple occassions, much of the value that exists in the annals of Pubmed is wasting away, unused by those who could make a real difference in patient care, namely doctors!

The Mayo Clinic articles that I printed out regarding chronic sinusitis and fungal infections were, themselves, incomplete. You see, they stopped short of implicating antibiotics as the cause of the sinusitis, in the first place. In fact, they describe the disease process as being of "mysterious" origins, i.e. they could not understand why the sinuses of patients with chronic sinusitis were exhibiting an immune response to fungi that naturally exists in virtually all human beings' sinus cavities. The reality is that their patients were suffering from severe candida infections in OTHER parts of their bodies, i.e. intestinal infections. This seemingly common sense explanation has yet to be given proper consideration, even though there have been at least 3 subsequent studies confirming the original finding that chronic sinusitis is overwhelmingly fungal. They use the "mysterious" label because of the built-in prejudice which is key to absolving antibiotics of the very real responsibility they deserve for causing these severe fungal infections in otherwise immuno-competent individuals. Once I cured my own severe candidiasis and repopulated my body with probiotics, my chronic sinus problem resolved. The same results has been achieved by many others who receive proper care. Unfortunately, mainstream physicians are incapable of providing that care because they refuse to understand what some correctly call, "the antibiotic syndrome."

I don't why I'm so devoted to helping you get educated, Wic-i-boy. You're obviously more interested in painting those you disagree with as "liars" as opposed to contributing meaningfully to this discussion. So, perhaps you're not merely dimwitted but also just plain immature.

Go ahead and scour the PubMed library and find a paper that singularly deals with severe candidiasis in immuno-competent patients whose only risk factor is antibiotics. I'll be happy to read it, but that doesn't make me a liar. That makes me an honest human being, the value of which seems to elude you and many others I've encountered here. To quote my good buddy, Robster:

"Sad."

Kevin

Kevin: My comment that you deliberately took out of context was that courts of law are not appropriate places to do science. Did Einstein go to the courts to get his ideas accepted? No. He set about convincing other scientists.

On the other hand the Perth Group have completely failed in the scientific arena and instead manipulate the desperation of someone convicted of knowingly spreading HIV to get their pseudoscientific ideas before a court.

Science is not decided by authority and certainly not a judge that has little or no scientific training. It is decided by the evidence that is presented by scientists.

lincolnYour argument assumes that scientists just blindly accepted Gallo's word in 1984 that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. This is not the case. There were many skeptics. However, other groups also isolated HIV from AIDS patients and it gradually became clear that a) HIV could be found in practically all AIDS patients b) the majority of people infected with HIV go on to develop AIDS c) HIV binds to and infects the very CD4 cells that are depleted in AIDS d) SIV and SIV/HIV hybrids produce a evry similar syndrome in macaques.

Likewise, if Gallo and other prominent scientists involved in HIV research suddenly announced that HIV had nothing to do with AIDS then most scientists would not blindly take their word for it. They would want to see the evidence. They would want to see an alternative explanation for the correlation between HIV antibodies/RNA/DNA/antigens and AIDS, another explanation for the amazing coincidence that HIV specifically infects the very CD4 cells that are depleted in AIDS and another explanation for the AIDS produced in macaques by essentially identical viruses.

While appeals to authority are the norm in "rethinker science" ultimately it doesn't matter who said what if they can't support their opinions with evidence.

Hello Chris. You said: "However, other groups also isolated HIV from AIDS patients".

Chris, you also said: "ultimately it doesn't matter who said what if they can't support their opinions with evidence".

So now, Chris, I challenge you to show us your proof of this isolation of HIV from AIDS patients by other groups. If you cannot do so, then reread the last words from your post above.

PS Chris, evidence of proteins are not viral isolation. Show us your proof of viral isolation, as if this was possible, the eight mainstream scientists at the trial would have presented this viral isolation proof right there in that court!!!!

"ultimately it doesn't matter who said what if they can't support their opinions with evidence".

And this includes YOU, Chris!

You made an awfully big claim there Chris, of other groups having proven isolation! You better be coming up with something more than evidence of reverse transcription. You better come up with something better than a few proteins believed to be associated with HIV. You better come up with something better than cellular debris. You better be coming up with an immortal cell line of purified and isolated HIV proven to be infectious.

And while your at it, Chris, maybe you can also find the evidence that this infectious virus isolate is causing diseases.

Jeepers creepers, Chris. The court just wasted all of this time with the 8 HIV experts trying to find this proven viral isolate of HIV, and you seem to have known where it was at the whole time. Obviously the prosecution should have just had you in the court.

No reason to bring in Gallo and the 8 Australian HIV researchers when Chris Noble had the evidence the whole time!

Hey Chris:

While appeals to authority are the norm in "ORTHODOX HIV science defenders" ultimately it doesn't matter who said what if they can't support their opinions with evidence.

Hey Chris, you said: "SIV and SIV/HIV hybrids produce a evry similar syndrome in macaques".

But you seem to forget, that SIV is NOT HIV, and you are welcome to quit pretending that it is, or that SIV is any type of evidence whatsoever for a different entity such as HIV causing disease, because it is not! SIV in no way shape or form proves that HIV causes disease in humans or animals.

By the way, we are still waiting patiently for your proof of viral isolation of HIV by "others"!

Dig deep Chris, it must be there somewhere, besides in your overly vivid imagination.

Lincoln,
the literature is full of descriptions of thousands of HIV isolates. The fact that some "rethinkers" manage to cognitive dissonance these away does not change the reality.

You better be coming up with an immortal cell line of purified and isolated HIV proven to be infectious.

A HIV infected immortal cell line is by definition not pure. It contains human cells and HIV.

However, if you want you can find a list of HIV infected immortal cell lines here that are available for researchers. References for each of these are given.

AIDS Reagents

Of more releance is the long list of infectious molecular clones that are available such as this one.

Note that all of these researchers have made their isolates available for other scientists all around the world. You can see why these people don't really care much what the Perth Group do or do not believe. The beliefs of the Perth Group are only relevant in that they may encourage people to knowingly spread HIV.

Where is your evidence that any of this trash you just posted is isolated HIV? To be isolated, it must be proven have been removed from all other possible cellular particles that could contaminate it, and it must be proven to be infectious to cells. Don't you even know the definition of viral isolate?

Chris, please do not pretend to us that you are an expert in virology when you fail to grasp the defintion of viral isolate.

Are you going to show us the evidence of isolation that you claim others have done or not. Having some line of something in a vial and calling it something, is not the evidence of original viral isolation. Where is your evidence of HIV viral isolation by others that you have claimed exists somewhere other than in your imagination.

Chris, up above you claimed: "other groups also isolated HIV from AIDS patients".

Where is your evidence that "others" isolated it from an AIDS PATIENT!

Where is your evidence that "others" isolated from cellular contaminates?

Where is your evidence that what "others" isolated was HIV?

Where is your evidence that what "others" isolated is cellularly CONTAGIOUS?

Where is your evidence that what "others" isolated was the cause of AIDS???

Where is the evidence for your statement of VIRAL ISOLATION BY OTHERS FROM AIDS PATIENTS????

Hey Chris:

While appeals to authority are the norm in "ORTHODOX HIV science defenders" ultimately it doesn't matter who said what if they can't support their opinions with evidence.

Hey Chris, I'll give you a hint in virology 101:

Establishing a specific microbe as the cause of an infective disease: The Koch - Henle postulates:

1)Isolate the organism from every case

2)Propagate in pure culture in vitro

3)Reproduce disease by injecting the organism into a suitable recipient

4)Re-isolate the organism

Chris has told us all up above, and I quote:

"other groups also isolated HIV from AIDS patients."

Well, as Chris himself may just now be finding out, his statement above that others have isolated HIV from AIDS patients, is indeed, a false statement lacking all reasonable evidence and proof.

Kevin said up above: "If you're looking for lies, Wic, perhaps you might want to revisit Chris Noble's blog legacy. He'll fabricate the most vicious of untruths."

Wic: "Yo Kev when did Noble lie? I didnt see it."

Kevin: "Wic wants proof of Chris Noble's penchant for "lying" and the use of half-truths and manipulative language to prejudice opinion".

Well, unfortunately, it does seem that Chris is indeed claiming untruths as truth. Should he be called a liar for this? Only if he was consciously aware that his statement was not true.

Unfortunately, for Chris, as well as many other people, they often do indeed, but usually unwittingly, lie. But it usually begins with the lies they themselves have unwittingly fallen victim to believing. And it then continues and proliferates with the retelling of these lies that they then retell themselves and others.

As such, they are not to be faulted, as to err is human, although they are to be held accountable and responsible as are all of us for our words.

And furthermore, it is of utmost importance to all of us, for those of us whom are fortunate enough to have broken free of the victimhood of some of the lies we have been told, to share this with others when we are confronted with such lies. This is how each of us individually, as well as all of humanity, evolves to higher truths.

Lincoln,
Infectious molecular clones are as pure as you can get. They are basically just the HIV cDNA and nothing else. All retroviruses bud from the host cells and take cellular proteins with them so they are never pure in the Perth Group sense.

The molecular clone that I specifically referred to was constructed from HIV extracted from the uncultured brain tissue of an AIDS patient. It was shown to produce infectious HIV. To any reasonable person this is such strong evidence for HIV that you would have to be mad to deny it. People that deny this is overwhelmingly strong evidence for the existence of HIV are in effect denying the entire basis of modern molecular biology. Of cause people that rail against the "germ theory of disease" have no problems with this.

I am not going to continue to play your silly game. Whether I can convince you personally that HIV exists is of little importance. You are not the ultimate adjudicator of the existence of viruses and for that matter neither are the Perth Group. You and the Perth Group can continuously move the goal posts and just say "that's not proof" to every piece of evidence that I present. Of course in doing so you also implicitly deny the existence of all viruses because the exact same criticisms can be used to dispute their existence. At least Stefan Lanka is honest in this respect. He denies the existence of all pathological human viruses.

I have asked the Perth Group to provide examples of retroviruses that have been demonstrated to exist using their criteria. They have not been able to produce any.

BREATHE CHRIS, it is going to be alright. Just relax. Calm down. and breathe. You will get through all of this just fine. You are tough enough to get through it all, you are smart enough to figure things out for yourself, and you are good enough to connect with highest and ultimate truth.

Lincoln produces another red herring.

But you seem to forget, that SIV is NOT HIV, and you are welcome to quit pretending that it is, or that SIV is any type of evidence whatsoever for a different entity such as HIV causing disease, because it is not! SIV in no way shape or form proves that HIV causes disease in humans or animals.

HIV/SIV phylogenetic tree

A phylogenetic analysis of HIV and SIV shows that SIVcpz is much more related to HIV-1 than HIV-1 is to HIV-2 and likewise SIVsm is much more closely related to HIV-2 than HIV-2 is related to HIV-1.

They are all closely related to each other.

Duesberg and other "rethinkers" claim that retroviruses like HIV cannot possibly cause AIDS. The evidence that SIV and SHIV cause AIDS in macaques completely and utterly destroys this argument.

The difference between SIV and HIV that determines the specificity of the viruses for particular hosts is the binding of the proteins on the surface of HIV/SIV to receptors on the human or simian CD4 cells.

In fact if you take HIV and replace just the small number of base pairs that code for the part of the protein that binds to the CD4 receptor with the equivalent SIV sequences then you can produce a HIV that is pathological in macaques. For all intensive purposes it is HIV.

Chris. I am sure that you are bright enough to understand, that if I want to prove that TB mycobacterium causes a disease, I would not be replacing parts of it with some other mycobacterium that did not cause a disease. A pathogen either proves Kochs 3rd postulate, or it does not. Would you like to go off on another wild goose chase to search for evidence that HIV fulfills this necessary postulate? I am sure the rest of us reading this will be quite entertained with your findings and responses if you wish to do so. I personally recommend that you do seek the evidence of HIV fulfillment of kochs 3rd postulate, if for no other reason than your own education in this matter.

lincoln, even Koch didn't suggest that his postulates are the be-all and end-all of infectious disease causation. I've written about this ad nauseum, but unfortunately, the search function isn't working for me presently....

lincoln, you are talking about several different things at once. Evidence for the existence of a virus. Evidence that this virus causes disease.

You first asked for evidence that several research groups had isolated HIV. Now you insist that I "prove" that Koch's postulates are fulfilled by HIV. This is all just a tactice to avoid delaing with the evidence.

Koch's postulates are just that postulates. There are several microbes that are known to cause disease that do not strictly fulfil Koch's postulates. Even Koch himself realised this.

If you apply the formulation of Koch's postulates that "rethinkers" use then many other pathogens would also fail. The Perth Group don't mention this of course. When pressed they say they aren't interested in other pathogens.

This is simply dishonest.

If you use a reasonable formulation of Koch's postulates then the 3rd postulate has been fulfilled. People have been accidentally infected with HIV and developed AIDS.

Research with SIV/macaque models are not intended to prove that HIV causes AIDS in humans. They are utilised in vaccine research. Nevertheless anyone that chooses to ignore the fact that SIV and SHIV causes AIDS in macaques is not being skeptical they are simply denying reality. These animal models are extremely good evidence that HIV can and does cause AIDS in humans. Anyone that ignores this is simply being dishonest.

Nobody can "prove" anything to you. You can of course simply do the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "laa laa laall alla lala".

Chris. We are still waiting for your proof of HIV viral isolation by "others". As a matter of fact, we have been waiting for this for 25 years, even though Tara would like to change or ignore the long held rules of evidence of viral isolation and the long held rules of proof of causation ignored just for the sake of protecting the commonly held belief in HIV as being isolated, and in the commonly held belief that it is the cause of AIDS.

I do, however, thank both of you for espousing your views publicly, where they are regularly challenged, in order that intelligent people can decide for themselves where truth lies.

And I must admit, that I thank you both for your individual contributions, as many have changed their beliefs after witnessing the interchange between yourselves and rethinkers, and after witnessing what I and many others consider to be a complete distortion of common sense and good science.

I would imagine the only "invitation only" events that either of you will be attending in the near future will be those that are perhaps held by John P. Moore or Richard Jefferies.

Kevin,

My, my, that sure is a hefty increase in mercury exposure, which would seem to be bad, especially considering that pregnant women are advised to moniter their dietary intake of fish because of the associated mercury risk even with this nominal exposure.

A statement based on methylmercury toxicity. Thiomersal breaks down to form ethylmercury, which is less toxic. How much less toxic isn't apparent. Thiomersal was removed because of the possibility of toxicity, as evidenced by some early studies. These early studies turned out to be flawed, and more exhaustive studies have disproven the link.

The increase in numbers of autistic spectrum disorder is something of a mirage. The major part (if not the entirity) of the increase in cases is due to an improvement in screening and a broader definition of autism and related disorders.

Your description of the article appears unintentionally dishonest. The quote regarding the significant numbers is from Bobby Kennedy Jr, not an MD or PhD studying PDDs.

Bobby Kennedy Jr, despite the respect I have held for him in the past, has jumped the shark. His journalism, in this case, is more sensationalism than substance. Again, a non-scientist has, with good intentions, bought into woo.

The independent studies have been done, but Kennedy and the antivaxers don't refuse to believe anything that contradicts their beliefs. The mercury militia is sort of like a religion in that manner.
--------------

Lincoln, whatever you are on that is driving your constant posting, seriously, get some help.

Koch's postulates are guidelines, and meeting all four is no longer required.

1. The organism must be found in all animals suffering from the disease, but not in healthy animals.

Asymptomatic carriers (including LTNPs) are found in many disease states, so this one isn't solid.

2. The organism must be isolated from a diseased animal and grown in pure culture.

As Chris mentioned above, this has been done. It was isolated, cloned, individual genes were isolated, protein products of these genes grown, characterised and examined. Pure culture for a virus is not possible. #2 has more than been satisfied.

3. The cultured organism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy animal.
4. The organism must be reisolated from the experimentally infected animal.

Since these two are linked, I'll hit them both at once.
Infecting humans with isolated HIV is not ethical. However, HIV transmission can be tracked, making it possible to fulfill this postulate. Animal models are also useful, although they aren't always exactly similar.

A chimp model was also used to fulfill this postulate back in '97. An HIV infected chimp developed "an AIDS defining OI" after a spike in viral load and a drop in CD4 cells. HIV was found in the chimp's blood, and when the infected chimp's blood was used to infect another chimp, it progressed to a high viral load, low CD4 count as well.

Also, after accidental exposures of three lab research workers to HIV (reported in '93), who later developed either decreased CD4 counts or fullblown AIDS, this counts as an observational study. HIV was isolated and sequenced from these individuals. It was not only shown to be HIV, but the exact strain that the were accidentally infected with. Add on to this the fact that two of the three had not recieved any antivirals, and had no other risk factors, not only are the postulates complete, but this disproves Deusberg's claims fair and square (not that he was willing to admit it...

the long held rules of evidence of viral isolation

Various people including myself have been asking the Perth Group for a) a reference for the "rules of retroviral isolation" and b) an example of a retrovirus that has been proven to exist using these rules.

They have not been able to do either. These "rules" exist only in the minds of the Perth Group and their followers.

In 1984 the Perth Group had no idea what a retrovirus was or what was considered evidence for their existence. The only thing they knew was that the evidence that a retrovirus caused AIDS conflicted with their own theory - a theory that up till then predicted that oxidative stress caused cancer and not immune suppression. Rather than finding evidence for their own theory, as honest scientists would do, they invented "rules of retroviral isolation" in an attempt to discredit the evidence for HIV and its role in AIDS.

Robster and Chris. Thank you both for your unsubstantiated and mostly laughable propaganda.

Robster claims HIV was proven to cause AIDS because in 1997, Thirteen years after Gallo had already claimed isolation and causation, it was finally proven by what? A single monkey came down with the flu? Robster! Are you insane?

Nevermind, don't answer that.

That is almost as laughable as your 3 researchers tales:

One was named Larry who came down with syphillis after getting it on with Harry.

One was named Curley who got herpes from a girley.

One was named Moe, but he drank too much and got hep B from a hoe.

That is quite some overwhelming evidence you got after 25 years, there, bubba. Yes indeedy doody. You really do crack me up.

Chris. You really should stick with your current job of computer simulator programming, or better yet, get a job programming video games. I am sure that with your vast experience, video games are much more understandable to you than virology and you can still continue to pretend to do battle with invisible and make believe enemies.

Robster has now made official the world policy for proving disease causation:

He has now personally declared "Koch's postulates are guidelines, and meeting all four is no longer required".

Well Robster, perhaps you should write your senator and get your declaration put into law immediately.

Gee, Mr. Noble, did you really think you could get away with pretending to be a knowledgeable virologist or scientist or doctor forever?

Griffin, M., Noble, C. J., Hanson, G. R., Gates, K. E. &Burrage, K. (eds) 2002, Xsophe, A computer simulation software suite for the analysis of electron paramagnetic resonance spectra, ANZMAG, Lake Taupo, New Zealand, p. 83.

Tara,

not that I am speaking of anyone in particular, but your lovely little blog quite often seems to be a virtual pit of trolls disguised as knowledgeable wannabee doctors and scientists. Have you considered cleaning house, as one is usually known by the company they keep.

lincoln,
I have never pretended to be anybody apart from who I am. I have always written under my own name. I have never pretended to have any qualifications that I don't have.

My opinions are my own. I also support them with reference to the evidence.

You on the other hand have used at least 3 aliases in just this thread.

You should be careful when bringing up the subject of trolls

Lincoln where do you get all your time can you pass some onto me?
Attacking Chris Noble is fun for you but kind of inconsistent since is there anyone on your side who's a competent and currently active PhD level retroviral virologist? Didn't think so. Duesberg no, Maniotis no, Bialy no, Culshaw no. Did I miss anyone well maybe those aussie techs.
"Have you considered cleaning house" lincoln asks but tara would hafta start w/you. Thing is shes not a big censorship fan it seems so you're in luck lincoln.

Kev I didn't forget about you and I looked up antibiotic and candida again. I stopped reading after the sixth paper, they start in 1976 there are scores of them case reports and studies too. Candida in not immunosuppressed people who take antibiotics.
Heres a quote from one S Fanello et al 2006 "The principal risk factors for colonization (by C. albicans-M.) were a dental prosthesis, poor oral hygiene and the use of antibiotics" No immune deficiency Kev. And then Dinsmoor MJ and peeps 2005 "Neonatal thrush and maternal breast candidiasis are common early postnatal complications. The higher rates of thrush and breast candidiasis in antibiotic-exposed mother-infant pairs merits further study." No immune dificiency Kev.
I'd do sixteen comments like lincoln but my point is made and since your not a liar kev then you're just uninformed or ignoring the truth which is a reasonnable thing to do when you're a conspiracy theorist.
Oh did you hear the latest about autism as in after numerous independent studies showed the thimerosal thing to be crap its that autism is caused by early childhood tv viewing. thy're controlling us with the tube and setting us up for economic collapse and giving us autism and killing us off with HIV drugs all at the same time! How is anyone still alive.

Now, I have gathered that you despise real journalism, and I will admit that this is an assumption based partly on your hateful attack of Celia Farber and her very important work that was published in Harper's. Nevertheless, here, you'll find a link to an article that appeared in the Boston Globe in 2005. I'm sure it will bring you even more laughs, but there may be others here who are not so allergic to the truth. They may find that the conflicting reports regarding the safety of Thimerosal-containing vaccines warrants an independent study.

Kevin, in what sense do you mean an "independent" study? Scientists all over the world has studied the subject, and none of them support a thimerosal-autism link. Kennedy Jr. has written several articles on the subject, but those articles are completely without merit, as can see in Orac's posts on the subject (which also links to other blogs' posts on the subject).

Of course, since you seem to be adverse to evidence-based medicine, you probably prefer to believe a lawyer writing articles than people actually doing serious work on it.

Kevin, in what sense do you mean an "independent" study?

For sh*ts and giggles, I'll explain it one more time. An independent study, in this case, as in any other would require that the funding come from a source without financial interests in the outcome, i.e. other than Big Pharma, and the controlling interest will also need to be addressed since so many research institutinos have intimate ties to Big Pharma and when they have directed such research in the past, that research almost always regards "the industry" favorably even when there is ample counter evidence to their rosy conclusions. Maintaining such standards is very important within the field of human health, and if you can't understand why that is so, then you need to revisit the intellectual underpinnings supporting your dogmatic devotions.
________________________________________________

Of course, since you seem to be adverse to evidence-based medicine, you probably prefer to believe a lawyer writing articles than people actually doing serious work on it.

Readers can make up their own minds about my alleged adversion to evidence, but I think my posts here and elsewhere demonstrate that I am a capable contributor to these discussions. We may disagree about the quality of the sources for evidence, but the slanderous accusations that you and your colleagues find so easy to throw around only show your insecurities. Dissagreements are necessary for constructive debate. As for my intentions, they are well-documented, as well. My health was harmed by the circus that is modern medicine. As a concerned citizen, I feel an obligation to share what I have learned after regaining my health. You don't have to agree with me, but I certainly don't have to accept the one-sided presentation of the facts espoused by the contributors to this blog. The US is full of sheep, and the instinct to protect the herd is strong among the weak-minded. I forgive you, but I also hope that the future will be different and intellectual discourse will once again become a valued component of a healthy society.
_______________________________________________

The increase in numbers of autistic spectrum disorder is something of a mirage. The major part (if not the entirity) of the increase in cases is due to an improvement in screening and a broader definition of autism and related disorders.

This is pure spin, Robster and anyone who has seen the data will recognize it as such. It's ironic, but not unexpected, that you accept this spin as an adequate explanation for the increase in autism, but when this explanation is levied against the HIV/AIDS statistics, you cry foul. However, it is most certainly true that an ever-increasing definition of "AIDS" has padded the numbers to boost support for heterosexual transmission rates and female occurence rates, etc. You are blinded by your devotion to faith-based science, Robster.

Your description of the article appears unintentionally dishonest. The quote regarding the significant numbers is from Bobby Kennedy Jr, not an MD or PhD studying PDDs.

I provided the link to the entire article, so my description can easily be compared to the facts in the article. In addition your second claim is a blatent lie. Those statistics do not originate with Robert Kennedy, Jr.; they are from estimates published by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Dismissing Kennedy or anyone else merely because they are not an MD or a PHD exquisitely illustrates what is ailing modern medicine. Researchers and doctors seem to believe that their "expertise" guarantees a status that is beyond reproach, but such status is often undeserved, and anyone with an adequate amount of common sense see that the results of all these studies has done very little to substantially improve human health. For those who fall into this common sense camp, the very idea of using a known toxin like mercury as a preservative for preparing children's vaccinations is abhorrent. Assuming there are a few such people reading this, I highly recommend that they do their own research on the topic, because, similar to Kristjan's claim, there are scientists all over the world producing research outcomes that disagree with the studies funded by pharmaceutical companies. Following, I've linked to a good place to get a summary of the facts, without the pharmceutical "spin":

What causes Autism?

Kevin

An independent study, in this case, as in any other would require that the funding come from a source without financial interests in the outcome, i.e. other than Big Pharma...

So, a study funded by government granting agencies would satisfy you? Well, just look at PubMed and with a quick search of the acknoledgements of any paper will tell you where the money came from.

The real reason science deniers of all kinds fall back on the follow the money gambit is that without evidence to support their claims, deniers can't compete for grant money. They get bitter over this, and rather than adapt to new information, they stubbornly hold onto prior beliefs.

You see, the independant studies have already been done. Pilot studies suggested that there may have been a link between thiomersal and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), while later research demonstrated that there was no link between the two. There was a move to take thiomersal out of vaccines before follow up studies were started in the interest of both public safety and in the interest in maintaining high vaccination rates. Keeping these rates high keeps a high level of herd immunity. This prevents the spread of disease and prevents infection of individuals who cannot recieve vaccines due to allergies or other reasons.

Sheep aren't the only ones who are worried about the herd (actually, that should be flock, but we don't want to confuse anybody with technical terms :)).

Follow the money cuts both ways, though. Andrew Wakefield's research, not only of questionable value came with the unmentioned conflict of interest that Wakefield never mentioned to anybody. He was being paid by lawyers to put together evidence for a lawsuit, but this never made it into his articles.

You don't have to agree with me, but I certainly don't have to accept the one-sided presentation of the facts espoused by the contributors to this blog.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The causal relationship of HIV to AIDS is one of these. Whether or not you accept it makes no difference to reality.

This is pure spin, Robster and anyone who has seen the [autism rate -R] data will recognize it as such. It's ironic, but not unexpected, that you accept this spin as an adequate explanation for the increase in autism, but when this explanation is levied against the HIV/AIDS statistics, you cry foul.

Not spin, but a statement based in fact. The data points not only away from thiomersal causing autism (I'm linking here to a post by Orac, as the direct link to the article is currently down), but also towards ASD being a constant part of human genetic diversity. This point is still being debated, but I currently put my support behind this hypothesis. If it is demonstrated to be incorrect by evidence, I will change my mind.

Comparing HIV/AIDS to ASD is typically misleading. HIV is the contagious causal agent of AIDS. Genes are currently the most likely causal agent of ASD, and the genes are not new. HIV, however, is new to the vast majority of the human population as of 50 years ago.

Note how when confronted with evidence that Koch's postulates have been met for HIV and AIDS, lincoln went balistic. That should tell you something.

However, it is most certainly true that an ever-increasing definition of "AIDS" has padded the numbers to boost support for heterosexual transmission rates and female occurence rates, etc. You are blinded by your devotion to faith-based science, Robster.

More hand waving and evidence denial. HIV tests are extremely accurate, despite what you may have been told about them. The use of non-lab based definitions is common in areas lacking access to testing facilities. These such definitions are based on statistical probability, and are subject to constant reassessment and adjustement.

Also, I am a proud proponant of evidence based medicine, hence my disdain for woo. If you want faith based med, look to faith healers, homeopaths, chiropracters, etc.

Regarding Kennedy's article, quoted above... I provided the link to the entire article, so my description can easily be compared to the facts in the article.

You did not differentiate between the quote from researchers and Kennedy's articles. That is my objection.

In addition your second claim is a blatent lie. Those statistics do not originate with Robert Kennedy, Jr.; they are from estimates published by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Kennedy's numbers, while estimates, are from the AAP. It is interesting that you accept the numbers (which I suspect are an overestimate due to incomplete surveys), but not the analysis that the AAP makes of data demonstrating a lack of a link between ASD and vaccinations, with or without thiomersal, or the AAP's stance that there was never evidence of harm to children via thiomersal in vaccines.

However, there is good evidence in the literature that we are better at detecting ASD. Using the epidemiological data to claim that ASDs are more common, when there is a lack of evidence for that hypothesis is leaping to a conclusion. I would expect that of a lawyer who is working towards making a case. I don't have anything against lawyers, and I used to admire Kennedy, but when stats are used in a questionable manner, it needs to be pointed out.

Dismissing Kennedy or anyone else merely because they are not an MD or a PHD exquisitely illustrates what is ailing modern medicine.

I dismiss Kennedy because he is wrong, not because of a lack of training. Formal training can give one the tools to understand things like the difference between prevalence and incidence, or how antibody or RT-PCR screening tests work, or how to interpret and digest a large ammount of data into useful conclusions, but that isn't the only route. In fact, some very respected, well trained scientists get to a point where they can't admit that they are wrong, regardless off the evidence against their stance. Deusberg, for example.

What is ailing modern medicine is not accredidation, but the number one product that science deniers are selling. Doubt. They don't need to produce something that works, but they can sell boubt to people. When people doubt evidence based medicine, turning to woo is all too easy. If people were scientifically literate, woo wouldn't be the business that it is.

For those who fall into this common sense camp, the very idea of using a known toxin like mercury as a preservative for preparing children's vaccinations is abhorrent.

Common sense can be unreliable. That is why we use statistics and the scientific method. We have to seperate correlation from causation.

As to where to turn for good information regarding Autism, and not an antivax site such as that linked to by Kevin, I would suggest Neurodiversity.

thanks, By Brooklyn