A reader passed along a link to this post on Short memories: AIDS denialism and vaccine resistance. The author learned that a friend had dated an AIDS denialist:
This was absolutely the wrong thing to say to our friend, who had been an AIDS activist since the early days of the epidemic, had nursed several beloved friends through the illness, had seen way too many of those friends die... and had seen others come back from the brink of death when the protease inhibitors and combination therapies finally came out.So Ingrid and I were talking, not only about how ignorant AIDS denialism is and what a perfect example of the Galileo Fallacy it's proving to be... but also about how profoundly insensitive and clueless it was for this woman to talk this way to someone who'd been through the worst days of the epidemic. Doesn't she remember? we said. Doesn't she know what AIDS was like before the drug cocktails came along?
And it occurred to both of us:
No. She doesn't remember.
She argues that the same thing has happened with vaccination--that people simply don't remember the havoc vaccine-preventable diseases used to wreak--an attitude that leads to apathy. As she notes, the best public health is invisible--preventing disease rather than responding to outbreaks, so it's difficult for the average individual to realize how important it is until it's broken.
I won't summarize everything; she makes a number of excellent points that readers here will appreciate, so go check it out.
More like this
Pope,
You ask us for meaningful criticisms of Duesberg, as if we haven't already disproved all of Duesberg's major claims.
How can you participate in this blog and ignore what is written on these very pages? How can you bury your head in the sand even as you read?
You participated in the discussion over on the "Intro to HIV Denial" thread, where Carter made a similar request for substantive criticisms of Duesberg. On Sept 12, 2007, I documented some of the substantive criticisms of Duesberg's claims that a number of contributors had posted just on the "Intro to HIV Denial" thread:
On Sept 12, 2007, Carter says:
Carter, we suspect that you don't actually read any of the scientific papers you "quote," but it seems you don't even read the posts on Tara's Blog. Your claim again demonstrates the Denialist habit of ignoring any actual scientific argument while repeating the same refuted claims ad nauseum.
Just scroll up in this one thread ["The Intro to HIV Denial" thread] and you will find many specific criticisms of claims made by Duesberg. Specific issues where Duesberg has been shown to be wrong.
Many of the criticisms of Duesberg posted on this thread include links to actual scientific papers that refute Duesberg. Just scroll up and you will find:
Adele debunking Duesberg on June 29, 2007 6:13 PM:
Tara debunking Duesberg on June 30, 2007 5:36 PM:
Dr. P. S. Duke debunking Duesberg July 1, 2007 7:32 AM:
Chris Noble Debunking Duesberg July 1, 2007 6:43 PM:
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/06/introduction_to_hiv_and_hiv_d…
(A detailed debunking with links to more than 10 references backing up his contention that Duesberg's argument that AIDS is caused by drug toxicity is not supported by the literature.)
Chris Noble Debunking Duesberg July 1, 2007 8:57 PM:
Trrll discussing the rejection of Duesberg's ideas over time July 2, 2007 1:09 AM:
Chris Noble debunking Duesberg (and Darin's defense of Duesberg) on August 7, 2007 3:00 AM:
Chris Noble on August 15, 2007 12:31 AM:
Chris Noble debunking Duesberg (and Darin's defense of Duesberg) (again) on August 15, 2007 9:28 PM:
Chris Noble on August 16, 2007 8:12 PM
Chris Noble on August 16, 2007 8:12 PM:
If you want to see substantive criticisms of Duesberg, little ostrich, I am afraid you will need to pull your hed out of the sand.
Lets remember the motto of the last Toronto AIDS festival:
"TIME TO DELIVER"
I vote for taking ALL of the publicly paid salaries and funding that Elkie, JP, Chris, Woodpuke, Adele, Franklin, Tara, Jeanne Bergman, and all of the publicly paid, publicly funded HIV pushers on this site receive,,,,,.... and donate and deliver the funds to where it will do some real good in the world, such as for many hundreds of thousands of plumpynut nutrition snacks for the poor in Africa.
The aforementioned HIV pushers of Elkie, JP, Frankie, Chris, et al, can all be immediately put to work, and good and beneficial societal use, in personally handing out the plumpynut tubes to the poor and destitute.
At least then the world will have received some kind of minimal benefit from the existence of these otherwise mindless and useless creatures, besides sucking up funds that could be put to better use elsewhere.
Franklin, you never did explain to us how HIV went from a "may be the cause of AIDS" in Gallo's peer reviewed SCIENCE papers of April of 1984, to being "the virus that causes AIDS" in internal NIH documents 3 months later.
Please explain, Frankie, and stop avoiding the question.
Michael,
What difference does it make what happened 23 years ago? At this point the evidence is overwelming. HIV causes AIDS. It's 2007. Wake up!
Pope asks Braganza,
Do you know what happened to the P24 (sic) antigen test?
Perhaps Pope could tell us otherwise and support his own claims with references, but the literature suggests that the p24 antigen tests are highly sensitive and are becoming more and more so. New assays can detect p24 with high sensitivity and specificity during early infection, at times when RNA-based assays have until now been the only good detection methods. Tang S, et al have one of the scores of recent papers about such techniques in J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007 Aug 9.
Pope, you are kidding no one but yourself when you ask Braganza,
Why don't you relate to some of the things Duesberg has said in the peer reviewed papers - something of real importance, not a misplaced comma or something, if you know what I mean.
Not one of the many examples of mistakes or outright lies in Duesberg's papers, mentioned recently by participants in this discussion, concerned anything as trivial as "a misplaced comma or something." Perhaps we should list, once again, the Duesberg errors and inaccuracies? Or recall the fact that Duesberg's Ind J Biosci "review" was rejected twice before its acceptance by a journal that, well, isn't exactly Nature or Cell?
On a different topic, I am pleased to note the arrival of Mr. Godschalk. If Mr. Godschalk is on speaking terms with a big prutser named "Iconoclaster," I am wondering if he could ask said jokester if he played lead role in the recent email impersonations of Drs. Gallo and Montagnier. If not, does he think, as Pope and Adele apparently do, that this amusing if slightly illegal exchange was the work of our inadvertent jester, Jan Spreen?
Bull shit still abounds in this high-water hell hole.
Elk... Can you please explain your reasoning and show all of us exactly how the P24 tests are good for anything other than pure speculation and as you say Good detection? How is it that a huge jump can be made from this:
"None of the 50 seronegative partners had p24 antigen in their serum. 22 (44%) of the seropositive partners had detectable p24 antigen."
MacGregor RR et al. Failure of culture and polymerase chain reaction to detect human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in seronegative steady sexual partners of HIV-infected individuals. Clin Infect Dis. 1995 Jul;21(1):122-7.
44% -- Wow! Nice and real sensitive I'd say......
To, Tang S, et al. "Nanotechnology-based techniques are being widely evaluated in medical testing and could provide a new generation of diagnostic assays due to their high degrees of sensitivity, high specificity, multiplexing capabilities, and ability to operate without enzymes."
But seriously now, how will you convincingly prove that these protein molecules, surrogate markers, are indeed specifically of retroviral origin to begin with?
This bull is just a newfangled way prove absolutely nothing!
Does anybody else smell science fiction coming from Tang S et al.. especially when one reads the long list beneficiaries: From the *Lab of Molecular Virology, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, MD; â Nanosphere, Northbrook, IL; â¡Blood Systems Research Institute and the Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA; §HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; â¥American Red Cross, Biomedical Services Scientific Support Office, Gaithersburg, MD; ¶National Cancer Institute-FDA Interagency Oncology Task Force, Bethesda, MD; and the #Department of Chemistry and International Institute for Nanotechnology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
GEZZZZZ WIZ
Dear Woodchuck, you ask what difference it makes what happened 23 years ago. It just so happens to make ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD. After all, when anyone is asked for the study that shows HIV is the cause of AIDS, all studies referencing such a point, direct the reader to Gallo's 1984 Science papers.
Chuckles, Gallo called the evidence "overwhelming" 23 years ago, just as you still echo him, yet have no more evidence then he presented.
The "evidence" was NOT overwhelming 23 years ago, nor is it yet today. Your own belief that it is overwhelming today, simply shows you to be very easily and very well programmed with a false belief. Yet as most who are so programmed with false beliefs, you are also incapable of recognizing this as fact. Such is human ego. Most human minds have proven themselves over and over to be easily programmed with false beliefs throughout the annals of human history. Millions follow false religious dogma. Millions follow leaders who lack integrity. Millions followed Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Mankind has been plagued throughout its history with its inability to distinguish truth from falsehood, and it continues to this day.
You Woodchuck, are just as incapable as Franklin, of telling any of us how HTLV-III went from "may be the cause" in April of 1984, to being called "the virus that causes AIDS" a short 3 months later.
I however, fully know exactly how this came to be, and that is an indisputable fact and truth.
Dr. Richard M. Krause was the director of NIAIDS from 1975 to 1984.
Robert Gallo's immediate supervisor was Sam Broder at Niaids. Broder answered to Krause.
In mid April 1984, Gallo and the Sec. of Health stood on the White House steps and declared the "probable cause" of AIDS was discovered.
The very same day, Gallo entered his patent proposal for the HTLV-III test to the patent office.
Two weeks later his "peer reviewed" work was published in SCIENCE showing that only 36% of his samples of sera from AIDS patients showed evidence of what Gallo believed was RT evidence of HTLV-III. In this "seminal" work, it was claimed that HTLV-III "may be" the cause of AIDS.
The ONLY person Gallo needed to convince that it WAS the cause of AIDS was Sam Broder, who just happened to have somewhat worshipped Robert Gallo, and had even called Gallo a "genius". The reason Gallo only needed to convince Broder was because:
In July 1984, three months after Gallo's published work in SCIENCE, Dr. Krause retired from the U.S. Public Health Service and became Dean of Medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Ga.
Three months after Gallo's work, Sam Broder had no supervisor whatsoever, and it was easy for Broder, now convinced by Gallo, to call HTLV-III "the virus that causes AIDS", because there was absolutely no-one to tell Gallo that his 36% evidence WAS NOT PROOF. Broder, and therefore Gallo, had absolutely and effectively NO OVERSIGHT, and NO-ONE challenging them on calling HTLV-III "the cause of AIDS.
Gallo had great motivation to push his HTLV-III theory: He wanted a Nobel prize and had even repeatedly said so to his lab workers. He had the opportunity to gain funding and the opportunity to gain royalties from his now patented HTLV-III patents. He also naturally wanted to be the hero and the next Jonas Salk.
Tony Fauci, did not begin his job as NIAIDS director until August of 1984, and Tony Fauci never even investigated, and NEVER CHALLENGED Robert Gallo and Sam Broder's just prior claims.
NO-ONE challenged the claims at all!
No-one, that is, until Peter Duesberg in 1987, and by that time Fauci had already bought hook line and sinker into the HTLV-III belief, and had his own directorship of NIAIDS on the line, and had already directed 25 million into pursuing it and toward many other ex cancer researchers to investigate it as well. None of them had any prior experience in retroviruses at all, and absolutely none knew anything but what Gallo told them.
When Duesberg challenged, he now had a well funded team of Tony Fauci's newly minted HTLV-III investigators that Peter was up against.
Neither Gallo, Broder, nor Fauci had any motivation to hear out Duesberg, and every one of them had very good motives to sink Duesberg.
Had Duesberg challenged Gallo's work and claims to Krause, and had Krause still been the NIAIDS director, Gallo would have been knocked to his knees or kicked out on his ass for claiming 36% as being the cause of a disease.
Since Gallo's 1984 piece of "may be", there is yet no other paper that has ever made any more substantial evidence then Gallo's original work.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of supposedly "high risk" individuals have been indoctrinated into believing in their own imminent disease and death by Gallo's invention. Hundreds of thousands have been terrorized into immune system destructive states of mind of fear, paranoia, and depression. Hundreds of thousands have been maimed or toxified to their deaths by taking chemotherapies and fast tracked drugs that have never even been tested for placebo effects since the first 4 month long AZT phase III trial.
You, and now most all of mankind are undoubtedly deep in denial of the catastrophe that you yourself are a willing participant in dealing out, with the most affected groups, the poor, the blacks, the gays, and the drug addicts, being the least able to protect themselves from the "moralising majority", as they are the most repressed and least powerful groups within current human society.
Brilliant and insightful analysis of the paper Carter!
I'm surprised the editors of JAIDS didn't send the manuscript to you for review.
Gee Carter,
Elk directs you to a paper published in 2007, demonstrating the high sensitivity and specificity of P24 assays for HIV infection.
And you pulled your head far enough out of the sand to counter with an estimate of sensitivity from a paper published in 1995.
What did you read for the estimate for sensitivity in the 2007 paper? Or didn't you pull your head out long enough to read that far?
Then you add: "But seriously now, how will you convincingly prove that these protein molecules, surrogate markers, are indeed specifically of retroviral origin to begin with?"
As usual we already had this discussion on the "Intro to HIV Denial" thread.
All of the assays detect DNA or gene products from the HIV genome or antibodies directed against proteins encoded in the HIV genome.
Even Epidemiology-Lisa concedes this fact.
If a protein is viral in origin, the presence of that protein in patient material is a marker for viral gene expression and therefore of viral infection.
And the presence of antibodies that react specifically with a viral protein is a marker for exposure of the patient to the virus--an ongoing infection, a prior infection, or prior immunization.
Gallo, Broder, and Fauci along with many others all had their careers on the line and threatened when Duesberg challenged them.
The one, Duesberg, was simply sacrificed for the good of the many.
Today, there are many thousands more who can be added to the list of those whose careers are on the line for the HIV belief.
If those whose careers were not still on the line today were not posting, there would be few arguing with the rethinkers.
Franklin, Adele, Elkmountain, DT, and many others posting anti-dissident messages of protest all have their jobs, careers and egos on the line. All are in denial of this and hence are the real "AIDS DENIALISTS".
How bout you Chuckie. Are You bought off in your beliefs too? Are you financially or egoically invested in by AIDS Inc. and Company? What conflicts of interest do you have in this issue Mr. WoodChuck?
Hey Franklin, Can you tell us how HTLV-III (HIV) went from being called "may be" the cause of AIDS, to being called "the virus that causes AIDS" a short 3 months later in 1984?
Just how did this happen in 1984 Franklin?
And what are your own financial conflicts of interests in the HIV debate, Frankie?
Elk directs you to a paper published in 2007, demonstrating the high sensitivity and specificity of P24 assays for HIV infection. And you pulled your head far enough out of the sand to counter with an estimate of sensitivity from a paper published in 1995.
Elkie and Frankie, we've already seen you claim that HIV = AIDS was proven retroactively, but that the tests' sensitivity also improves retroactively is a new one on me. Since the tests were performed in '92-'93, I would think it's quite appropriate ro reference a paper from '95.
"All 110 paediatric patients admitted to the ICU with severe community-acquired pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation during the 2 years 1992 through 1993."
I take brave Sir Elkie's sudden silence on the topic as a sign he does not want to confront Al-Bayati and Christine Maggiore personally to explain to them his distaste for child-murderers and those who render them service?
Pope asked:
Your apparently doubt the specificity of the tests.
Rapid Serologic Testing with Immune-Complex-Dissociated HIV p24 Antigen for Early Detection of HIV Infection in Neonates
HIV p24 antigen tests are extremely specific. The sensitivity of the tests has improved over time.
What was your point?
Re: Tang S.et al.
"December 15, 2005--Nanosphere, Inc., a nanotechnology-based molecular diagnostics company, today announced the company's Biobarcode⢠technology has been awarded patent number 6,974,669 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.-- The company's ultra-sensitive protein detection and direct genomic testing technologies permit the development of new biomarkers and measurement of existing biomarkers at concentrations undetectable by today's diagnostic technologies."
Tang talks all about Nanotechnology and Biobarcodes and says, "Preliminary evaluation based on testing a small number of samples indicates that the HIV-1 p24 antigen BCA MAY (my emphasis) provide a new tool for sensitive and early detection of HIV-1 p24 antigen in settings where HIV-1 RNA testing is currently not routinely performed.
"May" doesn't mean absolute.
And you are saying p24 is regarded as highly HIV specific protien, antibody specific for HIV? Arn't you?
BULL SHIT!
"FINDINGS: HIV-1 p24 gag seroreactivity was found in 27 (35%) of 77 patients with primary biliary cirrhosis,... The HIV-1 and HIAP antibody reactivity found in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis and other biliary disorders may be attributable either to an autoimmune response to antigenically related cellular proteins or to an immune response to uncharacterised viral proteins that share antigenic determinants with these retroviruses." PMID: 9620716
Did you look at Figure 1 in the paper? They show a western blot of serum from a HIV infected person for comparison. They found some weak cross-reactivity to the p24 antigen that could be from a related retrovirus.
None of this changes the fact that HIV p24 antigen tests are highly specific.
If you are going to look for cherry-picked papers on denialist websites why don't you choose this one?
The p24 antigen test had specificity of 99.5%...[but] a lower sensitivity than HIV-1 RNA testing: 79%"
Hecht FM et al. Use of laboratory tests and clinical symptoms for identification of primary HIV infection. AIDS. 2002 May 24;16(8):1119-29.
Pope,
They have used the p24 antigen test at this time. They now are using Elisa/WB and PCR and have the same kind of results. HIGHER MORTALITY OF HIV+ NEWBORNS.
If you still claim that there is no relationship what so ever with HIV, can you explain what is happening ?
If you cannot, and you dont have the courage to say it, would it be better to just stay quiet until you have an explanation?
----------------
On the scientist aspect, I am not a virologist, neither a biologist, and have been interested in HIV/AIDS in the last 8 months. I am not working in the field so I can look to information only in free time, which is not a lot, so obviously I would have a lot of errors.
Are you a scientist ?
---------------------
Thanks in advance for recognising that you cannot answer to the question of disproportionate HIV+ mortality in your Duesbergian intelectual framework.
If you change you still can help people, and I assume that this is the reason that you are contributing this blog.
Michael,
So you dont agree that Gallo is a genius?
Gallo had the intuition, and others people proved him right. He is a genious, as Pope in fact recognised, calling him Nostradamus....
You dont agree with HIV/AIDS concepts, you need to criticize all 1984 posterior research, because Gallo's paper was just a first stone.
You dont need to mix the toxicity problems of monotherapies (I mean high dose AZT) with the reality that HIV is strongly related with AIDS.
If you concern is AZT, you should still be grateful to Gallo to have found something on AIDS and look to non-monotherapies non- high dose AZT solutions to the problem.
Gallo is also looking for non-toxic therapies for the problem, as I explained in detail in a previous post, and you should be thankfull to him for that work, if really you care for people with AIDS .
P.S. I dont have any conflict of interest, except the fact that I have been moved by the amount of cases of AIDS in poor settings in Southern Africa.
My career is not in life sciences research, I am working in renewable materials, and am quite successfull in that.
Gallo, and others need not to look to far to treating AIDS if they would look at LDN, which basically stops disease progression and prevents the O.I., which are associated with AIDS. Nevertheless, most will not consider it because it is not new and on a "fast track" approval for AIDS. A drug, which has virtually no side effects, works, is inexpensive and is keeping terminal patients alive needs to be looked into. At the conference, many incurable cases were discussed by the doctors who had treated them. MS suffers no longer needed their canes and wheelchairs. Many cancer survivors were in the room and of course me, a full-blown AIDS patient, who no longer needs antiretrovirals and the accompanying side effects. We do not need to wait for the "cure" or a vaccine that won't work, a miracle drug is here now with LDN!
Noreen,
I agree that LDN looks to be great, but don't you think it can be improved ?
Dear Carter,
You correctly report that Tang S, et al, use the word "may" in their paper. Why? Because they cannot predict whether their particular p24-based test will be the best of the next generation of diagnostics; it needs more testing. If you were to read more scientific articles, not just snippets from virusmyth or abstracts, you would find that noncommittal language is standard in scientific writing. Scientists are usually shy of absolutes. They cannot predict the future, they do not have absolute knowledge, and they recognize their limitations and those of their methods...although their methods and knowledge are often vastly superior to those of their "opponents."
Science and understanding can change. The facts do not. If you have an explanation that explains AIDS better than HIV as etiological agent, the world (including me) would like to hear it. If your explanation makes sense, is corroborated with experimental evidence, and results in prevention, cure, or better therapies, you will find that very few scientists are as invested in the "paradigm" as you now believe. I for one would be fascinated and enthused to learn about a different plausible explanation for AIDS. But as of 7:21 AM on October 24, 2007, I have seen not a shred of reliable evidence for such an explanation.
Pope takes
brave Sir Elkie's sudden silence on the topic as a sign he does not want to confront Al-Bayati and Christine Maggiore personally to explain to them his distaste for child-murderers and those who render them service?
Pope, my own words should have let you know that I have no interest in confronting Christine Maggiore or any of her friends in public. What would be the point? A single case cannot prove or strike down the HIV/AIDS connection, although Christine Maggiore in her grief and denial apparently disagrees. Her child's death is a tragedy, no matter what she died from. If it was AIDS, and it looks as if it was, it's also a reminder of how denial can kill. But no one will convince Maggiore of that, and her delusions are not worth my time.
Again, Pope, since you insist on misreading, I will tell you again: I acknowledge that accused child-murderers MUST have a competent defence in a fair justice system. Lawyers and expert witnesses who provide these services are necessary and important. Because of my distaste for the issues of child abuse and murder, I would not want to do Al-Bayati's job, but I do not begrudge him an honest living. I did question whether Al-Bayati is, indeed, a Pathologist.
I am aware that a medical degree and extensive further training is pre-requisite for certification as a Pathologist in most places, and that Al-Bayati does not have a medical degree. I wanted to know how he can claim to be a Pathologist. Dale provided the best explanation: Al-Bayati is not a medical pathologist. He knows about pathology and its methods (like many scientists), but is not certified and is not even eligible for certification as a Pathologist in most locations.
Al-Bayati's "diagnosis" was written up as a favor to a friend in need. It is not the product of certified Pathology expertise (although he is a Toxicologist, as Dale wrote). His opinion carries less weight than that of the coroners AND of the independent examiners retained by news organizations to review the autopsy report (all of whom supported the coroners' conclusion). From a standpoint of certification, Al-Bayati's report also appears to be below the level of those conducted by Dr. Benett, Orac, and others: those reviewers are medical doctors and Al-Bayati is not.
The drug works fine! What could be improved is the spreading of the word about this drug to the physicians and to patients alike. I think that we are so conditioned to not believe in miracles or for always waiting for some "new" drug or cure to come along, that we overlook the obvious, which is staring us in the face.
Michael wrote;
Dear Woodchuck, you ask what difference it makes what happened 23 years ago. It just so happens to make ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD. After all, when anyone is asked for the study that shows HIV is the cause of AIDS, all studies referencing such a point, direct the reader to Gallo's 1984 Science papers.
It still doesn't matter because they were right. The work of thousands of scientists and physicians confirm it. The proof is obvious. Screening the blood supply for anti-HIV antibodies has eliminated HIV/AIDS cases from blood transfusions. Antiviral drugs have greatly decreased the rates of pediatric AIDS. Antiviral cocktails have decreased the number of numbers of deaths of HIV infected individuals. When the virus develops resistance, AIDS follows. Any one of these is proof that HIV=AIDS. Taken together, the evidence is overwhelming.
Noreen,
Why is your CD4 not going back to normal ? Are all your others parameters normal, micronutrients as iron, etc.., oxidative parameters, cytokine perfil, etc...?
I am just asking but I dont know what are the answers and what is the implication of having a low cd4.
Brave Sir Elkie
Considering these introductory words...
A single case cannot prove or strike down the HIV/AIDS connection (...) her delusions are not worth my time.
... you spend quite a lot of time and words on the case.
Have you checked if your pants are on fire yet?
.
Generally, when one has low CD4's, which is the definition of AIDS, under 200, one is suppose to be able to contract diseases say more easily than a normal person. Since being off the HAART, mine have consistently for the most part stayed in the mid eighties. Nevertheless, thanks to LDN I haven't had any diseases or O.I.'s. To address your other question, my iron is fine, although I'm having to supplement nutrients and am addressing the heavy metal issue. Lastly, with all of my immune issues over a lifetime, who knows what is normal for me as CD4's are not routinely measured unless one is HIV+. Unless I see otherwise, I don't see how they are that important in the first place or else the LDN is the key factor to my health as my CD4's by the mainstream standards are dangerously low.
By now, the leading AIDS denialists will be aware of AIDS Truth's latest victory: The acknowledgment by the BBC of the many flaws in the Liam Scheff-inspired documentary "Guinea-Pig Kids", produced by Jamie Doran, attacking the use of ARVs to treat HIV-infected foster children at New York's Incarnation Children's Center. Full details of this victory for science, medicine and public health will be posted on the AIDS Truth website, where additional material will be added once the BBC finalizes its decision on the fate of the producers and editors responsible for the inaccurate and damaging documentary.
Many AIDS professionals contributed to this fight against the BBC, although Jeanne Bergmann deserves most of the credit.
I would, however, like to publicly acknowledge the truly critical role played by Dave Crowe of ARAS, and his colleagues in the Rethinking AIDS (sic) group, in making this victory possible. AIDS Truth's initial complaint to the BBC was gathering dust at a low level of the bureaucracy, and would probably never have been acted on. Fortunately, at just the right moment, Crowe and the RA group issued a press release (appended below). That was of outstanding use to the AIDS Truth team, as it served to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Doran documentary was AIDS denialist-inspired and -supported. I therefore forwarded Crowe's press release to a senior science reporter at the BBC (see email below, name redacted to preserve confidentiality), who then brought the matter to the personal attention of the Deputy Director General. The rest, as they say, was history. So, thanks Dave Crowe! Keep up the good work!
John Moore
-------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:24:18 -0400
To: xxxxxx@bbc.co.uk
From: "John P. Moore"
Subject: The denialists write to the BBC
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
xxxxxxx,
The very fact that the AIDS denialists' umbrella organization has now issued a press release supporting the BBC documentary should say something to the BBC hierarchy about how biased, damaging, misleading and anti-science/medicine that documentary actually was. I'm reminded of the old phrase that one can judge a man by his enemies. Well, one can also judge a man by his friends, and with friends like these, the BBC documentary producer is in pretty disturbing territory. The fact is that the BBC is sitting on a scandal, and how it responds (or not) will affect its reputation in the minds of many AIDS research professionals. The problem with the documentary is specifically highlighted in an article that will appear in the International AIDS Society's newsletter very soon, a newsletter read by thousands of AIDS research professionals.
I know this is not your problem, and I understand the demands on your time, but perhaps you would be able to steer us to someone at the BBC who is willing and able to look seriously at a significant blot on the BBC's reputation in scientific and public health circles. Some of the people concerned about this documentary's contents are London-based. It would not be difficult to set up a meeting to get to the bottom of the problem. The fact is that the producer was either thoroughly fooled or deliberately adopted one of the core agendas of the AIDS denialists: that anti-retroviral drugs cause AIDS rather than treating it. That's so dangerously misleading, and misleadingly dangerous, as to be not allowed to stand unrebutted.
Regards,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rethinking AIDS" [press@rethinkingaids.com]
Sent: 03/08/2007 08:17 PM
To: xxxxxx
Subject: For Immediate Release
Press Release
March 7, 2007
Rethinking AIDS Asks BBC to Reject Call to Censor
BBC Documentary About Forced Drug Experiments on Children
SAN FRANCISCO, March 7, 2007--Rethinking AIDS, a global organization of more than 2,300 scientists, medical doctors, journalists, health advocates, and business professionals, asked the BBC today to reject a call for censorship of the 2004 documentary film Guinea Pig Kids. The film, coproduced with NDR, German public television, exposed drug experiments on poor, mostly Latino and African-American New York City children presumed to be HIV positive, conducted at Incarnation Children's Center (ICC) in Manhattan.
In a March 7, 2007, letter to the acting chair of the BBC Trust, RA president Dr. Etienne de Harven wrote, "Thanks to the BBC exposé and other investigative reports in the U.S. and Europe, the disturbing practices at the ICC came to the attention of human rights organizations and local government agencies, prompting hearings, investigations and media coverage that continue to this day."
On January 10, 2007, several AIDS researchers sent a complaint letter to the BBC asking it to remove "editorial support," which includes a transcript of the film, from the BBC Web site and that an apology for "false and misleading" portrayal of the children as "guinea pigs" be posted in its place. The documentary investigators found, however, information from ICCÃs own former Web site, as well as the Web site of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), indicating that ICC used children to test not only unusually high numbers of highly toxic drugs (mixtures of up to eight drugs) but also at doses that were significantly higher than normal. (See also, the BBCÃs follow-up story.)
RA has urged the BBC to "refuse censorship of this vitally important film, continuing the courageous stance that led to the pursuit of this story." It requested that coverage of Guinea Pig Kids remain on the BBC Web site and that no apology be issued for what is an accurate report.
The February 2007 issue of Essence magazine contains a feature article inspired by the film, originally aired November 30, 2004. Initial stories ran in the New York Post, New York Press, Fox News and the British Observer. There is evidence that such abusive practices persist in New York, the U.S. and around the world.
RAÃs letter, and the letter of complaint to which it responds, are available here.
### end ###
Press contact:
Etienne de Harven, M.D., Ph.D.
President
Rethinking AIDS: The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis
Phone: +33-4-93-60-28-39
Saint Cézaire, France
Alternate contact:
David Crowe
Media Relations
Phone: +1-403-289-6609
Mobile: +1-403-861-2225
Calgary, Canada
Look at this guy, censorship is his best friend. BC a "denialist" group supported it, that autmatically makes it ok to experiment on kids. Did it ever occcur to you they recanted the documentary because of intimidation and fear of being called a "denialist" by turkeys like you and wainberg, and not the message in the documentary itself?
They wouldnt have aired it if it didnt have truth in it. John moore realizes informed consent is his worst enemey. Once people hear the other side of the story, the gig is up.
Can you imagine if a small group of scientists denied gravity, and a few dumb people beleived them and jumped off buildings thinking they could fly?
Do you think physicists would start a group called "gravity truth" and spend half their careers trying to prevent people from hearing the "gravity deniers" message? This is not the way experts respond to absurd arguments.
Moore responds the way a corrupt prosecuter would engaging in a coverup, prevent intelligent people from hearing an argument through censorship and intimidation because they might beleive it if they had informed consent.
He cant stand it when intelligent people hear both sides of the issue because once they do the realize that AIDS inc is out of control. Moore beleives people are stupid and need to be protected by him, the irony is most people who question hiv are far more intelligent than he is.
So now John Pee Moore cries victory because some TV employees, after having been intimidated by the self-proclaimed representatives of the Scientific Community defending their once in a century gold mine, have agreed to stay away from a dog-fight in which they have no bone at all.
Ha, Ha, Ha! Pee Moore, you should get your ass away from this quickly, your pants are on fire already! Ha! Ha! Ha! People who dare not agree with Signor Moore, even if they're top-rank scientists, they're despicable low-life quacks, but a guy who agrees, never mind the total lack of scientific training, anything will do.
A triumph of science he calls it! Don't forget Johnny Pee Moore: "Forty million infected, zero cured". That's Your Majesty's Own Scientific Community Speaking.
Oups.. Here's a better path to the gold mine of JPM&Co
So why, then, did Duesberg lose? His scientific credibility and reputation at the time were at least as great as Gallo's. Indeed, Duesberg's criticisms were initially taken quite seriously by much of the scientific community. Yet today, Gallo remains highly regarded, while Duesberg is regarded as something of a crackpot. So what changed? Although Gallo's initial papers on HIV and AIDS had a substantial impact, they did not convince everybody by any means. What happened in the intervening years is that subsequent discoveries supported the predictions of Gallo's theory, rather than that of Duesberg. Discoveries of the molecular details of how HIV infects cells of the immune system, improved methods of detecting the virus, the ability of related viruses to cause similar diseases, etc., etc. supported Gallo's theory, while more extensive epidemiological studies did not fit expectations based on Duesberg's hypothesis. Today, Gallo's original papers are mainly of historical interest, because every conclusion has been confirmed and reconfirmed, often with better methodology than was available at the time of Gallo'w original work.
what happened was the the most powerful government in the world supported Gallo for political reasons, put ads on tv 24/7, barred funding for any research that didnt support gallo's crackpot hypothesis and many scientists got caught up in the new industry.
If Heckler came out with duesberg and all funding, tv ads came to support his hypothesis, everyone would be calling gallo a crackpot, and duesberg a hero, its straight from orwells 1984.
If you want to prove me wrong show me an expirement since the press conference that was designed to test gallos no animal model, partial correlation, 1/1000 blood t cell hypothesis, cant do it bc they all assumed it to be true.
Woodchucks,
I bet I know a few things about "HIV" you didn't know!
For one thing, smoking causes AIDS;
Saturday, 23 September 2006, 23:06 GMT 00:06 UK
Smokers 'at greater risk of HIV'
Smoking
Smoking is also linked to other sexually transmitted infections
Smokers may be at a greater risk of HIV infection, research suggests.
The UK researchers, writing in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infection, said tobacco smoke may increase people's vulnerability to infections.
However, they also found smoking tobacco did not appear to speed the progression of HIV to Aids.
THIS IS REALLY REALLY GOOD NEWS, HEH!
The team, which reviewed previous studies, said the increased HIV risk could be because smokers were more likely to take sexual risks.
HOPEFULLY NOT UNTIL AFTER THEY ARE FINISHED WITH THEIR DIRTY LITTLE ACT, WILL THEY LIGHT UP!
More research clearly needs to be done in this area
CLEARLY THIS IS AN UNDERFUNDED AND IMPORTANT AREA FOR MORE RESEARCH DOLLARS. MAYBE THE PLUMPYNUT FUNDS CAN GO TO SUPPORT IT?
Dr Andrew Furber
Dr Andrew Furber, a consultant in public health from the South East Sheffield Primary Care Trust and lead author of the paper, said: "We know tobacco can enter the bloodstream and affects the immune system."
He said studies have already shown that tobacco is linked to an increased risk in sexually transmitted infections, but his latest analysis reveals a link to HIV.
HOLY CATS, BATMAN!
Out of about 3,500 studies, six looked into tobacco and HIV.
Dr Furber said five of these papers revealed that smoking increased the risk of acquiring HIV - smokers were between 60-300% more likely to acquire HIV compared with non-smokers.
DAMN! I GOTTA QUIT! HELP! OR AT LEAST SWITCH TO FILTERED CIGS INSTEAD OF THESE DAMN PALL MALLS!
But Dr Furber also added a note of caution. He said the increase could be caused by the fact that smokers could be more likely to take risks, such as unsafe sex, than non-smokers.
NOT HUMPHREY BOGART OR AL PACHINO!
Developing countries
A review of the smoking and progression of HIV to Aids revealed no association.
IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER! WHAT'S AN ASSOCIATION WHEN YOU GOT FACTS ON YOUR SIDE?
But Dr Furber said a link could have been hidden by the fact that antiretroviral drugs, which slow the onset of Aids, were not in use at the time of the research.
THIS IS REALLY TOO BAD! BUT NOT ACCORDING TO HARRINGTON, AS I POSTED ABOVE WHO SAID, "WHO WANTS TO QUIT SMOKING WHEN WE'RE ALL HEADED OFF A CLIFF-THE BIRMINGHAM RESISTANCE DATA WERE WRENCHING, ETC." DO YOU THINK SMOKING CAUSED HARRINGTON'S AIDS?
Dr Furber said: "More research clearly needs to be done in this area. As the tobacco market is squeezed in the developed world, the tobacco industry increasingly looks to Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa.
CLEARLY! CLEARLY! CLEARLY! CLEARLY MORE AND MORE AND MORE MONEY IS NEEDED. THE SUGGESTION STANDS: FORK OVER THE PLUMPYNUT MONEY FOR MORE AND MORE AND MOORE STUDIES, LIKE MICROBICIDES TOO.
"And these are the places where the HIV epidemic is at its greatest.
BUT OF COURSE IT IS!
"So if there is this interaction, it is important to know about, because it could affect the way we run public health programmes in developing countries."
SURE WOULD!
Keith Alcorn, a senior editor at the National Aids Map, said: "The weakness of this analysis, as the authors themselves acknowledge, is that most of the studies reviewed were carried out before the widespread use of antiretroviral therapy in developed countries.
THIS IS INDEED A WEAKNESS!
"Earlier this year, a large US study in HIV-positive women found that smokers had a 36% greater risk of developing an Aids-related illness over five years of follow-up, despite taking potent antiretroviral therapy.
I WONDER IF THEY INCLUDED STUDIES USING LUCKY STRIKES?
"Anyone living with HIV would be strongly advised by their doctor to stop smoking because of the increased risk of cardiovascular disease and the much greater risk of various smoking-related cancers for HIV-positive people, whether on treatment or not."
and another thing: GP120 is shaped like a little propeller that probably beats off neutralizing antibodies generated by "HIV-positive" people:
"HIV" uses "a fewer number of boat propellers" than previously thought to attach to cells! Probably the reason why all 30+ vaccine trails have failed to date. Could it be that maybe the particles "propeller away" from neutralizing antibodies made by "HIV-positive" folks?
Scientists Get First Good Look At AIDS Virus' Surface
ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2004) -- A team of scientists at Florida State University has gotten the first detailed look at the surface of the virus that causes AIDS, taking an important step in the international effort to understand how the deadly virus works.
"Future research efforts will use this information to devise new approaches to hopefully neutralize the AIDS virus," said biology Professor Kenneth Roux, who is heading up the research. "These findings have important implications for our understanding of how the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is formed, how it attacks our immune system and how it evades being neutralized by antibodies."
Using electron tomography, a process similar to a CAT scan, the scientists discovered that the molecule used by HIV to attack the body's immune system is composed of three separate but identical units arranged like a boat's propeller. Scientists throughout the world previously thought that this molecule, called "gp120," was only loosely attached to the virus' surface. But Roux and his team found that the molecules are much more tightly bound to HIV and are fewer in number than initially believed.
The findings suggest that a harmless form of the virus itself may be useful in developing an AIDS vaccine that would produce antibodies to attack HIV. A vaccine containing purified forms of the molecule may also stimulate the production of antibodies to attack HIV and neutralize it, Roux said.
The team's findings were recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Roux was assisted by postdoctoral associate Ping Zhu, biology Professor Kenneth Taylor, postdoctoral associate Jun Liu and researchers at the National Cancer Institute.
and another thing:
I bet you didn't know "HIV" particles "gang up" on unsuspecting cells:
If I'd known that multiple "HIV" viral particles must team up to to produce the deadly form of AIDS, I sure would've not been so critical of the "HIV=AIDS"paradigm.
Study Helps Explain How HIV Becomes AIDS
ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2007) -- A new UC Irvine study sheds light on how HIV develops into AIDS and suggests a possible way to block the deadly transformation.
UCI biologist Dominik Wodarz has shown for the first time that the development of AIDS might require HIV to evolve within a patient into a state where it spreads less efficiently from cell to cell. This counters the current belief that AIDS develops when the virus evolves over time to spread more efficiently within a patient, ultimately leading to the collapse of the immune system.
The study also finds that multiple HIV particles must team up to infect individual cells, called co-infection, in order for deadly strains to emerge and to turn the infection into AIDS. If just one virus particle infects a cell, the deadliest strains may not be able to evolve, stopping HIV from progressing to AIDS. By keeping more than one HIV particle from infecting a cell, scientists might be able to ward off AIDS, the study suggests. AIDS killed more than 17,000 people in the United States in 2005.
"If this is true, a new approach to therapy could be to block the process of co-infection in cells," said Wodarz, who used a mathematical model to draw his conclusions. "This would prevent deadly HIV strains from emerging and the patient would remain healthy, despite carrying the virus."
HIV develops in three stages. During the first few weeks, the virus grows to very high levels and can cause symptoms similar to a general viral infection such as the flu. The virus then drops to lower levels and the patient enters the asymptomatic phase that lasts on average 8-10 years. During the last stage, AIDS develops and the immune system collapses. Without an immune system, the patient cannot survive.
It is not well understood how the asymptomatic phase transitions into AIDS. The common notion is that HIV evolves to grow better over time following Darwin's theory of natural selection, eventually killing the patient.
But Wodarz's mathematical model, which takes into account how well the virus spreads and how quickly it kills the cells it invades, shows that the most deadly HIV strains do not spread the fastest from cell to cell. This surprised Wodarz because evolution tends to allow strong organisms to thrive, while weaker organisms become extinct.
The explanation, he says, rests with the fact that multiple HIV particles can invade a single cell. Wodarz's calculations show that, in this situation, viral evolution within a patient is fundamentally altered, allowing the deadly, slower-spreading strains to emerge over time and trigger the onset of AIDS.
These notions can be tested experimentally. If confirmed, Wodarz believes scientists could use this knowledge to develop a drug that blocks the cellular invasion of multiple HIV particles. This would create an environment in which the most deadly HIV types cannot emerge. This, he says, could keep HIV from developing into AIDS. No such drug currently exists.
This theory could explain why certain monkeys that are naturally infected with the monkey version of HIV never develop AIDS. According to Wodarz's model, multiple virus particles may infect cells at reduced levels or not at all. Wodarz says this theory also could be tested experimentally.
The study appears online July 31 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
David N. Levy of New York University also worked on this study, which was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.
and another thing:
I bet you didn't know that HP68 is a host protein with a weight of 68 kiloDaltons (units of atomic mass), and is found in normal cells in human and monkeys and other animals, and that HP68 temporarily associates with the Gag protein and helps it to form the HIV capsid,"
Rutgers Cell Biologist Sees New HIV Treatment Potential In Protein Discovery
ScienceDaily (Jan. 3, 2002) -- NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Rutgers cell biologist Bonnie L. Firestein is charting a new course in the search for an effective AIDS treatment. Firestein and her colleagues have identified a protein known as HP68 that is critical to the formation of the AIDS virus' outer shell or capsid. Treatments that target this protein could stop HIV production while avoiding the severe side effects found with current treatments.
Firestein, an assistant professor in Rutgers' department of cell biology and neuroscience, and Jaisri Lingappa, assistant professor of pathobiology at the University of Washington, are the co-principal investigators on this project.
"The identification of this protein by members of Dr. Jaisri Lingappa's laboratory, with whom I collaborated, is particularly exciting since it opens up new avenues for the treatment of HIV infection and, potentially, AIDS," said Firestein.
HIV belongs to a class of viruses, called retroviruses, which have genes made of RNA (as opposed to other organisms, such as humans, that have DNA), explained Firestein. Since HIV does not have DNA, it must infect a host cell where RNA can be made into DNA. In order for HIV to be infectious, a number of processes must occur, one of which is the assembly of Gag (group-specific antigens) proteins into a shell or capsid that protects the HIV.
The newly identified protein, designated HP68 because it is a host protein with a weight of 68 kiloDaltons (units of atomic mass), is found in normal cells in human and monkeys and other animals.
"When the cell is infected with HIV, HP68 temporarily associates with the Gag protein and helps it to form the capsid," said Firestein. "If HP68 is mutated or absent, HIV capsids do not form, and hence, HIV cannot infect other cells."
Current treatments use drugs that either stop the production of HIV RNA into DNA or interrupt virus production, but these drugs often have severe side effects. "The identification of HP68 will allow us to develop drugs that interrupt its interaction with Gag, and therefore stop HIV production," said Firestein. "Since we may be able to develop drugs that are specific for HP68, we may be able to avoid the intolerable side effects found with the drugs currently used in other courses of treatment."
Other scientists in the laboratory at the University of Washington and at the University of California at San Francisco were also involved in this research project. The results of the research appear in the Jan. 3 issue of the journal Nature as "Identification of a host protein essential for assembly of immature HIV-1 capsids."
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health AIDS Division and the Pediatric Aids Foundation.
and finally, I bet you didn't know that "HIV"can jump in and out of a nucleus multiple times as demonstrated by McDonald et al:
Tracking "HIV" in living cells leads to doubts about aetology of AIDS.
The most discouraging evidence that the entity called "HIV" is not necessary or sufficient, or even a contributing pathogen in the development of the more than 30 different previously known diseases now referred to collectively as AIDS-defining diseases has been recently put forth by McDonald, Vodicka, Lucero Svitina, Borisy, Emerman, and Hope, in their recent publication entitled, "Visualization of intracellular behavior of HIV in living cells" (The Journal of Cell Biology, Vol. 159, Number 3, November 11, 2002). Although the report was advanced as exciting new evidence regarding the path of "HIV" particles in living cells, the data could be interpreted otherwise.
The paper begins with an articulation of what is perhaps "HIV's" most challenging paradox. Previous HIV-AIDS orthodoxy has maintained that "HIV" must find its way to a cell's nucleus in order to integrate its "evil" instructions into the program of the host cell.
Yet even in the Abstract of the McDonald et al. paper, we are introduced to the exciting idea that with a technology capable of tracking "HIV" in a living cell, it should be easily possible to "determine the state of progression of individual particles throughout the viral life cycle." But here the authors gently point to a serious discrepancy they observed, or rather didn't observe but should have: They suggest that the fluorescent particles they observed were only able to be tracked "during early post entry steps of the HIV life cycle", because one of the the labels they also stained host cell nuclei with made it impossible to observe even 1 "HIV" particle enter the nucleus out of the dozens, or perhaps hundreds they tracked." It has been easy to label other nucleus-residing viruses before, by labeling the virus in isolation and then introducing them to cells for infection, to follow their complete life cycle. Baculoviruses, for example, which must get to the nucleus, are easy to label with nucleic acid binding dyes, and then follow their course to the nucleus, and into the nucleus, and watch them as they set up their factories there. Therefore, at the outset of the work's presentation, McDonald and co-authors alert the reader's mind as to the critical issue before them regarding retroviral ("HIV") inhabitation of host cell nuclei, and warn us up front that they do not observe "HIV" nuclear co-localization occur even once in their study.
The data they present that follows this somewhat shocking juxtapposition of statements presented in the Abstract, in addition, supports their claim of non-nuclear-retrovirus co-localization, which they arrived at experimentally through their use of careful in vivo tracking methodology primarily developed by Hope's and Borisy's group, using tiny particles that were pre-labeled with the green fluorescent-tagged putative "HIV" capsid protein Vpr, and in other experiments, with deoxynucleotide (Alexa-594-dUTP) pre-loaded into cells that later were loaded with putative "HIV" particles. From their results presented in Figure 3, it is unequivocally clear that not a single labeled particle was ever observed to go to an infected cell's nucleus and enter it, while at the same time, the data prove that reverse transcriptase is not specific to retroviruses, as has been demonstrated by numerous studies. For example, RT is found associated with telomere replication, and perhaps other normal cellular functions. (Szutorisz, H., Lingner, J., Cuthbert, A. P., Trott, D. A., Newbold, R. F. and Nabholz, M. (2003), A chromosome 3-encoded repressor of the human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) gene controls the state of hTERT chromatin. Cancer Res. 63, 689-695). These data, and their discussion about this finding make it clear that arguments regarding the specificity of reverse transcriptase for retroviral particles should now indeed be completely abandoned once and for all by "retrovirologists".
The most striking results of the study, however, do not derive from studies of specific particle or nuclear labeling with reverse transcriptase, but from their tracking of a putative albeit ill-defined "HIV" capsid protein, Vpr. Because of the elegant high resolution motion analysis of this molecule obtained by McDonald, Borisy, Hope, and their colleagues, it is crystal clear from the movement tracking records they present in figure 3 of their paper when they follow Vpr, that even though the tracked labeled particles approach and traverse across the nuclear area of the cells, they never enter the nucleus, or if they do, they quickly exit it again, and are unchanged with respect to their surface expression of the fluorescently labeled Vpr molecules used to track their motion (which, if retroviral in nature, should be dissolved or shed at some point at least in order to allow the viral genome to integrate into the nuclear genome). In other words, because the Vpr motion analysis is not obscured by the so called "viral specific" reverse-transcriptase Alexa-594-dUTP, the presented data shows that one Vrp-labeled particle tracked over time in Figure 3 both enters and leaves the nucleus no less than 3 times, or after 3 attempts, it never enters the nucleus. Another particle in the same tracking data in Figure 3 also enters and leaves no fewer than 3 times. However, and as the authors show us in the tracking data, we cannot assume that the particles entered the nucleus even though they had 3 ample opportunities, because no change in the Vpr signal associated with the particles is detectable, as the particles "enter and re-enter" the region of the nuclear border, and leave again. Of course, the more plausible explanation for these Vpr motion data, are that none of these tracked particles, or any other labeled particles tracked during the study ever enter a nucleus at all, they are not retroviral particles, and therefore, do not act consistently with the first "accepted" requirement of a retrovirus particle: to enter a host cell nucleus in order to integrate its genome with that of the host cell.
Regarding this failure to track even a single particle to the nucleus of cells, another argument is presented about efficiency of infection, that 1:10 viral retroviral particles are needed to cause "infection" and a reference is given for this calculation (Andreadis et al., 2000), although this number is at odds with other published data (Duesberg, 1997). Nevertheless, the McDonald study presents convincing data which now can be seen to eliminate all possibility of confusing particles that have had their capsid removed by the absorption processes of the cell from other particles that have not had their capsids removed, and any hypothesis regarding the translocation of this "retrovirus" to the nucleus for completion of its life cycle is laid to rest.
By following Alexa-594-dUTP labeled particles that are negative for Vrp (McDonald et al., p 448, Discussion), and by following particles that are positive for Vrp, it is highly unlikely that a genuine association with the host cell nucleus could have been missed in the McDonald study.
Another advance brought forth by the McDonald paper, is the emphasis on the cytoskeleton's role in non-randomly transporting labeled particles or vesicles from the cell periphery to the region of the nucleus. This region of the cell, as pointed out by the authors, is commonly known as the microtubule organizing center, and as such, it is known to be the depot of intracellular cargo, and among most cells, has the known capacity of self-organization in the absence or presence of the centrioles at its center (Zorn et al., 1979; Dirksen et al., 1961; Maniotis et al., 1991; Khodjakov et al., 2002). This region of the cell has been mysterious for more than a century since it was first called the cell's centrosphere in the last century (Wilson, Boveri, 1925), and because it contains the enigmatic centrioles whose replication is still a paradox of molecular biology (Maniotis et al., 1991; Khodjakov et al., 2002). Centrosomes, in addition, are known to be associated with virus-like and virus sized particles in normal, uninfected cells of all kinds (Kalnins), and much ultrastructural work has been done on these "viral like particles for more than 20 years, along with ultrastructural work on the centrosome.
What is not mysterious about this region of the cell, is that it is almost universally known and accepted amongst cell biologists that the MTOC acts as a "garbage-can" of the cell, because all types and kinds of vesicles, particles, dirt, organelles, and various molecular complexes are brought together near the nucleus in this area. Nevertheless, due to the elegant use of live imaging of microtubules in this study along with the tracking of GFP-labeled Vrp, a series of difficult experiments were performed by McDonald, Borisy, and colleagues, in order to establish whether microtubules were possibly the tracks along which the particles traveled on their route at least to the MTOC. These experiments, taken together, clearly demonstrate that microtubules are used to efficiently carry "the virus-sized" particles from the exterior region of the cell toward the MTOC, but that actin also plays an important role. Thus it is still not clear which cytoskeletal system is predominantly used to transport particles to and toward the MTOC. However, the predominant cargo carried by microtubules and the dynein motors in the retrograde direction (toward the nucleus) are typically ordinary membrane-bound vesicles, about the size of the "particles" tracked by the Hope team. It was claimed that Triton X-100 detergent treatment failed to remove the signal from the particles. Therefore, another way to interpret the McDonald data, is that they have successfully labeled intracellular debris in these cells, which is being transported to the centrosome.
Cheers,
andy
!!!!! So why, then, did Duesberg lose?
Let's sit back in awe and bow before master ttttrrrllll. One phrase, one single apparently innocent string of 32 characters (yessir, 2^5, you got it) and perfect phrasing (why, then, ... man, the commas!!!) is all ttrll needs to free the earth of the weeds of dissidence. There's no hope left for the silly opponents of Science, not one photon of light let into in the darkness of their hopeless case. Duesberg's winning or losing is not a question anymore, the only question left is "Why did he loose?".
cooler, carter, godschalk, noreen pope et al: Let's get out of here, fast, they've done us in.
...
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Andrew Maniotis,
I am not familiar with these papers. But you do know something that I don't know. It is how to twist information and cherry pick sentences to misrepresent published information. That's a talent that will get you far in the research world. The evidence is clear. Seven years as an independent researcher with only a demotion to show for it. Keep it up and you can be a graduate student again. Wouldn't that be fun.
Andrew,
Your transition to a parody of a scientist and complete irrelevance is complete.
John P. Moore of the AidsTruth cabal writes:
"By now, the leading AIDS denialists will be aware of AIDS Truth's latest victory: The acknowledgment by the BBC of the many flaws in the Liam Scheff-inspired documentary "Guinea-Pig Kids", produced by Jamie Doran, attacking the use of ARVs to treat HIV-infected foster children at New York's Incarnation Children's Center. Full details of this victory for science, medicine and public health will be posted on the AIDS Truth website, where additional material will be added once the BBC finalizes its decision on the fate of the producers and editors responsible for the inaccurate and damaging documentary."
"Many AIDS professionals contributed to this fight against the BBC, although Jeanne Bergmann deserves most of the credit."
....end excerpt...
I want to point out that the victory here being celebrated is that crack-baby orphans were and are being used in forced-drugging chemical drug trials, in their orphanage.
That's the victory for Moore, the engine of the Aids Crusdade at the NY Times. He who will not debate with "denialists." He who constantly libels and slanders anyone who takes a different view of this paradigm, but refuses to face those he attacks.
This cabal, this John Moore, this NY Times, this is "Aids." Victory is being able to use, and puncture, and drug crack orphans any way they want to, any way they want to, every way they can - and those, like myself, who stand against this practice, we are called "denialists." As in, "holocaust denialists," by those in favor of the laissez-faire drugging of orphans in an orphanage, with FDA black box label drugs.
It's stupefying, really stupefying. These people are nazis, I don't know how else to put it, just nazis, pure mentally ill fascists.
Sorry if that's too blunt. But holy Christ, it is just pure fascism, power-mad, embittered, imbalanced fascism.
This reflects a ludicrous ignorance of how science works. Scientists base their scientific opinions on the scientific literature, not TV ads. Ask any scientist about the scientific credibility of TV ads and he will probably laugh in your face. And funding decisions are made by peer-review study sections of independent scientists (on thankfully rare occasions the legislature overrides NIH peer-review committees, but that has not been the case for HIV research). If HIV nonbelievers have failed to receive funding, it is because they failed to produce evidence sufficient to convince a peer-review group that they were on the right track. I was reading the scientific literature back then. If there were "TV ads" (which I rather doubt), I never saw a single one of them. I remember when Duesberg's criticisms first appeared--in fact, I thought that he made some good points. But I saw lots of peer-reviewed scientific papers that convinced me that the HIV researchers were on the right track, and that Duesberg was barking up the wrong tree. Other scientists of my acquaintance formed their opinions in the same way.
Denialists frequently become obsessed with the notion that a theory can be properly tested only by doing a particular experiment, usually one that is impractical, unethical (like the experiment that you proposed earlier), or downright nonsensical. Real scientists evaluate a theory based on the entire body of scientific evidence, single experiments.
"Now there are alternatives such as the new integrase inhibitor for those who develop resistant virus."
Jeez' guys, how many more times do I have to explain that there is no such thing as a "resistant virus" The concept of resistance has been swiped from bacteriology. Bacteria can become resistant against a bactericidal drug that interferes with their metabolism. That's because bacteria do have a metabolism; they are living organisms and they can develop a path around the blockage. Viruses are not living organisms. They are dead pieces of genetic information that can be transcribed in the right environment (a living host cell). None of the drugs that are used to fight viruses is truly antiviral, i.e., the drugs don't interfere with the virus itself. They just louse up the mechanism by which the virus replicates. But these mechanisms belong to the cell; they are natural processes. Using crap such as AZT is like burning your house down to get rid of termites.
The quacks just give the "ARV cocktail of the month", and when the patient doesn't respond to their liking (CD4 up, VL down), then they whine "Oooh, a resistant mutant!" And they move on to a new poison.
To people who are willig to think (not the pharma shills; they have tuned me out): A virus can mutate, but then something changes. If the change is in the coat protein (replacement of a single amino acid, for example), the altered folding may cause the mutant to be incapable of infecting its host cell. That mutant will never be heard from again. Point mutations cause weakened infectivity.
what are you talking about, hiv was turned into fact before gallos work was published, and all funding went to his hypothesis the day of the press conference, they already talked about devoloping a vaccine before the worlds scientists could even see gallos flimsy evidence!
You dont think the state can promote junk science? It happened in russia, germany and now here.
Are you stupid? youre telling me Gallo having full support from the government with all the funding etc made no difeerence? If gallo didnt have any gov support I doubt anyone would care about his 1/1000 cell no animal model 10 year slow virus.
Ive seen plenty of scientists with far more evidence than gallo, they had correlations and animal models, but they were ignored bc its not about science, its about politics, and heckler and reagan needed to pacify people who wanted answers quick.
"HIV" uses "a fewer number of boat propellers" than previously thought to attach to cells!
Gee, Dr. Maniotis, everybody except denialists knows HIV doesn't use propellers anymore; it's long since mutated them into molecular entry claws. http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may2007/nci-03.htm
What really made the HIV CAT scan worthwhile, though, was this exciting brand new theory
The findings suggest that a harmless form of the virus itself may be useful in developing an AIDS vaccine that would produce antibodies to attack HIV. A vaccine containing purified forms of the molecule may also stimulate the production of antibodies to attack HIV and neutralize it, Roux said.
Imagine that! A harmless form of the virus may be useful in developing a vaccine. Why didn't anybody think of that before?! Give that man an AIDS causing cigar and a pharma grant.
It seems Liam Scheff got stuck in Tara's famous Denialist Filter" (TM) Here is his message to brave Sir John:
John P. Moore of the AidsTruth cabal writes:
"By now, the leading AIDS denialists will be aware of AIDS Truth's latest victory: The acknowledgment by the BBC of the many flaws in the Liam Scheff-inspired documentary "Guinea-Pig Kids", produced by Jamie Doran,
attacking the use of ARVs to treat HIV-infected foster children at New York's Incarnation Children's Center. Full details of this victory for science, medicine and public health will be posted on the AIDS Truth website, where
additional material will be added once the BBC finalizes its decision on the fate of the producers and editors responsible for the inaccurate and damaging documentary."
"Many AIDS professionals contributed to this fight against the BBC, although Jeanne Bergmann deserves most of the credit."
....end excerpt....
I want to point out that the victory here being celebrated is that crack-baby orphans were and are being used in forced-drugging chemical drug trials, in their orphanage.
That's the victory for Moore, the engine of the Aids Crusade at the NY Times. He who will not debate with "denialists." He who constantly libels and slanders anyone who takes a different view of this paradigm, but refuses to face those he attacks.
This cabal, this John Moore, this NY Times, this is "Aids." Victory is being able to use, and puncture, and drug crack orphans any way they want to, any way they want to, every way they can - and those, like myself, who stand
against this practice, we are called "denialists." As in, "holocaust denialists," by those in favor of the laissez-faire drugging of orphans in an orphanage, with FDA black box label drugs.
It's stupefying, really stupefying. These people are nazis, I don't know how else to put it, just nazis, pure mentally ill fascists.
Sorry if that's too blunt. But holy Christ, it is just pure fascism, power-mad, embittered, imbalanced fascism.
"On a different topic, I am pleased to note the arrival of Mr. Godschalk. If Mr. Godschalk is on speaking terms with a big prutser named "Iconoclaster,""
Oh yes, Elkieman. I know Iconoclaster very well. Nice guy. Makes a lot of sense too, which cannot be said about you or most of the other shills.
By the way, do you know a guy named George Carter? You remind me of him. I don't mean the Carter who posts on this thread, and who writes intelligent commentaries. No, I mean the guy wo wasted the first half of his life, and now gets paid by big pharma to waste the second half also.
And no, I am not behind the amusing impersonations of Gallo and Montagnier that are making the rounds. I had a good laugh about that, but I don't know who put it on the rails.
yo liam,
its pointless to argue with these madmen. I thought it was all BS then we all saw hiv fact or fraud in my dorm at Cal, pretty much 3/4 of the floor thought that the hiv theory was dubious to say the least afterwards.
you can reach much more intelligent people on facebook. BC of my sisters illness ive also tried to educate people about mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans, microbe that shyh ching lo published on that killed every animal injected unlike hiv. read project day lily and lo and nicolsons work on pub med to find out about how it the only microbe worth worrying about.
these people are total trash, all my friends at cal dont bitch and whine when I show them this info, most of them agree with it. These people are like the germans in the nazi era that thought it was impossible for hitler to tell a lie, theyre a waste of time.
Wilhelm writes:
Then again, if the change is in the polymerase (replacement of a single amino acid, for example), the altered folding may cause the mutant to be incapable of utilizing AZT as a substrate, thereby avoiding the insertion of a chain-terminating molecule into its DNA and allowing it to replicate efficiently in the presence of the drug.
Dr. Godschalk, is this any way to treat an old friend? Well, not a friend, perhaps, but an old sparring partner? Or do you really not recognize me? Ignoring me and my question to you about Iconoclaster and Jan Spreen? I'm hurt. But I'm also thick-skinned and I can take it; I understand why you might want to keep some secrets, after all.
Pope, if I recall correctly, I was communicating with you and not with Christine Maggiore. Hence, I was wasting my time on you and not on Christine, unless of course you are Christine (with a more literate friend editing her/your comments).
And dear, poor Liam. In the first breath falling into the rut of calling his opponents Nazis. Jayson Blair may well have felt the same way about those who exposed his poor journalism. But the bad journalist's biggest enemy is himself and his own bad journalism. Lies and distortions have no place in Liam's profession, and the BBC admits it.
Liam, too, should recognize his mistakes and educate himself about HIV and AIDS. He should understand that because of his lies, some children who need medication may not be getting it. He should back away from an issue he does not understand and can view only through his hate-colored, ignorance-rimmed glasses.
Pediatric AIDS patients don't need you and your scare-tactic distortions, Liam, they need proper medical care and, where appropriate, medication. Find another crusade, one that's a more appropriate channel for your obsession.
Never mind, Iconoclaster. I missed your comment. As you were.
I gather Godschalk's argument is that viruses do not have any enzymes that are necessary for replication. You can't argue with logic like that.
"AIDS Truth's initial complaint to the BBC was gathering dust at a low level of the bureaucracy, and would probably never have been acted on. Fortunately, at just the right moment, Crowe and the RA group issued a press release (appended below). That was of outstanding use to the AIDS Truth team, as it served to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Doran documentary was AIDS denialist-inspired and -supported. I therefore forwarded Crowe's press release to a senior science reporter at the BBC (see email below, name redacted to preserve confidentiality), who then brought the matter to the personal attention of the Deputy Director General. The rest, as they say, was history."
Thank you, Small Inquisitor, for clarifying the nature of the BBC decision. Let's recall the timeline:
1. AIDStruth makes a complaint to the BCC.
2. "AIDS Truth's initial complaint to the BBC was gathering dust at a low level of the bureaucracy"
3. Due to AIDStruth's stupid decision to file a complaint, the ICC story gets enormous exposure and more people know about it.
4. RA issues a press release about the matter.
5. That [the RA press release] was of outstanding use to the AIDS Truth team, as it served to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Doran documentary was AIDS denialist-inspired and -supported... The rest, as they say, was history."
In other words, the BBC felt there was no reason to withdraw the story or make a public statement recanting it. Then, after an email from JP Moore, who alerts them about some affiliations (and nothing to do with science/medicine), they suddently decide to make a profuse public apology.
So thank you, Small Inquisitor, for verifying that this whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with science or medicine and everything to do with POLITICS.
The best thing for you guys to do right now would be to just SHUT YOUR ****ING TRAPS. That's what Gallo and Baltimore and Fauci have been doing for 20 years, and it served them well. (See, I'm even TELLING you what your best strategy is, and you STILL won't listen to me. Unbelievable.) Too bad you youngen's aren't very good tutees.
darin
No, this is sheer nonsense. There was certainly interest in developing a vaccine as soon as Gallo announced that he had evidence of a virus, but the notion that "the government" stepped in to cut off funding to other approaches is nonsense. There was no edict of Congress overruling peer review study sections at NIH. A lot of researchers immediately started working on the virus, to be sure, because it was the first big break in the case, but this is where theories often collapse. It happens all of the time in science--an exciting result is reported, everybody jumps on it and tries to follow it up, but their results don't fit the hypothesis, and the idea sinks without a trace within a year or two. People kept working on HIV because they were getting results that fit the hypothesis that HIV was the primary cause of AIDS.
No, this is not Russia. Our funding system is not designed to be subject to central control. As disappointing as it must be for your wish to believe in a conspiracy, the "government" doesn't decide how most of the money gets spent--all they control at NIH is the budget. It's more like a jury system. Which grants get funded is decided by committees of independent scientists, based on the scientific merit. Even if the government wanted to control where the money would be spent, the system is set up to make it very difficult to do so--when, as occasionally happens, they want to do this, they end up having to bypass the NIH entirely, earmarking funds by a special act of Congress.
Again, your notion that "the government" somehow issued an edict controlling who would get the grants is ridiculous conspiracy mongering. Who, specifically, issued this supposed edict? The President? Congress? When was this edict issued? How was it enforced to override the peer review mechanism at NIH? As somebody who was writing and receiving NIH grants during that era, I can tell you that no such thing ever happened. If much of the money went to the HIV hypothesis, it is because the data convinced the scientists on the NIH study sections that this was the most promising direction of research.
Based upon what you've said up to this point, I have little confidence that your evaluation of a scientist's work would agree with the evaluation of experienced scientists familiar with the requirements of good statistics and experimental controls.
If "denialists" (I have yet to find anyone who denies that "AIDS"-like conditions exist) are such a threat, why not do an experiment that just about everyone can understand? Take fluid samples said to transmit "HIV" from those said to have "high viral loads" and those who are said to be "HIV negative." Treat the samples from both groups in identical ways. In the "negative" group, samples should be taken from systemic lupus patients, those training for marathons, pregnant women who at least 8 months pregnant, drug users, etc. If one finds viremia in the "high viral load" group (of particles that fit the textbook description of "HIV") but no such particles in the "HIV negative" people, under the EM, you have won me over, and I will be happy to support the fight against the "denialists." I will also come out of anonymity, and provide my Ph.D. "weight" (whatever that might be) to the cause. I was taught in grad. school that if a claim or criticism can be refuted on a fundamental level, and in a way that would be very clear to a wide audience, then that is the place to start, so to speak, and though it may be obvious, I was also taught not to get involved in "Hannity & Colmes" sort of "screeds."
Why are you guys even spending time on the "AIDS Cult"?
These people are wacko. They worship viruses, disease and death. They have no idea how to falsify theories. They think writing comments on the internet is comparable to real scholarship or creative thought.
Dr. Duesberg debunked this crap 20 years in the Proceedings of National Academy of Science
Unless any of these scientific fools have published a WRITTEN RESPONSE IN A JOURNAL to the above-cited article, they have no scientific leg to stand on.
That some folks are too dense and/or fanatical to see what's clear to any sane person is their problem, not yours.
Retroviruses don't do a damn thing, and certainly don't kill cd4 cells.
Milt writes:
Sorry, this is not how science works, either. When a theory is rejected by the scientific community, it is not because somebody publishes a "written response in a journal." It is because thousands of scientists across the world have independently evaluated the totality of the published evidence, and decided that it would be a waste of time to base their own research on that theory.
The hallmarks of a rejected theory are these: almost no academic researchers are willing to invest their time--and no biotech or pharmaceutical companies are willing to invest their money--in pursuing the theory. Its only remaining advocates are mostly armchair theorists, nitpicking the results of others, but producing none of their own.
HSWC:
And this illustrates me point. Denialists always seem to say, "I know what the key experiment is--so why don't you go do it for me?" They never seem to want to invest their own time or money in doing it.
There is, of course, no reason for working scientists to do such an experiment, because by their judgement the evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS is already overwhelmingly convincing--why would they take time away from doing research directed toward saving the lives of people infected with HIV in order to do experiments to retest a theory that they regard as already well established? To convince the denialists?
It is the denialists who believe that the issue is not settled. So why don't they do the study you describe? If you could get cells from HIV negative individuals to produce confirmed HIV particles, wouldn't that support your theory? (in fact, a positive result is generally more convincing than a negative one). But denialists always seem to be armchair scientists with an inflated sense of their own importance--unwilling to do it themselves, but nevetheless believing that some other scientist should feel obligated to do their experiment, just to convince them.
so this nih peer review system is so flawless, why was there ever a press conference, where a test was already made and the quest for a vaccine was already stated as a goal, this was a poltical descsion, there was no peer review by independent scientists, if there was please provide me with the notes from the conference describing the pros and cons of gallo's hypothesis and experiments that needed to be conducted if he was wrong.
And if they were 100% sure he wasnt wrong why so. This conference stating why gallo was right or wrong and and deciding where the funding was to go must have taken place between independent scientists, please give me the notes of this meeting. surely it must exist, for hiv wasnt created at the press conference right? so there must have been a meeting between the worlds top scientists to analyze his hypothesis, it should have came right after the press conference, please provide a reference for this meeting with relevent details.
Hswc,
you bring up a great point, they keep talking about these high viral loads, well then they should be visible by electron microscopy, its all bullcrap, you are dealing with mad people who cant defend an argument and just call people "denialists"
they have no animal model, nothing, not one study designed to see if hiv positive people with no other risk factors such as mycoplasmas, azt, severe mental illness/drug abuse even get Aids.
they are so stupid its unbeleivable. Read project day lily to find out about a microbe that actually folfills kochs postulates mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans, causing an epidemic of chronic multi organic illnesses.
And they'll get Adele's honey bun too!
I think the dissidents are still looking for the 8 month pregnant HIV- marathon runner with lupus on poppers to act as the matched control. As soon as they've found her they'll go straight to the lab to find HIV particles, HIV DNA and HIV RNA. Expect the paper in Nature or Science any day now.
I just would like to point that the BBC aired recently (in the UK) another documentary on HIV/AIDS by Stephen Fry.
Documentary was supportive of prevention/ use of HAART,
BUT
recognise that first generation of drugs didn't work, i.e. AZT large dose,
persons who are using the latest HAART should use a lot of additional pills,
there is only one survivor in Scotland from all babies born HIV+ in the end of the 80's and treated with antiretroviral
and was also making a point against SCARE-INDUCED publicity against HIV, as S.Fry was considering this is leading to the known STIGMA problems that HIV+ face.
Anyway there allways would be more documentaries on HIV/AIDS.
Mymy what a strange world! How come the eminent Dr. Trrll now wants the uncientific denialists to give him the HIV he can't find himself?
It is the denialists who believe that the issue is not settled. So why don't they do the study you describe? If you could get cells from HIV negative individuals to produce confirmed HIV particles
Dr. Trrll, I don't think that was the study described. Do you have problems reading everyday prose? I know it's a virus afflicting many scientists working with stuff on the subhuman level. Anyway, the study described was to show us the "confirmed HIV particles" in the first place - which should be possible in high viral loaders. Or did you just miss the part where you and your buddies told us that quantitative viral load tests detect real viral particles?
Dr. Trrll explains that one doesn't win scientific contests
in peer-reviewed articles by refuting the opponent's
arguments, but by relying on "the thousands of scientists across the world to independently evaluate the totality of the published evidence".
"Independently evaluate"? Dr. Trrll, I think I'm going to have to include this Comment in my collection of your greatest hits.
The hallmarks of a rejected theory are these: almost no academic researchers are willing to invest their time--and no biotech or pharmaceutical companies are willing to invest their money--in pursuing the theory.
Ahhah, so I don't have to "independently evaluate" anything after all I can simply check, with the biotech and pharma companies. If they don't think it's healthy for the stock market, the theory per definition has no merit. Well at least Dr. Trrll is being honest about the nature of the whole thing.
But the dear Dr. Trrll has noticed, hasn't he, that he is one of those scentists who DO "waste a lot of time" on a failed theory on this blog and elsewhere. That's presumably because he agrees with AIDStruth and the pharmaceuticals that followers of Duesberg's and the Perth Groups "rejected theories" have become an increasing threat to the livelihoo... I mean the lives of others. So for him to reject this simple inexpensive experiment that would win over untold numbers of degreed denialists is a bit strange.
Dr. Trrll, I'll let the cat out of the bag for you, rethinkers have independently evaluated the evidence and with no success looked hither and yon for the little retro-bugger in the highest of viral loaders, but it was nowhere in sight. I'm sure it was just lack of basic lab skills, so why don't you agree to meet with HSWC and help him fine tune that magnifying glass, so he can see what you see, expenses paid? Never mind if it's not the proof you would have chosen; humour him if this is what's goimg to convince him and others to stop spewing their dangerous propaganda.
In short, Dr. Trrll, be the larger man we all know you are.
Dear all,
I would like to provide a small contribution on the question of the Gallo/Duesberg debate.
I agree with trrll | October 24, 2007 4:21 PM that a posteriori Gallo research has been proved more coherent with the reality then what could have been predicted when his first paper was published. First paper is only of historical interest.
I would like to point a critical question that was not considered in this debate. DUESBERG HAD A MASSIVE SUPPORT FROM MBEKI.
MBEKI DOES NOT CARE OF JPMOORE AND ANY SUPPORTER OF AIDSTRUTH.
MBEKI would not have been politically influenced by AIDSTRUTH or similar pressure groups, as the BBC has shown to be.
The SouthAfrican government could have paid easy the additional DUESBERG required experiments.
Mbeki however does not any more support DUESBERG theories.
See his new position at :
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/ (SEE PART 34).
This suggest strongly that Duesberg cannot explain the epidemic existent in South Africa, and that the non-support of the US govermnent/ NIH/ AIDSTRUTH/ JPMOORE does not have anything to do with that.
Unless proven wrong, I looks to me that WE HAVE AN INDIRECT PROOF THAT DUESBERG APPROACH TO AIDS IN AFRICA IS INADEQUATE.
I would enjoy to hear an explanation that explains AIDS better than HIV as etiological agent. An explanation makes sense, would be corroborated with experimental evidence, and would result in prevention, cure, or better therapies.
Name a single "rethinker" that has done any lab work involving HIV or "HIV".
Andrew Maniotis made the claim that he could make uninfected cell cultures pop out HIV particles. If he could actually do this then people might take some notice of his internet blatherings.
"Rethinkers" seem to have come to the irrational conclusion that everybody else has to prove to them personally that HIV exists. In reality the whole world does not revolve around the delusions of a a few armchair scientists. In the real world the "rethinkers" are obliged to produce some actual evidence for their claims. By actual evidence I don't mean cherry picking quotes from papers and pretending that papers that provide evidence that HIV exists and causes AIDS really support the "rethinkers" personal delusions.
There must be at least one "rethinker" that has access to a laboratory that can do real research to support the "rethinker" theories.
It would also make the "rethinker" team a bit more credible if they could actually agree as to whether HIV exists or doesn't. This is kind of a basic issue and the fact that the various "rethinkers" can't even agree on this indicates that they aren't particularly susceptible to reason.
"There must be at least one "rethinker" that has access to a laboratory that can do real research to support the "rethinker" theories."
Sure there are Chris! They're called AIDS apologists, perhaps you've heard of Walter Gilbert?
John Pee Moore has no idea of the basic rules of the scientific method and thus writes things like:
The hypothetical scenario you pose is impossible to take seriously, as the causative role of HIV is an established fact. One might as well ask a physicist what he or she would do if the law of gravity were found to be false.
So I asked.
js- What would you do if the law of gravity were found to be false?
physicist- Beg your pardon?
js- I said: What would you do if the law of gravity were found to be false?
physicist- Is that a serious question?
js- Yes, it is. Very serious. Gravity. Newton. Universal. Law. F=G*((M1*M2)/R^2). Wrong. Proved.
physicist- I would become very angry and teach the denialist fuck who said that to shut his dirty mouth!! ... Ha, ha, your looks!! No, no, I'm kidding, don't worry. ... What would I do? Put a shotgun in my mouth and pull the trigger, I figure!! ... No, no, kidding again. Ha, ha, ha...
js- ...
physicist- ...
js- ? ? ?
physicist- Okay, I'll try to be serious about this. After all, it wouldn't be the first paradigm shift in science. At all. Anyway, a guy who pretends he proved such a thing, should better think twice before he opens his mouth. However, if he does speak up, he merits attention. I would ask him to briefly explain his approach and, should there be something in it, give it full attention. But you must know, young man, that things are rarely immediately obvious and clean-cut. I mean, it would be easy if the guy tried to convince me that Newton's law should read F=G*((M1*M2)/R^3) and I wouldn't be long to kick him in the ass if he did just that.
js- Of course. Such a trivial bug in the system would have been rectified ages ago.
physicist- Of course.
js- So, what kind of demonstration would grab your full attention?
physicist- I don't know. The way I see it, the law of gravity can only be wrong outside of my interpretation of the real world. I figure I would only be able to understand, and eventually accept, a demonstration which falsifies Newton's law, if I did some steps away from the beaten path we all know so well. Many steps.
js- Which means that a person can only talk about his revolutionary findings that would make people quit main stream, after having convinced the audience to quit main stream. Sounds not unlike like the chicken and the egg.
physicist- Yeah, not such a bad comparison, really. One cannot be there before the other, you need both to have each. Maybe that explains why people can only furiously fight each time a guy comes up with something new. You don't want to follow before you've understood and you can only understand after you've accepted to followed.
Chris Noble, above:
There must be at least one "rethinker" that has access to a laboratory that can do real research to support the "rethinker" theories.
Chris, I have never understood how "rethinkers" can talk so much and so loudly and yet do so little to support their position.
Dr. Andrew Maniotis has accused Dr. Robert Gallo of fraud. According to Maniotis, Gallo activated cells using several reagents, then infected with HIV. This much is true; cells are stimulated in vivo, too, making them targets for viral replication. But Maniotis also claimed that Gallo's control experiments (cells that were activated but not infected) produced "virus" just like the infected cells. Maniotis said that Gallo "deleted" these results to maintain the fiction of an infectious virus.
All Maniotis needs is some proof. I agree with trrll. One positive result from a simple, confirmed experiment would be a good preliminary indication that something is wrong with the "paradigm." Such a result would carry more weight than the past twenty years of "dissident" thinking combined. If Darin Brown is correct, and deniers are being "oppressed" because of politics, not science, then whoever does this experiment would have no great difficulty finding a publisher and reviewers. With all of the journals in the world, at least one would be happy to take a calculated risk on a well done if strikingly "unorthodox" study.
The experiment could be very simple. With all due respect to Adele, I think that her proposed honey bun experiment is partly unnecessary: while infecting cells with HIV would strengthen the experiment, it would not be needed. (A positive control would be used in the assay (RT-PCR), of course, as is standard.)
Needed:
Cells reported susceptible to HIV infection (available to any investigator).
Cell culture equipment and reagents (available in every biology lab).
Reagents for cell activation.
RNA isolation kit ($50), tabletop centrifuge (every lab has these), and a few chemicals.
Reagents for RT-PCR and a machine, along with an experienced RT-PCR technician who can be cajoled or paid to perform a standard assay.
HIV RNA emerging from stimulated but uninfected cells would be fairly convincing proof that deniers are at least partly right.
Even a smooth-talking undergrad with a research project could probably talk his or her way into getting this experiment done. Maniotis could have done it years ago in his own department.
With 2500 "doctors and scientists" on Crowe's, Girodian's, and Godschalk's fraudulent list of "doubters," why is there not even one who will do this experiment?
We've already been through gravity denial
Godschalk aptly demonstrated that stupidity knows no boundaries. It transcends all disciplines of pseudoscience.
Luckily, Godschalk hasn't managed to convince anyone that gravity is an illusion and so the correct response is to have a good laugh at his stupidity.
Godschalk's foray into HIV denial however can have serious consequences for anyone silly enough to believe anything he says.
You really don't know anything at al about how science actually works, do you? Institutions hold press conferences to impress potential donors or investors who might want to give money to the institution. Scientists pretty much universally ignore announcements in press conferences and in the general media, because the results are frequently overstated and not adequately supported by the data--they base their own opinions on the peer-reviewed literature.
The weren't. In reality, most scientists are not% convinced by any single report, and tend to remain somewhat skeptical of anything that they haven't confirmed in their own laboratory. But if somebody makes a promising claim, they are likely to check it out themselves. What ultimately convinces them is when their own findings are consistent with the published report.
Again, you seem to imagine that the scientific community is more organized and monolithic than it actually is. Scientists are an independent and competitive lot. They may report their work at meetings, but they come to decisions separately based upon the literature and their discussions with other individual scientists. The notion that everybody immediately accepted HIV as the cause of AIDS is entirely a denialist myth, and laughable to anybody who knows how science works, or who was actually doing science at the time. My own recollection is that many people were initially skeptical of Gallo's claims. Duesberg's objections were initially taken seriously by many scientists. But over the years, scientists concluded, one by one, that HIV was the cause of AIDS as more and more published studies and their own work, supported that theory far more than competing hypotheses (such as Duesberg's "drugs and unhealthy habits" hypothesis).
So to sum up, you are chickeing out of HSWC's simple request for visual proof of viral particles - PARTICLES not RNA Sir Elkie - from high viraL loaders.
Ok then I'll settle for next best. Can Dr. Noble give me a rundown of his hands on experience with HIV. Heck no, just anything; a relevant degree, a family member who died of HIV, holiday in Botswana, anything at all that distinguishes him from the kind of unproductive academic trash who should be forced to plant a tree to make up for the waste of paper his degree is written on?
Dr Noble, did you not just read what Dr. Trrll wrote? You (yes even a total nobody like you) don't need hands on experience to "independently (get the joke? independently!) evaluate" the totality of the evidence.
Alternatively you can check the bio-stock on NYSE to find out which theories are valid. I didn'think Trrll was hardcore Neil Cavuto fan but there you go: At any given moment, the invisible free market hand will unfailingly pick out the true scientific theories from among all the false ones.
As I've said before, I do not do HIV or AIDS related research. There was actually a point when I considered moving in that direction, because it seemed like an opportunity to help a lot of people, but my own research direction was already well established, and the methods I was using at the time were not particularly well suited for the study of AIDS.
So I am purely an independent scientific observer, forming my opinions based upon the published literature. But I do have a professional interest in medicine, and I have followed the AIDS field in the literature since it was just an ominous cluster of Kaposi's Sarcoma case. So I do remember, and I recognize when the denialists are trying to rewrite history--I remember how Gallo's conclusions were not universally accepted at first. I remember how AIDS was sweeping through communities like a plague, and how rapidly people with AIDS went downhill, and I remember how dramatically the prognosis improved as ARV drugs begin to emerge from HIV laboratories and pharmaceutical companies.
Thank you for providing a good example of my point--Walter Gilbert, like many scientists, was initially skeptical of the identification of HIV as the cause of AIDS, but eventually came to support that conclusion, based upon the undeniable success of ARV therapy.
Walter Gilbert [.....] came to support that conclusion, based upon the undeniable success of ARV therapy.
Undeniable succes? Oh yeah, of course. Seen from some kind of global population control point of view. I forgot, sorry...
Back to the theme of this thread, It is undeniable to of us who actually have a memory. We do not have to resort to "global population control" statistics. AIDS was sufficiently widespread that few people were untouched by it. We saw our friends or family die from it. We remember how bad the prognosis once was, and we see how dramatically it has improved since the introduction of ARV therapy.
We remember how bad the prognosis once was, and we see how dramatically it has improved since the introduction of ARV therapy.
It's not better, it's less worse. That's the result you obtain when you decrease the dose of poison. And what you all seem to forget, is that before the virus shit hit the fan, prognosis was incomparably better. Beg your pardon? HIV=Aids didn't exist before 1981? Yeah, sure. Out of 4 billion or so, HIV choose to come down on Earth the exact year when armies of virologists were ready to witness the miracle.
Correcto mundo Jan.
What undeniable success? - There isn't any!
"The results of this collaborative study, which involved 12 prospective cohorts and 20,000 patients with HIV-1 from Europe and North America, show that the virological response after HARRT has improved steadily since 1996. HOWEVER, there was no corresponding decrease in the rates of AIDS, or death, up 1 year of follow-up. Conversely, there was some evidence for an increase in the rate of AIDS in the most recent period" Lancet 2006; 368: 451-58
You can't sell that to me, because I do remember that before ARV therapy, a diagnosis of AIDS led almost invariably to a miserable death in fairly short order. Even with the toxicity of the early antiretroviral therapies, the prognosis improved when ARV drugs were introduced. And the results of published studies are very much in agreement with my recollection. See here for example
For all you staunch supporters of the prevailing HIV=AIDS theory, lest I remind you, here's some real world experience from someone who stopped drugs May 16, 2006.
"Viral load and CD4 count, the blood markers utilized to assess health and determine therapy, do not necessarily make for a healthy individual. With a decade of ARV therapy and so-called good numbers, I was not healthy. I experienced high blood pressure and cholesterol levels, abnormal liver functions, the onset of osteoarthritis, duodenitis, peripheral neuropathy, nocturia, lipoatrophy, and the progression of Hepatitis B to a grade 2. Most side effects have eased and for the first time in ten years have presented normal liver functions. Hepatitis B is a pre-existing condition and kept in check with proper diet." Link by clicking on my name.
Carter,
This is a great story.
Can you explain why glutamine and if tryptophan is 5 hydroxytryptophan ?
Thanks very much for discussing details of your personal history,
Why on earth would you think that this is relevant? Every single patient in the study is receiving HAART. The question being asked is not whether HAART therapy works, which is already well established, but rather whether doctors are getting so much better at it that the survival is improving. Unfortunately, interpretation is complicated by the fact that patients in recent years tend to be sicker at the time that HAART is begun--in particular, more of them already have TB, which (as one might expect) is associated with a poorer prognosis.
You can't sell that to me, because I do remember that before ARV therapy, a diagnosis of AIDS led almost invariably to a miserable death in fairly short order.
Of course, you silly. You take a severely ill person and tell him that not only he's very ill, but also, to top it all, that he has a terrible, newly discovered, very contaminating and very fatal disease, for which there's no therapy.
Only the mentally disturbed and HIV=Aids scientists can not immediately understand that the guy stands a snowball's chance in hell against not dying a miserable death in no time.
That's probably the problem with you wise guys science crackpots. In your narrow brain you can only materialize viruses and the like but are completely blind for the suffering and the cause of suffering itself.
Dr. Trrll,
if you don't have any lives that urgently need saving at the moment - sure doesn't look much like it - why not work a bit for your paycheck instead of doting on your long memory. Get out of your rocker instead of off it and tell us why the life expectancy of a HIV+ was only a couple of years way back when you were only 60, whereas now it 10+ no drugs.
Also tell us what qualifies you to comment here. You've never actually held HIV in your hands have you?
And while you're at it Dr. Trrl, why don't you explain why the patients aren't put on the life-saving-nearly-no-side- effects-and-improving-all-the-time drugs as early as they used to. Come on, lets see you lie your ass out of that one. Remember before you embarrass yourself again, American HIV prevalence and AIDS deaths have been stable for the last several years, not declining. So why can't you get it right with your steadily improving drugs? Are you all retards or something?
And hey start referencing some. Even shills and grandpas need to reference once in a while. Or haven't you taken Dr. Noble's introductory course for failed scientists whose last opportunity to make an indecent living is an anonymous blog existence?
Make an indecent living I meant - not existence. Your existence as more than a disembodied internet failure remains to be proven.
The notion that an optimistic attitude somehow protects against death from a life threatening disease (or that a pessimistic view hastens death) is basically wishful thinking. Here is a recent study that examined this in the context of cancer.
Hard to argue with Molecular Entry Claw when he makes such poignant comments. Did you get a group of 4th graders and just tell them to go nuts?
Dr. Trrll (MD?) . why don't you go tell this that his silly ideas about "toxic thoughts" makes him a quack instead of wasting the few remaining years of your life telling laypeople it's good to be negative?
http://www.majidali.com
The notion that an optimistic attitude somehow protects against death from a life threatening disease (or that a pessimistic view hastens death) is basically wishful thinking.
Is that all you can come up with after my severe accusation? I don't need to read no studies at all to know that optimistic/pessimistic attitudes in themselves are mere wishful-thinking. Optimistic attitude is the guy going "I'll be strong and fight the crab" after his doctor diagnosed some mean tumour. But positive attitude won't help nothing if you're scared shitless. The thing to do is get rid of the fear.
An that is only possible if you manage to see right through the fear mongering chemo pushing scientific war on cancer publicity. Doctors who whisper (that's what they do, they whisper the bad news, it's so much more impressive) tales about some fast growing tumour that's eating one up from within, don't have the slightest idea of what that tumour really stands for. The best way to face such people is imagining the guy as a clown with a red nose and a blue pointed hat with little golden stars on his head.
Anybody interested in such weird ideas? I don't think so, at least not between the regular visitors of this super science blog. But just in case, one can never be sure: Google Ryke Geerd Hamer and read, read, read. After which you must use your own brain and think, think, think. Then you'll know.
Oddly, "severe" wasn't the word that came to mind when I read your "accusation." I think it was more like "foolish." The investigators asked people with cancer (among other things) whether they were "worried about dying" and "losing hope." Those sound like pretty good measures of fear to me. You'd know this if you bothered to actually read the paper. But of course, denialists "don't need to read no studies at all." All they read are quote-mined fragments, carefully divorced of their true meaning and context.
The investigators asked people with cancer (among other things) whether they were "worried about dying" and "losing hope."
And they call it science!!!!
First thing I did was click on your link but I was pissed off with a Session Cookie Error and told "This is as far as you get". So I went away.
Anyway, what do you think you'll get when you ask people suffering of a cancer if they're "worried about dying" and "losing hope."? Beg your pardon? Yes, exactly, that's what you get. All you get is you'll increase the worrying. Now, next time you answer, think twice before you press the "Post" button, okay?
JSPREEN, USE YOU TINY LITTLE BRAIN FOR ONCE: You witch-doctor, homeopathic, natural-healing, god-loving, tight-bun ninnie.
Google "Clown", Jspreen. That is what you are.
Scholar,
I like your curses, especially "God-loving"
I see you advertize propellers. Would that be those formerly utilized by HIV before it switched to entry claws?
JSPREEN, USE YOU TINY LITTLE BRAIN FOR ONCE: You witch-doctor, homeopathic, natural-healing, god-loving, tight-bun ninnie.
I don't know the meaning of the ninnie thing but the rest, well, thrown in by a super science blog groupie, I can take that as a complement, I figure.
Google "Clown", Jspreen. That is what you are.
Looks like someone's getting nervous... May I hope the clown makes you Giggle, at least?
jspreen, instead of attempting to put down the study you could have simply said the link did not work for you.
You're line of reasoning also fails to account for the initial onset of a new disease if your primary factor is being told your situation is hopeless by the medical community.
NOTICE to all deniosaurs.
The Honey Bun Viral Signature Challenge just got easier!!!
See in science we argue about things and if the logic's good we change our minds. The elkman has good logic and i figure any way to make this easier for you guys. So thank elkman every one I'm cutting out the HIV infection part in the Challenge!! So you don't have to bum a sample of HIV off someone's lab even.
Ok revised guide lines,
Two flasks with cells.
Show us they don't have HIV.
In one flask your IL-2 PHA interferon antibodies maybe read it spreen's spam emails to, that should get them irritated even some oxidative stress?
OK now find those HIV signatures coming out in the stressed cells and not controls. Put it in a journal show us Maniotis was right gallo through out his controls bc it was positive.
I'm so hungry but I will eat an apple and keep the Honey Bun Challenge alive and well! Do the experiment its yours!! Luscious and gooey honey bunny sweetness!
ttrl keeps saying the debated and expirements went on to confirm gallo's hypothesis/
Considering everyone by 1987 in the public beleived hiv was the cause of aids and most every doctor was giving hiv tests to patients please give me the scientific papers that created this consensus. In 1983 only a small group of scientists beleived hiv was the cause of aids by 1991 everyone beleived it as fact.
Please give me the top 2-3 studies that proved this fact that hiv causes aids that must have been published between 1984-91.
The efficacy of HAART convinced most of the people that had any remaining doubts that HIV causes AIDS. The only people left in denial are a few lunatics.
Studies such as Palella et al 1998 demonstrate that mortality is dramatically reduced when people are given combination antiretroviral therapy. Duesberg's response to this study was to retreat into fantasy. He actually attempts, with some form of delusional perverted illogic, to convince his readers that the Palella et al study shows that HAART causes AIDS. The man is a complete lunatic.
The only question that remains is who is he trying to convince. It sure isn't the scientific community.
keeps saying the debates and expirements
Hmmm, I guess no honey bun for Mannick et al.:
they performed this exact experiment and no gag transcript was amplified (fig.2a), no RT activity (fig.2c) and no p24 by ELISA or p24/p55 by WB (fig.1&2) in IL-2 PHA uninfected PBMC. In HIV-infected PBMC, on the other hand... oh well, at least they tried.
abstract
All scientists would love it if they only had two read the "top 2 or 3 studies" in a field to reach a conclusion, but if science were that easy, everybody would be doing it. Scientists spend a good part of their lives reading the literature. You can find some key papers referenced at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease website, but even they will not boil it down to 2 or 3, and what they cite is only a small sampling. A search of Pubmed for the date range you mention yields over 29,500 papers on HIV and AIDS.
If you are going to attempt to correct spelling mistakes then at least do it properly.
ttrl dances around the question, with tb and anthrax koch had original documents, guess you dont have anything but the one sided nih fact sheet released years later, nice one. Thanks for proving my point they are not even 2 or 3 original scientific documents you can show me.
noble,
your whole career is one big spelling mistake, damn airhead.
You gotta hand it to those AIDSTruth guys and gals! They really have the denialists on the run! Loved the post on the BBC and how Scheff's and Crowe's asses were kicked - that'll save some kids! "Suffer the little children to come unto me". AIDSTruth is making a big difference for care providers by blowing away the myths surrounding the denialist leadership. Who cares about the small fry like Cooler, Pope and the other trolls who blog here. Look at what AIDS Truth has done to take out the real sharks over the past 18 months. How many lives will this save in the years to come? Not as many as HAART, but not an insignificant number either.
Celia Farber: exposed as an incompetent writer of error riddled junk, and forced to retire from the fray because of all the criticism she got in professional journalism circles. Too precious to roll with the punches - you can dish it out Celia, but you just can't take it, huh! It's always "all about me" with you, isn't it?
David Steele (Hank Barnes) - forced by his employers to stop editing Barnesworld because of the shame he was bringing on his law firm. A big bully, Hank, until bigger people kicked the sand in YOUR face!
Harvy "Biley" Bialy: Lost his affiliation with UNAM when the letters of complaint went in - "retired", yeah, my ass! Exposed as a homophobe by AIDSTruth, split the ranks of the denialists, attacked by his former friends. Abuses a vulnerable graduate student for political purposes, a kid who is now receiving the professional counselling and guidance he so badly needed. Is Biley dead of his kidney cancer yet? Who cares! At least he'll be a rare example of an AIDS denialist who died of something other than AIDS!!!! Go see the "Dead denialists" page on AIDS Truth and learn the lessons.
Christine Maggiore: Gets hammered even by other denialists for trying to politically exploit the AIDS death of Eliza Jane. Sees her pet physician Paul Fleiss struck off the medical register once a light is shone under the rock of his activities. Takes out a joke lawsuit against the LA Coroner, a certain loss for her. Rest in peace EJ. One day you'll receive justice.
Roberto Giraldo - fired from the New York Hospital. Gee, why was that? Now trolling around peddling his pills and quackery in Brazil, where the locals have him well covered.
Rebecca Culshaw - wouldn't like to be in her shoes when she comes up for promotion or tenure at the U of Texas. Could be a fun meeting now her bosses know of her scholastic incompetence.
Andrew "I'm quite mad, really" Maniotis - under investigation by the U of Chiacago's President's office, for abusive, libelous conduct that brings his university into disrepute. How long's he going to last? ANOTHER demotion, Andy? How low can you go? Retake High School science classes? Oh, I forgot, you do that every time you post your "insights" on the internet. A little knowledge truly is a very dangerous thing when in the hands of a fool.
"Lame Liam" Scheff - incompetence as a journalist exposed by the AIDS Truth victory over the BBC. How long will his buddy and partner in crime Jamie Doran keep his job? Don't held your breath.
David Rasnick - Duesberg's long time side kick, exposed as someone who will misrepresent his academic status to make out he's a serious academic. Yeah, right, just like Mad Andy Maniotis is a serious academic! Works for Matthias Rath, a dumb move that reveals the real agenda of AIDS denialism - these guys are nothing but shills for the Vitamin Pill industry and related quacks! Principles, what principles, it's all about the moolah.
And the Uber-denialist Peter Duesberg - exposed as a homophobe, and exposed as a conman attempting to rook gullible investors to pump money into his crazy cancer diagnosis company. Now under investigation by financial journalists, something the U of California is well aware of and awaits the outcome with GREAT interest. Again, it's all about the money, Peter, all about the money. That, and the ego problems that AIDS Truth revealed to be the cause of your descent into AIDS denialism. How many people did your ego kill? Tens of thousands, minimum, in South Africa alone. No wonder you're the most despised "scientist" in America today.
AIDS denialism is on the run, as the unsavoury people behind it are exposed and taken down. Cut off the heads, and the body will rot away.
Don't try to pull that on us now, Marc. I looked at the abstract, and it's the same old crap. You have to believe in HIV first before you can get to those conclusions.
I have to see the first paper yet that states: If, HIV exists, then we could interpret our data in the following way: etc.etc.
Oh, The Perth Group! How could I FORGET the Perth Group! Easy, even the other AIDS denialist forgot the Perth Group! The one time they actually managed to get a high profile court case on HIV and AIDS, and they were all asleep at the wheel, leaving the "defense" of Chad Paranzee to two idiots who totally blew it - crushed by the science witnesses (with a bit of help from AIDS Truth) and slaughtered by the Judge. What a spectacle! AIDS denialist science in all its "glory", exposed for all to see.
Yes, now I recognize you, ElkMountainMan. I thought you didn't participate much in these discussions anymore because of your busy work. Good to see you (in a way). I guess these HIV-apologists needed you badly for support.
Adele, Marc,
Clearly we need to add a tablespoon of AZT, three sniffs of poppers, a dash of cocaine, a pinch of Factor VIII, a dollop of homophobia, and an eightball of heroin to those cells.
HIV should come flooding out in no time!
Actually to the denialists, I'm surprised none of you have pointed out the obvious trap that Adele has set for you. In order for these cells to be convinced they have a deadly disease thus causing viral genomes to assemble themselves spontaneously, nucleotide by nucleotide, they must test positive on an HIV test.
Looks like you'll have to bum that sample of HIV afterall.
Chris Noble wrote:
"I gather Godschalk's argument is that viruses do not have any enzymes that are necessary for replication. You can't argue with logic like that."
Hey, you have at least understood a little tidbit of my argument. But let me restate the whole line of reasoning: Viruses do have the genetic information for their own replication. And in the case of retroviruses, that's about all they have. I hope nobody got the stupid idea that retroviruses bring their own enzymes with them (I mean the proteins themselves). The viral RNA could code for a Reverse Transcriptase. But is this the case? "YES!!" say the HIV$AIDS shills. And if we don't accept this order (that's what it is) immediately, they will shout it even louder.
But is there any proof? Cells are full of enzymes, among which RT, Integrase, etc. If they pick one out of this whole soup, who can tell if it was coded for by HIV? Oh, but they wave a genetic sequence in your face, and show that it matches the amino acid sequence of the enzyme. "You see? This RT is specific for HIV!" they crow.
How do they know that?? How do they know that that genome they showed us is really from HIV? From a virus they've never even laid a hand on, for Pete's sake!
Will you con men and women (and you especially, Chris Noble) finally stop bamboozling people and put in an honest day's work. Do you really want us to believe that, by proving that Peter Duesberg or Andy Maniotis at one time said something wrong, you have proved your HIV$AIDS theory?
Don't expect us to do the work (the orthodoxy wouldn't let us anyway). The (stupid) HIV$AIDS theory is yours. NOW PROVE THAT IT'S VALID.
And by the way: I never said gravity does not exist. You can demonstrate it by stepping off the roof of your building.
What I did say (but you were too dense to understand) is that Newton had it wrong. His mathematical derivation was based upon a wrong model, and gravity is not proportional to the product of the masses of the objects.
Sorry Tara, this is completely off-topic. I won't do it again. But it was Chris Noble who started it.
Oh, The Perth Group! How could I FORGET the Perth Group! Easy, even the other AIDS denialist forgot the Perth Group! The one time they actually managed to get a high profile court case on HIV and AIDS, and they were all asleep at the wheel, leaving the "defense" of Chad Paranzee to two idiots who totally blew it - crushed by the science witnesses (with a bit of help from AIDS Truth) and slaughtered by the Judge. What a spectacle! AIDS denialist science in all its "glory", exposed for all to see.
Yes thank you Notchef, we heard you first time.
Now what I want you to do is arm yourself with a dozen smooth white pebbles, distribute them evenly in your pockets, then circulate them slowly by inserting them into your mouth one at a time and suck on them before you put them back in a new pocket, redistributing all the pebbles evenly once more. After a couple of minutes you should start feeling better.
Iconoclaster/Godschalk,
The virus is isolated by sucrose gradient. The genetic material in the isolated viruses is cloned. Proteins encoded in the viral genome are found in the isolated viruses.
From the very start, investigators looked for HIV sequences in the human genome, for HIV proteins in human cells. They did not find them. Later, the genome was sequenced, and, sure enough, no HIV sequences or genes encoding HIV proteins are there.
The truth about HIV and AIDS is available to anyone who takes the time to educate her- or himself.
Godschalk/Iconoclaster asks,
Do you really want us to believe that, by proving that Peter Duesberg or Andy Maniotis at one time said something wrong, you have proved your HIV$AIDS theory?
Not at all, Wilhelm. Experimental evidence and epidemiological evidence established long ago that HIV causes AIDS. Duesberg and Maniotis are buffoons. They are not a threat to science or any "theory" except their own; they are merely an annoyance to scientists. Both men are a threat to public health. By pointing out the many errors of Duesberg and Maniotis (have they ever, "at one time" or at any time, said something right about HIV, other than Duesberg's admission of its existence?), we hope to convince some people who are vulnerable to denialist foolishness that these "authorities" are not nearly so authoritative as they may at first seem. If we can spare even one person the fate of Raphael Lombardo (who under Duesberg's influence wrongly assumed that the virus was harmless and could be controlled by good nutrition, exercise, and other healthy practices), our completely uncompensated efforts will be worth it.
By the way, Godschalk, I'm not Carter, but you're welcome to think what you like. You seem to be on quite intimate terms with being wrong.
Maybe we need some scary public-health movies.
If you had actually bothered to look at the reference I linked to, you would have seen that it cited numerous original papers. But if you don't trust the NIH to direct you to the most significant papers, feel free to delve into the hundreds of thousands of other original papers referenced by PubMed. But I'll warn you that you'll find the evidence in those papers just as "one sided" as the NIH summary, in that it overwhelmingly supports HIV as the primary causative factor in AIDS.
please just give me a link for the first 2-3 scientific papers that proves hiv causes AIDS from pub med, they should be from the mid to late eighties, since it was then that it became a fact in our society that hiv causes AIDS. Waiting.
Cooler,
Ask this idiot trrll to direct you to a case-controlled epidemiological study that demonstrated that HIV was a pathogenic virus, not a passenger virus.
You'd better get in contact with NASA quickly before they launch the next shuttle mission. All of their calculations based on Newtonian physics (with relativistic corrections) are obviously all wrong.
The whole basis of your argument was your ignorance of basic physics concepts of force, energy and work. The only thing that it demonstrated is that you have the arrogance to believe that thousands of scientists are wrong about something when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. This sounds strangely familiar.
I see that you have avoided giving an answer. Do virus genomes code for enzymes that are essential for replication?
If you want look at Turnip Yellow Mosaic Virus which you appear to believe to exist. Does its genome code for a RNA dependent RNA polymerase?
All viruses have enzymes that can be drug targets. Drug resistant mutants can however evolve.
Once again, scientists don't form an opinion based on 2 or 3 papers, but based on the totality of the evidence. The first 2 or 3 papers were obviously those from Gallo's and Montagnier's groups. But it was not these papers that convinced most scientists, but the thousands upon thousands of papers that followed after from hundreds of independent laboratories and that also confirmed the predictions of the HIV theory.
Does somebody knows about the work of Horowitz ?
He provided an interview ( which extracts are published in Unraveling AIDS, Mae Wan Ho, vital health publishing), telling that he can constroy sequences of HIV in HIV-free cells, and that he has shown this to Montagnier, when they were working in a woman who was having HIV-O.
Apparently the only risk factor of the woman, was that she was in contact with pesticides.
In the interview he also say that this is related to the Gulf War syndrome.
However previous posts in this blog suggested that obtaining such results from a reproducible experiment would be impossible.
I cannot comment because this is too far from my area of expertize, but I would be happy to read your opinions.
You mean Urnovitz
Urnovitz took the genome from an isolate of HIV-1 O and compared it to the human genome. He found a number of short pieces of DNA (around 17 bps) that were about 90% similar to human DNA. None of these are significant. You can find similar matches by comparing any two genomes.
The short stretches of DNA in the human genome are spread across different chromosomes. There is no rational explanation of why these sequences (and another 8000 of bps from somewhere) should spontaneously form a HIV genome.
It's a bit like a jigsaw with with 500 pieces. Urnovitz could only come up with about 30 and these still didn't fit properly.
Urnovitz has never provided evidence for his claims. He's descended further and further into pseudoscience. He seems to claim that he has some new explanation for AIDS, chronic fatigue syndrome, gulf war syndrome etc.
It's also worth pointing out that all of this contradicts the claims of cooler's hero Garth Nicolson. Both of them have got different explanations that are supposed to explain AIDS, chronic fatigue syndrome, gulf war syndrome etc.
There's one group of rethinkers that you won't be able to silence and that is the "patient group" who is tossing these drugs away! Just like the old days, it didn't matter that most thought that the world was flat, we all now know that it is not. So, in time, HIV will be exposed for what it really it, harmless. And shame will be casted upon you scientific types, who cling so desperately to your theories.
Chris,
I would like to know if these similarities between genomes can be in the origin of some errors in analysis.
At the end this is waht Maniotis was trying to say....(if I understand him correctly).
That some people have some medical problems and for some reason generate some free pieces of DNA in their blood, and that these are by error pick up as HIV.
I am not a biologist, so I am grateful for a simple explanaition
Dear Braganza,
You may also mean Horwitz, MS, et al., who published in J.Virology in April of 1992. These authors from the University of Minnesota reported that large probes, made from large portions of the HIV genome, could bind to total human genomic DNA in a low-specificity binding assay. They narrowed down the two complementary regions in genomic DNA and found that they had some similarity to two short sequences in HIV.
The low complexity of these sequences and their small size suggests these two sequences are like the Urnovitz sequences Chris Noble described: the product of chance similarity. Another possible explanation is that these sequences are related to endogenous viruses, some of which are distantly related with HIV, but I don't think they are found in any known virus-coding sequence (or any known transcriptionally-active area).
Even if there were some way to excise all of these sequences from their different locations in the human genome, then re-assemble them perfectly (but randomly!) into a single unit, the two Horwitz sequences and the Urnovitz sequences combined could not explain positive results of HIV tests. Much less make the case for HIV as a human endogenous retrovirus.
Here is my attempt at helping us all understand how ludicrous this all is:
Consider the question: "May I eat another quince?" If I were to submit that I already asked you this question in the previous paragraphs, you would laugh and dismiss my folly. But then along comes Andrew Maniotis. He points out that "may" is the second word in my first para, above. "I" is found in "I don't think..." in the second paragraph. The letter 'e' from "eat" is in many places, while the rest of the word, "at" is in the sentence following the third paragraph, "at helping us all". "Another" is in the second paragraph, and "quince" is part of the word "sequence," which I use several times, although the spelling is slightly off. The question mark is missing, unfortunately, but our explainer explains it away with reference to a "mutation." Clearly, says our fictional Andrew Maniotis, I was asking you, "May I eat another quince?" in my comments above.
As ridiculous as such a claim would be to any intelligent person, it makes much more sense than the idea of HIV arising from thousands of short snippets of the human genome, in virtually identical fashion, millions of times over, in each of tens of millions of people.
Braganza, you summarized Andrew Maniotis' position well:
That some people have some medical problems and for some reason generate some free pieces of DNA in their blood, and that these are by error pick up as HIV.
The viral load and other PCR tests are, unless otherwise specified, RNA tests. Their substrate is extracellular RNA molecules. RNA is transcribed from DNA, so the DNA template for any given RNA is a transcriptional unit: RNA can be spliced and edited after transcription, but its DNA template is found together on one chromosome in the cell.
The RNA tests target conserved regions of the HIV genome. Again, assembling ALL of the Horwitz and Urnovitz sequences together would not give us any of those conserved regions. For the sake of argument, what if they would? What would we need to detect "HIV" RNA in the blood?
Twenty or thirty short sequences would need to assemble from ten or fifteen different chromosomes and become aligned together on one chromosome--not only aligned, but aligned contiguously, since DNA PCR shows us that the HIV sequences can be found together in one unit. There is no plausible explanation for such a phenomenon. Next, this assembled unit would need to be transcribed, processed, and released from the cell. That part is relatively easy. Finally, this same process would have to happen in tens of thousands or millions, or billions of cells of the body (independently, since Maniotis believes HIV does not exist and is not contagious), AND in tens of millions of different people.
Can someone explain how these people (Bialy, Duesberg) have been exposed as homophobes? I know how Aidstruth had them "exposed": John just claimed they are therefore they must be. Now I just wait for Adele to chime in with her "expose" of Duesberg as the Uebernazi because of his use of the word "Wehrmacht" that she takesout of context. Aaah, ignorance is bliss.
In the nineteenth century, during the spread of cholera across Europe, a Prussian military surgeon who rejected the idea that it could be spread through human contact, deliberately exposed himself to dead bodies and the breath of live patients in order to try and prove his point.
Perhaps some of those who deny the role of HIV in AIDS should follow his lead, and infect themselves with the retrovirus and see what happens. Wouldn't that be a good way of testing this ... theory?
Hey pat braganzas right what's the point about if Bialy is a homophobe, bigger problem is his science sucks. His emails you can see where he calls people antigay slurs and you know what Duesberg said about gay lifestyle and you know HEnry Bauer wrote being gay is so bad you shouldn't let gay people have free speech and you know Lehrman said gay people need therapy. Their words. I'm not twisting anything.
You can say it makes em homophobe. You can say it doesn't make em homophobe. Who cares? Their wrong about HIV and AIDS and if their wrong bc they hate gay people or bc just dumb, who cares they are still wrong.
Think about it though pat if I said that stuff or John Moore or dale, dt, apy, woodchuck, elkman, chris noble, any one, Michael would say were antigay, never ever let us forget it. WEll I think he should if we said stuff like that. WHy's it ok when denialists say that stuff?
Perhaps some of those who deny the role of HIV in AIDS should follow his lead, and infect themselves with the retrovirus and see what happens.
You may think you just had a brilliant idea, but who can provide some pure culture of HI-viruses so we can all be sure of what was injected ? Nobody.
But okay, let's be sport and say that you can provide such a pure culture and that I except a syringe load of it in my veins. What then?
Say I don't become sick within the next 10 years, like so many other people who are quite healthy yet HIV+ since ages. Would that be accepted as an overwhelming evidence that the HIV=Aids theory is bulshit? Of course not, my case would count as little as the cases of the so many other people's refered to above.
Say I do fall ill within some years after the shot. Would that provide some overwhelming proof that my ill-being was caused by the injection? For the JPeeMoore gang certainly, but I would object an say: "Hey, what are you talking about, you dummies? I've been sick before in my life, without any injection of whatever syringe load of whatshallmecallit! So many people on Earth are suffering without being poz! What are you talking about?"
Either way, the experience wouldn't proof anything at all.
Now, next time you invent some crap proposal, think twice before you hit to "Post" button.
Beg your pardon? Angry, me? Yes, very.
Yes, I don't see the point of accusations of homophobia. Whether this is true or false, it is mere ad hominem, because it is possible for a person to believe a true thing for ignoble reasons. Why some people cling so desperately to a long-ago disproved notion may be an interesting psychological question, but the issue here is the science.
Dear ElkMountainMan & dear Franklin,
I would appreciate if you could comment the results of the year long, double-blinded HIV+, 310 patients clinical trial, conducted at the Mengo Hospital, Kampala, Uganda using nutrients only, that show that the CD4 count in HIV+ patients can increase without antiretroviral drugs.
One of the formulation is very similar with Carter treatment system, as he described in his home page.
http://www.livingwithouthivdrugs.com/normans.htm
The study was published in a non-abstracted by PUBMED journal, the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine Vol. 22(3), 2007, but it is one of the papers that can be downloaded from Harold Foster's home page:
http://www.HDFOSTER.COM/.
Thanks in advance for improving my understanding of analysing clinical trials reports,
However, unless you show me wrong, it looks to be an additional proof that Prof. JP Moore is wrong, despite knowing a lot more on AIDS HIV than me.
It looks that in addition to HAART, there are OTHERS alternative to HIV+, that are not only cheaper but also safer.
You should be suspicious of any journal not indexed in PubMed. There are some bogus journals that purport to be peer-reviewed, but that mainly serve as outlets for woo reports that do not meet scientific standards. A quick glance at the abstract suggests that it would be hard to get this study into any genuinely peer-reviewed study, as there is no control group. It sounds like it might just be a case of regression to the mean.
Glancing at the abstract, there are claims of "p = 0.000" which is statistically impossible. My suspicion is that they were using software that incorrectly rounded off the p-value to zero (Excel, perhaps; I don't think any dedicated stats software would do this), and were too ignorant to realize that it is wrong to report it this way. Any experienced scientific peer-reviewer would have picked this up instantly.
trrll,
Other places in the paper they have a p value of "less than 0.000" I guess that's "more impossibler" than 0.000!!
Sad thing, this might be a interesting paper but they waste all their work on this journal. Like they have a table and they say how many people had CD4+ go up stay the same or go down. How many people have glutathione peroxidase go up or down. How many people gain weight or lose or stay the same. How many people are in a better mood or worse mood? But they don't tell you how their related. How many of the people who had more CD4+ had weight go up? How many cd4+ increased people had higher glutathione? Was it significant? How did you decide significance?
A good journal takes a paper like this and makes them do a good analysis. instead the data's wasted we can't get much conclusions from it. People if you have good data send it to a good journal!!!
Tara, Jen, don't be silly with your "death threats" nonsense. There was no need to close the last thread. It was just getting interesting.
The following just released study does not take a rocket scientist to fully understand the implications and the obvious inference that HIV viral load has nothing to do with AIDS.
Read it and weep:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071022122210.htm
It would be nice if Tara would consider opening a thread on the implications of this study. This thread takes forever to load. And I would certainly like to see the "interpretations" of the HIV advocating crowd. Should be good for a laugh or two.
I can't put it there anymore so I put it here.
I'm closing this thread down as I won't be around much of the weekend and it's already bad enough.
Good Tara, I see we understand each other. It's already bad enough, right you are. The BBC-apologies thread, I understand it was ment to be a feather on your cap, but it has turned into a black eye, hasn't it?
Anyway, good that it's closed. Now I can maybe find some peace and time to read part or all of the Ebola-blog somebody linked on the Ebola thread. Peace of mind is hard to come by with this ICC thing out in the open again. The thought of the kids, Tara, it all makes me very upset. Don't you feel the same about it? I mean, apologist or denialist, the kids are the same for you and me, aren't they?
Well, Michael Geiger of HEAL San Diego, issuing death threats, even on the internet, is a criminal offense. There's already an FBI investigation going on relating to the committing of cybercrimes by AIDS denialists, so I guess there's now a new addition to the file.
But don't worry on one score: the AIDS Truth team has never considered you to be an important enough AIDS denialist leader to focus any of its efforts on countering you. The FBI might see things differently, of course.
John Moore
This is the sort of thing that denialists obsess about, while scientists respond with blank looks. After all, people differ from one another in all sorts of obvious ways, so why on earth would anybody presume that everybody must be equally affected by a particular viral load?
If you and I spend the same amount of time out in the sun, and I get a sunburn and you don't, is it an "obvious inference" that the sun does not cause sunburns?
Don't y'alls have your own blogs to post these things on or does nobody read them? Or do you prefer to only post on other peoples blogs? Not that I'm suggesting you should go away but wondering why you need Tara to start a blog post for you.
I'm unsure of how you can trust any scientific paper that you claim dispels the HIV theory, wouldn't it be part of the same media/government/science community you claim is part of the conspiracy in the first place?
Dear "AIDSTRUFH team," and others,
Congratulations on your temporary victory on continuing to drug children to death without representation, informed consent, the child's assent, or any of what could be considered to be human medical ethics.
But now that the Good Dr. James Watson has resigned from his Cold Spring Harbor Directorship and his influential reign of reductionist terror upon the biological sciences will be coming to an end (after he allegedly refered to the intelligence of Africans as subhuman during an "unfortunate" slip of the tongue and all thought it best he resign), you might want to look at a 2005 paper called "Automated characterization of potentially active retroid agents in the human genome," by McClure et al.,(Genomics 85, 512-523, 2005).
The retroid paper can be gotten online at:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:z5aeVBnGoQIJ:shiva.msu.
montana.edu/docs/McClure.2005.pdf+automated+characterization+of+
potentially+active+retroid+agents+in+the+human+genome,+McClure,
+2004&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
In this paper about retroids, it's comforting to see that these authors found only 128,779 RT sequences in the human genome and only 160,318,42, or 1 different "HIV" motifs to choose from, depending of course on which probe they used.
I've also attached a paper on HERVS that I gave to my microbiology friends down the hall that shows "the phoenix virus" making particles that they can't tell apart
from "HIV." "Identification of an infectious progenitor for the multiple copy HERV-K endogenous Human retroelements," by Marie Dewannieux et al., www.genome.org November 28,2006).
In the retroid paper, I really derive much joy when I read:
"The HTLV-1-like hits we describe here were initially identified by the HTLV1 RT sequence and they are found throught the human genome."
"The results of Stage II of (the GPS analysis) indicate that while only genomic fragments of HTLV1-like sequences can be detected, FMuLV-like viruses are clearly discernible."
Or:
"In addition, relationships to various genes of Spuma virus (16 examples), and HIV (11 examples) are scattered throughout the human genome. Surprisingly, there are 60 cases of detecting one or more HBV genes (surprise surprise)..."
I'll imagine you guys will be seen at Church this Sunday praying to the God of molecular signatures, which have been forged if you understand the retroid and HERV paper(s) I describe.
Cheers,
andy
Well, Michael Geiger of HEAL San Diego, issuing death threats, even on the internet, is a criminal offense.
JP please!! Get laid or something will ya? Preferably not with a macaque this time.
Andrew,
I'm glad that reading the paper on retroids caused you so much joy.
Please share with us the reason that this paper makes you so happy.
I really don't understand what is going on.
Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D. July 6, 2007
Andy,
Your denialist friends demand EM pictures of HIV as evidence that HIV exists, yet you state above that others observe distinct retroviruses such as "the phoenix virus" making particles that they can't tell apart from "HIV." The only way to determine relatedness between retroviruses is with the sequence of the virus. Related sequences are not HIV, they are other viruses.
Andy states above, "In addition, relationships to various genes of Spuma virus (16 examples), and HIV (11 examples) are scattered throughout the human genome. Surprisingly, there are 60 cases of detecting one or more HBV genes (surprise surprise)"
There is no surprise. Viruses capture genomic sequences and insert themselves into the human genome over time. It is called evolution.
Andy states above, "I'll imagine you guys will be seen at Church this Sunday praying to the God of molecular signatures, which have been forged if you understand the retroid and HERV paper(s) I describe."
Andy, your statements prove that you don't understand or that you have some bizarre motivation that drives you to misrepresent the facts.
What do the embarrassing words of James Watson have to do with anything?
If everyone who is sick of the BS posts and other gross misrepresentations of the facts by Andy writes the Chancellor of the University of Illinois at Chicago to complain, then maybe he will stop. It simple, just google University of Illinois at Chicago and Chancellor and send your email.
James Watson is racist. He discovered the structure of DNA (forget about Rosalind Franklin and the rest). Therefore anything to do with DNA is racist.
Hey Dumbya or whever your chickenshit moniker was, do you have a university affiliation? I'd like to complain about your non-grasp of the English language.
Andy's "denialist friends" aren't asking for pictures of HIV; they're asking for pictures of purified HIV.
Since they don't exist, Dr. Maniotis is quite right to point out that the particles supposed to be HIV are visually indistinguishable from resurrected endogenous "retroids" like Phoenix.
Only you are talking about "relatedness".
I advice you to compose that mail to the chancellor in a few ultra-short mono-syllable word sentences so as not to make a bigger idiot out of yourself than need be.
O, and remeber to make it anonymous, chickenshit
whatever, advise, remember
It's also worth pointing out that all of this contradicts the claims of cooler's hero Garth Nicolson. Both of them have got different explanations that are supposed to explain AIDS, chronic fatigue syndrome, gulf war syndrome etc
noble, Mr. computer repair salesmen posing as a microbiologist, its not that hard, microbes that sicken and kill every animal are more dangerous to humanity than microbes like hiv and hpv that do zilch in animals. shyh ching lo's mycoplasma penetrans/incognitus did what you idiotic heros like levy and gallo failed to do, induce disease in experimental animals
like mice, monkeys, chimps embryos.
If you and your hero jp moore are too dumb to realize this fundamental aspect of microbiology then please get a refund for your phd's that you probably bought at wal mart.
Please dont start telling me about species specific microbes, in order to prove that you need a long term epidemilogical study that rules out other risk factors such as mycoplasmas, azt, severe stress/drug abuse, there is not one study to make designed to make this distiction, so your left with nothing, unless you want to babble about macaque monkeys and siv or 3 anecodotal cases of lab workers while ignoring the thousands of ltnp'ers.
see hiv fact or fraud
read project day lily
your heroes, sorry i dont spellcheck much for some of the boneheads on this blog arent worth the time
What exactly do you think that this paper demonstrates? If you are claiming that the paper found HIV in the human genome you are seriously deluded. Why don't you ask the authors of the paper?
It's not possible to distinguish HIV from EIAV from standard electron microscopy alone. So what? You can tell the difference with immunogold staining or through sequencing. None of the electron micrographs of the "phoenix virus" appear to have the cone-shaped core characteristic of lentiviruses.
And the "phoenix virus" didn't just pop out of cell cultures stimulated with PHA.
HIV, in whole or in part, is not found in the human genome. This is a fact.
I encourage Andrew Maniotis to read my own comments to Braganza from around 8:30 AM today. They might serve to instruct him on how ridiculous a position he is taking.
Many RTs exist. But HIV RT is not encoded anywhere in the human genome. If Andrew has evidence to the contrary, he should submit it to the scientific community. He of course has not, nor has he performed any experiments at all that support his theories.
"Well, Michael Geiger of HEAL San Diego, issuing death threats, even on the internet, is a criminal offense. There's already an FBI investigation going on relating to the committing of cybercrimes by AIDS denialists, so I guess there's now a new addition to the file.
But don't worry on one score: the AIDS Truth team has never considered you to be an important enough AIDS denialist leader to focus any of its efforts on countering you. The FBI might see things differently, of course."
Wake up and get off your "high" horse; it makes for too much roaring laughter. The FBI? I suppose you won't discuss it further because it is an "ongoing investigation" or maybe simply because you pulled that one out of your hat. Mr Moore, you are not master of the FBI nor do you have any thought monopoly. If you continue trying to silence anyone who happens to disagree with you, with the tactics you bring to bear, I fear that you too in the end will be written off as a whackjob.
BTW,
Aidstruth(you) states clearly:
"We will not:
Engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes."
I ask: why? ...and please let me explain why I should have such a respectfully insolent question.
"A sucker is born every minute". We all think to know what this means but when further considered we can also see this truth: "A human being is born every second". An innocent and vulnerable bunle of joy armed almost only with instinct and, thankfully, a complete range of human emotion. Knowledge-wise, a mere blank page. In a civilised manner, overtime, along the road of human evolution, many sharp and generous minds enabled all of us to embrace the idea of universal education to the point that it is now inseparable from all the other self explanatory tenets engraved in the human rights code . Education is alive and well(mostly) fuelled not by a glut of facts but rather an insatiable yearning for knowledge. Lions are efficient hunters armed with daggers and meat stripping claws. Antilopes are rapid-transit, grass-carburating "meals on hooves". Snakes are sneaky, slithering, world class(hot-)dog and cow gobblers. And we? well, we are mere brains on two legs with very bored hands. Humans need learning, what else are they going to do with their opposable thumbs aside the pornographic obvious?
Ask an educator friend of yours, preferably a child educator that works with difficult children; they are usually the most reasonable human beings that walk this earth and ask her (most likely a her) how effective your style of honoring the basic human right of access to knowledge is. My money goes on you being shot down in flames by a kindergardner and here are my reasons for thinking so and forgive me if they sound suddenly self-evident to you but I feel compelled to list them here in plain text.
- You are rude and immature; child educators, on the other hand, are not.
- By witholding debate you show contempt for the intelligence of those you attempt to reach, in effect saying they are not worthy of a reasoned explanation. Child educators, on the other hand, actively seek out debate with the children in their charge so as to promote a healthy and positive sense of self-awareness and self-respect.
- By witholding debate you also withold access to your prescious and highly specialized knowledge
and are in effect adrift in a moral neverland neglecting an important human right. Child educators, on the other hand, actively seek out debate with the children in their charge so as to promote a healthy and abundant usage of the developing brain and equip it for the steep learning curve ahead.
Mr. Moore, Aidstruth stands squarely and defiantly in the path of the people's right to knowledge and, most egregiously, the people's right by privilage of name (in my case: Moore) to make discisions for themselves.
Also, Aidstruth stands accused of potentially endangering the lives of tens of thousands of people buy abandoning the field of public education and debate to a litany of counter-theories that, in the event they are wrong and go unchallenged, could lead to ill-guided public and private health policies with potentially deadly consequences.
This topic may well be settled for you and all the other scientists but don't believe for a second this will be won in the public mind by shouting it down. Beyond the dull minds who are only too happy to surrender their convictions to peddlers of "black and white" versions of the world, you are reaching out to no one. You're the professor. educate.
Don't do it for me, I am beyond the pale, "off-side" apparently; I already got a red card.
Do it for the thousands that merely cruise-by, here and at Aidstruh, without ever leaving comment. Do it for the public good but don't be discouraged; it is a never ending obligation you few have towards us so many. So trust Us, the Great Unwashed; we Can tell a theory from a fact; many, many, many, many of us have had the privilage of having great educators in life and would KILL for a great, synapse-stimulating debate full of wit and decency where any interlocutor wouldn't have to struggle with any percieved personal disrespect.
Will you still refuse informative debate in light of all of this?
Also, You seem to have evidence that EJ Scovil, rest her soul, died of AIDS. Jeanne Bergman (same as Aidstruth Editor Jeanne Bergman?) wrote passionately and unkindly on the subject of EJ's mother, NY Press. (cut 'n paste):
"A closer look at the denialist who evidently instigated the hoax about ICC explains a lot. Christine Maggiore, one of the most visible HIV denialists, introduced Liam Scheff to the guardian of two children who lived at ICC. Maggiore has built a profitable career by combining a gift for self-promotion with a couple of false-positive HIV test results. The story she tells begins in 1992, when, despite the complete absence of risk factors, a routine HIV antibody test came back inconclusive. The retest was positive, and Maggiore threw herself into the whirlwind life of an AIDS poster girl, "booked for a year's worth of engagements before I'd even finished [a speaker's] training course. I made the audiences, laugh, cry, and scared." When a year or so later her doctor suspected she wasn't really infected with HIV, she "finally found the courage to retest," and in a series of tests received results that were inconclusive, she reports, then positive, negative and positive again.
False-negative HIV tests are extremely rare, while false positives are much more common, though infrequent. This fact and all the other available evidence strongly indicate that Maggiore was never infected with HIV, and she herself emphasizes the term "positive" and avoids saying she is infected or has the virus, allowing others to draw that erroneous conclusion. Most people would be thrilled to learn they were uninfected, but Maggiore was unwilling to give up the spotlight. This HIV pretender twisted her good health and the marginal incidence of false positives into a lucrative new racket--selling HIV denialism and bragging about her good life "without pharmaceutical treatments or fear of AIDS." But of course Maggiore has no "fear of AIDS"--she doesn't have HIV. She has since had two children, now three and seven years old, whom she boasted to Scheff "have never been tested. ... They don't take AIDS drugs. And they're not in the least bit sick." But of course Maggiore didn't want them to be tested: she knows that they are not at risk and that their being uninfected would lead people to question her own status. And of course they don't take "AIDS drugs"--they don't have HIV or AIDS."
Questions:
- Does jeanne Bergman still hold this opinion?
- If yes, how do you come to terms with this profound disagreement of the data?
- Has she retreated from this opinion?
-If yes, what is her new opinion and what data convinced her to retreat to this new opinion?
-does she consider this new data solid and unambiguous?
- Did she consider the data available back then solid and unambiguous?
- What data did she base this defamatory remark on?
"Most people would be thrilled to learn they were uninfected, but Maggiore was unwilling to give up the spotlight. This HIV pretender twisted her good health and the marginal incidence of false positives into a lucrative new racket--selling HIV denialism and bragging about her good life "without pharmaceutical treatments or fear of AIDS." But of course Maggiore has no "fear of AIDS"--she doesn't have HIV."
- does she still consider Ms. Maggiore's incidence of false positives as "marginal"?
-do you?
Braganza, I'll try again to illustrate what is wrong with the various arguments that are made about HIV being part of the human genome.
Let's say that Maniotis claims that this passage:
is not his words but is really found in the Bible.
To support his claim he finds several short groups of words that are found in different parts of the Bible such as
"but in the"
"it has been"
"cows, goats, dogs"
etc
Maniotis claims that this proves that somehow, in a manner that can't be explained, that when you stimulate the Bible with PHA it spontaneously reshuffles itself and small bits of text from different chapters all come together to form the above paragraph.
The causative agent of an infectious disease is classically defined by the postulates of Robert Koch and Jacob Henle (1, 2). They were originally formulated a priori by Henle about 50 years before bacteria and viruses were discovered to be pathogens (2). However, their definitive text was formulated by Koch to distinguish causative from other bacteria at a time when bacteriologists applying newly developed tools in the search for pathogenic microbes found all sorts of bacteria in humans. This situation was quite similar to our current increasing proficiency in demonstrating viruses (3).
The first of these postulates states that "the parasite must be present in every single case of the disease, under conditions that can account for the pathological lesions and the clinical course of the disease" (2). However, there is no free virus in most-and very little in some-persons with AIDS, or in asymptomatic carriers (4,5). Virus titers range from 0 to 10 infectious units per milliliter of blood (69, 70). Viral RNA is found in a very low percentage of blood cells of 50-80% of antibody-positive persons (6-9,11). Further, no provirus is detectable in blood cells of 70-100% of symptomatic or asymptomatic antibody-positive persons, if tested by direct hybridization of cellular DNA with cloned proviral DNA (8,10,11) at the limit of detection by this method (12).
Antibody to HIV is confirmed in only about 40% of the U.S. cases and in only 7% of the AIDS cases from New York and San Francisco, which represent one-third of all U.S. cases (13). In some cases, even the antibody to HIV disappears, due to chronic dormancy or loss of the HIV provirus (14,15)-analogous to the loss of antibody to other viruses long after infection. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control publishes specific guidelines for AIDS cases in which laboratory evidence for HIV is totally negative (13).
References
1. Stewart (1968) Lancet i, 1077-1081.
2.Evans (1976) Yale J. Biol. Med. 49, 175-195.
3.Huebner (1957) Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 67, 430-438.
4.Albert et al.(1987) J. Med. Virol. 23, 67-73.
5.Falk et al. (1987) N. Engl. J. Med. 316, 1547-1548
6.Harper et al. (1986) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 83, 772-776.
7.Ranki et al. (1987) Lancet ii, 589-593.
8.Richman et al. (1987) J. Infect. Dis. 156, 823-827.
9.Biberfeld et al. (1986) Am. J. Pathol. 123, 436-442
10.Shaw et al. (1984) Science 226, 1165-1167.
11.Shaw et al. (1985) Science 227, 177-182.
12.Kahn et al. (1988) Am. Clin. Prod. Rev. 7 (5), 20-25.
13.Centers for Disease Control (1987) J. Am. Med. Assoc. 258, 1143-1154.
14.Farzadegan et al. (1988) Ann. Int. Med. 108, 785-790.
15.Groopman et al. (1985) Blood 66, 742-744.
Nice cut and paste John.
It's interestng that the book you copied from was published in 1995 which is 5 years after this paper appeared in the literature.
Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Detected in All Seropositive Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Individuals
Nice cut and paste John.
In case you didn't know, Chris Ignoble is always filled with awe when he remarks people who use advanced techniques he was never able to master. CTRL-C followed by CTRL-V, it's too complicated for good ol' chris and to avoid complete fuck-up, Chris exclusively uses the one-key-at-a-time technique and manually types in each and every letter of each and every message he wants us to read.
Of all the nonsense put forward by denialists, the constant harping on "Koch's postulates" rates particularly high on the scale of idiocy. One would think that merely consulting a dictionary would give them pause:
In other words, a "postulate" is a guess. How on earth could any reasonable person get the notion that a 17th century guess constitutes sort of iron-clad standard handed down from heaven that every disease agent must meet? Do they seriously imagine that nothing has been learned about disease since then?
Whatever Jeanne Bergman wrote years ago in the NY Press about Maggiore was based on the assumption that Maggiore was telling the truth when she claimed to be HIV negative but a "victim" of a false positive HIV test. The only mistake Jeanne Bergman made was to believe what Maggiore said. History has proven that the way to tell when Maggiore lies is to watch her lips move. Of course she is HIV positive. How else could she give birth to an HIV infected baby who died of AIDS aged 3? Or does Maggiore think the stork stuck a nedle into the poor girl and pumped her full of HIV infected blood?
Whatever Jeanne Bergman wrote years ago in the NY Press about Maggiore was based on the assumption that Maggiore was telling the truth when she claimed to be HIV negative but a "victim" of a false positive HIV test. The only mistake Jeanne Bergman made was to believe what Maggiore said. History has proven that the way to tell when Maggiore lies is to watch her lips move. Of course she is HIV positive. How else could she give birth to an HIV infected baby who died of AIDS aged 3? Or does Maggiore think the stork stuck a needle into the poor girl and pumped her full of HIV infected blood?
You gotta hand it to those AIDSTruth guys and gals! They really have the denialists on the run! Loved the post on the BBC and how Scheff's and Crowe's asses were kicked - that'll save some kids! "Suffer the little children to come unto me". AIDSTruth is making a big difference for care providers by blowing away the myths surrounding the denialist leadership. Who cares about the small fry like Cooler, Pope and the other trolls who blog here. Look at what AIDS Truth has done to take out the real sharks over the past 18 months. How many lives will this save in the years to come? Not as many as HAART, but not an insignificant number either.
Celia Farber: exposed as an incompetent writer of error riddled junk, and forced to retire from the fray because of all the criticism she got in professional journalism circles. Too precious to roll with the punches - you can dish it out Celia, but you just can't take it, huh! It's always "all about me" with you, isn't it?
David Steele (Hank Barnes) - forced by his employers to stop editing Barnesworld because of the shame he was bringing on his law firm. A big bully, Hank, until bigger people kicked the sand in YOUR face!
Harvy "Biley" Bialy: Lost his affiliation with UNAM when the letters of complaint went in - "retired", yeah, my ass! Exposed as a homophobe by AIDSTruth, split the ranks of the denialists, attacked by his former friends. Abuses a vulnerable graduate student for political purposes, a kid who is now receiving the professional counselling and guidance he so badly needed. Is Biley dead of his kidney cancer yet? Who cares! At least he'll be a rare example of an AIDS denialist who died of something other than AIDS!!!! Go see the "Dead denialists" page on AIDS Truth and learn the lessons.
Christine Maggiore: Gets hammered even by other denialists for trying to politically exploit the AIDS death of Eliza Jane. Sees her pet physician Paul Fleiss struck off the medical register once a light is shone under the rock of his activities. Takes out a joke lawsuit against the LA Coroner, a certain loss for her. Rest in peace EJ. One day you'll receive justice.
Roberto Giraldo - fired from the New York Hospital. Gee, why was that? Now trolling around peddling his pills and quackery in Brazil, where the locals have him well covered.
Rebecca Culshaw - wouldn't like to be in her shoes when she comes up for promotion or tenure at the U of Texas. Could be a fun meeting now her bosses know of her scholastic incompetence.
Andrew "I'm quite mad, really" Maniotis - under investigation by the U of Chiacago's President's office, for abusive, libelous conduct that brings his university into disrepute. How long's he going to last? ANOTHER demotion, Andy? How low can you go? Retake High School science classes? Oh, I forgot, you do that every time you post your "insights" on the internet. A little knowledge truly is a very dangerous thing when in the hands of a fool.
"Lame Liam" Scheff - incompetence as a journalist exposed by the AIDS Truth victory over the BBC. How long will his buddy and partner in crime Jamie Doran keep his job? Don't held your breath.
David Rasnick - Duesberg's long time side kick, exposed as someone who will misrepresent his academic status to make out he's a serious academic. Yeah, right, just like Mad Andy Maniotis is a serious academic! Works for Matthias Rath, a dumb move that reveals the real agenda of AIDS denialism - these guys are nothing but shills for the Vitamin Pill industry and related quacks! Principles, what principles, it's all about the moolah.
And the Uber-denialist Peter Duesberg - exposed as a homophobe, and exposed as a conman attempting to rook gullible investors to pump money into his crazy cancer diagnosis company. Now under investigation by financial journalists, something the U of California is well aware of and awaits the outcome with GREAT interest. Again, it's all about the money, Peter, all about the money. That, and the ego problems that AIDS Truth revealed to be the cause of your descent into AIDS denialism. How many people did your ego kill? Tens of thousands, minimum, in South Africa alone. No wonder you're the most despised "scientist" in America today.
And Henry, the mad emeritus (sic) professor, Bauer. Exposed on AIDS Truth for all to see, a rampant homophobe and a believer in crop circles, the Loch Ness Monster and all sorts of wacko fringe causes. No wonder he's an AIDS denilaist, suits what passes for his mind perfectly. Another wacko pseudoacademic.
Oh, The Perth Group! How could I FORGET the Perth Group! Easy, even the other AIDS denialist forgot the Perth Group! The one time they actually managed to get a high profile court case on HIV and AIDS, and they were all asleep at the wheel, leaving the "defense" of Chad Paranzee to two idiots who totally blew it - crushed by the science witnesses (with a bit of help from AIDS Truth) and slaughtered by the Judge. What a spectacle! AIDS denialist science in all its "glory", exposed for all to see.
AIDS denialism is on the run, as the unsavoury people behind it are exposed and taken down. Cut off the heads, and the body will rot away.
Just for the sake of completeness, I should add to the list of the denialists exposed in all their "glory" on AIDS Truth (see my earlier postings on this string) the name of Henry Bauer, the mad emeritus (sic) professor. AIDS Truth records how he's a rampant homophobe who believes in the Loch Ness Monster, crop circles and other loony toon fringe topics. with interests like those, no wonder crazy Henry embraces AIDS denialism - gives him like minded people to talk "science" to. Henry Bauer, another pseudoacademic.
Notchef aka AIDSdoc.,
All one has to do is watch you post the same message under two different names to see what a moron you are. In the quote given above, Bergman makes it quite obvious that she thinks Maggiore is lying about her positive, not false-postive, test:
False-negative HIV tests are extremely rare, while false positives are much more common, though infrequent. This fact and all the other available evidence strongly indicate that Maggiore was never infected with HIV, and she herself emphasizes the term "positive" and avoids saying she is infected or has the virus, allowing others to draw that erroneous conclusion. Most people would be thrilled to learn they were uninfected, but Maggiore was unwilling to give up the spotlight. This HIV pretender twisted her good health and the marginal incidence of false positives into a lucrative new racket--selling HIV denialism and bragging about her good life "without pharmaceutical treatments or fear of AIDS
You are quite possibly the biggest of the anonymous morons (there's one non-anonymous who's even more of an asshole) who has ever posted here. If Bergman, as you claim, had publiced an article wherein she accepts the word of somebody she pronounces a "pretender" that her test was false-positive instead of the doctor's opinion, she would be as big a moron as you, and although she's an altogether mediocre intellect it would still be unfair to rank her in your bracket. . . I think. The jury is still out on that one, possibly waiting for Bergman to extricate her foor from her pie hole to bury it in yours.
Prof. Bauer's interest in HIV an the Loch Ness monster are for similar reasons; he considers both creatures as belonging to the discipline of cryptozology: Both are usually only found in a fossilized state, both are mostly pursued by sensationalist pseudoscientists, and the evidence for their existence consists mainly of footprints and blurry photos.
In other words, a "postulate" is a guess. How on earth could any reasonable person get the notion that a 17th century guess constitutes sort of iron-clad standard handed down from heaven that every disease agent must meet?
Ha! Ha! Ha! Good ol' ttrtrrrrrlltll throwing some stones to aids-denial! Stones? Rubber pebbles! No, not even. Baby arrows made of balsa wood, going nowhere, they just drop on the floor right before his feet.
17th century, KOCH? 19th, my friend. 19th. Koch had his postulates and together they have made the French sick with jealousy. Koch was a black eye for the French and Napoleon III wanted a feather on his cap. Since nobody had anything better to propose, he jumped on Pasteur and vaccination. Ok, Pasteur is crap science only equaled today by the HIV=Aids nonsense, but nobody cared, all that was needed were feathers on French caps.
Of course, you're right, Koch postulates are about as totally useless as vaccination but, in the past, each time when your buddies needed to validate their HIV=Aids shit, they refered to KOCH and thus it's a little too late now to try to get your ass away from Koch and accuse your opponents to use his postulates as even so many nails into the HIV coffin.
Ohhh....19th
Well that makes it alright then....
No Trrl, THIS makes it ok:
Five first References supporting the Durban Declaration:
1. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic, June 2000 (UNAIDS, Geneva, 2000).
2. Hahn, B. H. , Shaw, G. M. , De Cock, K. M. & Sharp, P. M. "AIDS as a zoonosis: scientific and public health implications". Science 287, 607-614 (2000).
3. Weiss, R. A. & Jaffe, H. W. "Duesberg, HIV and AIDS". Nature 345, 659-660 (1990).
4. NIAID. HIV as the Cause of AIDS
5.O'Brien, S. J. & Goedert, J. J. "HIV causes AIDS: Koch's postulates fulfilled". Curr. Opin. Immunol. 8, 613- 618 (1996).
Or was your point that HIV scientists are stuck in the 17th century?
"Whatever Jeanne Bergman wrote years ago in the NY Press about Maggiore was based on the assumption that Maggiore was telling the truth when she claimed to be HIV negative but a "victim" of a false positive HIV test. The only mistake Jeanne Bergman made was to believe what Maggiore said. History has proven that the way to tell when Maggiore lies is to watch her lips move. Of course she is HIV positive. How else could she give birth to an HIV infected baby who died of AIDS aged 3? Or does Maggiore think the stork stuck a nedle into the poor girl and pumped her full of HIV infected blood? "
Show me where maggiore tells people she is indeed positive. You will not find those words in her mouth. Maggiore always claimed to be a victime of conflicting diagnoses. +, - AND indeterminate because that is what science came up with; a whole string of different diagnoses. I'm surprised you chime in with this nonesense because it is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth; a lazy lie in other words. Obviously you never really listened to what she may have had to say. Also, had you read and understood the words in Bergman's text you would have noticed that she based her conclusions clearly on scientific evidence, "FACTS" according to Mr. Moore.
"false negative HIV tests are extremely rare, while false positives are much more common, though infrequent. This fact and all the other available evidence strongly indicate that Maggiore was never infected with HIV"
Bergman then callously followed up with what can only be understood as a basesless character assault in light of this final + verdict of Maggiore's status by blog scientists....now that her daughter has passed.
Here, a quick example of reverse diagnosis and circular logic straight off YOUR keyboard:
"Of course she is HIV positive. How else could she give birth to an HIV infected baby who died of AIDS aged 3?".
Is this a scientific conclusion? If yes, the world is in trouble.
It is painfully obvious to all discriminating readers that Bergman is arguing out of her arse and more possessed by hatred than knowledge of the "facts". Also stricking is that there was no ceasefire in the hatred for Maggiore after she became a grieving mother. Shamefull behavior for adults.
A bit late but so thoroughly crazy I bring it up
"The hallmarks of a rejected theory are these: almost no academic researchers are willing to invest their time--and no biotech or pharmaceutical companies are willing to invest their money--in pursuing the theory. Its only remaining advocates are mostly armchair theorists, nitpicking the results of others, but producing none of their own. "
"The Hallmarks of a rejected theory" is not a scientific finding. It is a personal assumtion based on authoratative evidence. Only lazy thinkers approve of this argument.
It could very well be that scientists won't touch it with a barge pole because they fear heynas like you and Mr. Moore who at the drop of a hat would come and destroy your carreer and familly. This theory corrolates perfectly with Mr. Moores personally hateful style and the hateful style of this and many other pseudo-science blogs run by lowly "assistants". Can one of you remind me what you call them in your circles again...its up top but can't find it in the noise.
We can also all understand why the pharma companies won't touch alternative theories. There's no financial return in it. It is such a huge problem in the world that it is a frequent topic at the UN.
And why are the remaining few arm-chair scientists producing no data of their own?? Thats right, there is no funding for alternative theories. Alternative resaerch is frowned upon and blocked at all levels and then there is the nerve to accuse them of producing "no data". It is a lot like the Republican Party arguing that government is ineffective , getting elected and then going on to prove their point. It's shit and only for suckers.
"Think about it though pat if I said that stuff or John Moore or dale, dt, apy, woodchuck, elkman, chris noble, any one, Michael would say were antigay, never ever let us forget it. WEll I think he should if we said stuff like that. WHy's it ok when denialists say that stuff?"
exactly my point Adele; it is not okay and just because trolls do it "educators" like you shouldn't have to. Never heard your mother say that?
"Molecular Entry Claw,"
Why complain about anonymity and call others chickenshit? You are taking advantage of anonymity yourself.
And why insult Jeanne Bergman's intellect? Do you know Dr. Bergman? Have you interacted with Dr. Bergman? Could you give us some examples of Dr. Bergman's supposedly inferior reasoning skills?
If I made such remarks about others, I would be more careful myself about, say, putting all HIV scientists into the same "sensationalist pseudoscientist" category as Henry Bauer by observing like you that the "Loch Ness Monster" and HIV:
are usually only found in a fossilized state, both are mostly pursued by sensationalist pseudoscientists, and the evidence for their existence consists mainly of footprints and blurry photos.
Fossils? Neither the "monster" nor HIV has been connected to anything found in a fossilized state; a virion is too small to be fossilized and positively identified. The fossilized plaesiosaur, an animal that is though to be extinct for millions of years, is not the Loch Ness Monster since its bone structure wouldn't allow it to behave as the Monster has in reported "sightings" of the imaginary beast.
Pseudoscientists? The Loch Ness Monster is pursued by a few belief-driven fanatics. Most of them are like Henry Bauer and don't have the intellectual or technical tools to study an animal, even if it were real. HIV is studied by thousands of rational scientists who train for many years in their different disciplines and submit their findings to peer review.
Prints and photographs? The evidence for the Loch Ness Monster doesn't include footprints. The only "footprint" evidence was proven to be a hoax (like most of the Loch Ness evidence). The "blurry photos" of the "monster" are mostly hoaxes, too. The most famous photo, the one everyone has seen with a neck emerging from a body floating in the water, is a fake. Modern image analysis techniques showed that a decade ago.
What about HIV? There are no "blurry photos" of HIV. None. There never will be. That's because a virion is too small, beyond the resolving power of any optical device that takes photographs. MEC, if you know any math, you can google "diffraction limit" and find mathematical explanations of what different microscopes will let us see. To "visualize" a virion at the ultrastructural level, electron microscopy is needed, and the images collected are not "photos," they are micrographs (although they may look like photographs to non scientists like you).
Here are a few more comparisons:
Nessie: One individual rumored to exist (or a small family)
HIV: thousands of closely-related strains described, isolated from thousands of HIV-infected patients
Nessie: No reliable photographs, mostly proven hoaxes
HIV: Millions of individual virions imaged in thousands of electron micrographs
Nessie: No specimens caught, no biological samples found, no genetic material, not a single basepair sequenced
HIV: The entire genome of HIV has been cloned and sequenced with more than 10e5x coverage of most regions. Virus has been detected by EM in human tissue. Virus was isolated by sucrose gradient 25 years ago and is isolated today by this and other methods in HIV labs. Virion morphology has been determined by various EM techniques. The entire HIV proteome is known and each protein well-characterized. Interactions of the proteins with each other and with host proteins are known or being looked into today. Many post-translational modifications are known and characterized, including extensive glycosylation patterns of the surface proteins.
The Loch Ness Monster is like HIV just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster is like cholera. And pseudoscientists like Henry Bauer are similar to HIV scientists just like a shaman is similar to an MRI doc. As in, not very.
For anyone who has been threatened over the internet (or otherwise) by AIDS denialists, or who has otherwise been a victim of cybercrime (AIDS Truth knows of several examples that turn out to be easy enough to track back to their sources), here's how to report such activities to the Department of Justice (i.e., the FBI).
http://www.cybercrime.gov/index.html
Personally, I've decided not to bother reporting Michael Geiger as I can't in all honesty attest that I suffered "emotional distress" or was placed in "reasonable fear" as a result of what this sad man wrote. Besides, the old, but curiously appropriate, aphorism of not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut comes to mind.....
Death threats over the internet can, and have, resulted in prison time. One has only to recall how AIDS denialist David Pasquerelli (who has since died of AIDS; see AIDS Truth's 'Dead denialists' page) was imprisoned for making such threats against AIDS activists in San Francisco. The following legal statute is informative in this regard.
§ 2261A. Stalking.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002261---…
"Whoever ... uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph(B) shall be punished as provided in section 2261 (b) of this title.
(b) Penalties.-- A person who violates this section or section 2261A shall be fined under this title, imprisoned--
(1) for life or any term of years, if death of the victim results;
(2) for not more than 20 years if permanent disfigurement or life threatening bodily injury to the victim results;
(3) for not more than 10 years, if serious bodily injury to the victim results or if the offender uses a dangerous weapon during the offense;
(4) as provided for the applicable conduct under chapter 109A if the offense would constitute an offense under chapter 109A (without regard to whether the offense was committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison); and
(5) for not more than 5 years, in any other case,
or both fined and imprisoned.
Your lawyers told you to chill out and wait until you actually HAVE a case. Insinuating terror where there is none. sad.
"And why insult Jeanne Bergman's intellect? Do you know Dr. Bergman? Have you interacted with Dr. Bergman? Could you give us some examples of Dr. Bergman's supposedly inferior reasoning skills?"
Perhaps you care to answer my questions concerning Bergman's intellect and scientific flip-flop concerning Maggiores HIV status? Perhaps you will also take position on Bergman's now discredited theory about how Maggiore is an HIV pretender that twisted her good health and the marginal incidence of false positives into a lucrative new racket--selling HIV denialism and bragging about her good life "without pharmaceutical treatments or fear of AIDS."
What proof did Bergman have that showed that Maggiore PROFITED from her so-called AIDS denialism? Can YOU demonstrate how Maggiore PROFITED from her so-called AIDS denialism?
You can answer none of these directly because these are all callous fabrications and smear jobs that in my opinion fall squarely into the libelous and it is plain for all to see. If anyone here is guilty of violating § 2261A. Stalking, then it is indeed Mr. Moore and Bergman and their libelous website called AIDSTRUTH.org.
PS Who instigated the twisting of Maggiore's prior good health anyway, ummh?
I thought Ms. Maggiore instigated the public discussion of her health status and the health status of her children.
"Pat" is clearly as demented and irrational as all the other denialists who hover on this site. Never let the facts get in the way of a post, hey Pat? Never let science interfere with an irrational rant, hey Pat? Here's the facts.
Maggiore is HIV positive although she's twisted in the wind over this simple fact for years, saying whatever suits her personal agenda at the time. Lying, basically.
Her daughter died of AIDS, as documented by the LA Coroner in his report.
AIDS is caused by HIV infection.
EJ was HIV infected, again as documented in the LA Coroners report.
How did EJ get infected? By the tooth fairy? By the stork that delivered her? Err, I don't think so..............
EJ was infected by her mother, in the womb, during delivery or during breast feeding. This infection was preventable by the use of ARVs, so Maggiore is culpable for what happened, as is her physician Fleiss, who just had the book thrown at him by the CA medical board.
Transmission of HIV from a mother to a child does sometimes occur when the mother has a low viral load, but that's pretty rare. More likely is that Maggiore herself has progressive HIV infection. She could arrest that by using ARVs, but she's the only HIV infected person I hope never takes ARVs because she deserves to suffer the same fate she caused to so many children who died of AIDS in South Africa as a result of her intervention there with Mbeki in 2000.
Maggiore has blood on her hands. Not as much as Duesberg, but a hell of a lot. Thousands, maybe tens of thousands of kids died as a direct result of her campaign against the use of ARVs to prevent perinatal transmission of HIV. The "pregnant belly, no AZT" photo is the single sickest image of the entire AIDS epidemic - particularly as inside that belly was the poor girl who herself died of AIDS. So yes, Pat, Maggiore is hated. She is hated by the parents (or in SA, more usually grandparents) whose kids died of AIDS. And she's hated by all decent people for exploiting her dead daughter so shamelessly to promote a political agenda. In a just world, Maggiore would be imprisoned for what she did. In this one, she will lose her law suit against the LA Coroner and that will be the final verdict on the death of her daughter. The facts will come out in court and they will remove all the fog that Maggiore has tried to use to shield the truth from the world. Smart move suing, Maggiore - now the truth WILL come out, for everyone to see.
Dear Professor Moore,
Like you, I am also dedicated to eradicating AIDS denialism from the media and the internet. It is a threat to public health to deny the mountain of evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Withholding lifesaving retroviral drugs has cost the lives of many of the gullible falling for the denialist lies. Thanks for posting the information about internet cyber crimes which AIDS denialists are capable of doing, Like you, I have been a victim at the hands of these cyber criminals. These people should be hounded and persecuted in any way possible, and driven from their university positions, research grants suspended, fired and left homeless, There is no room for questioning this truth that HIV causes AIDS any more than to question the existence of gravity or the descent of man from primates. We are all grateful to you for your courageous stand which had benefited all of us. I have only one question. When are you going to recant and finally accept the obvious fact that HIV is a benign passenger virus, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV drugs kill, and Duesberg was always right, and your were always wrong?
Well you've been wrong before, so don't let it upset you too much Frankie.
Sir Elkie, you are as mistaken as is Frankie; I am not anonymous. Tara has my email address, and you know what they say about AIDStruth women and secrets don't you? By the way, I am genuinely worried about you, not so much because you appear to have studied the Loch Ness Monster more intensely than Prof Bauer himself, but because you do not fathom how hilarious it is that you've actually devoted a post to discussing it.
Brave Sir John, I see somebody has advised you that
I "can't in all honesty attest that I've suffered
"emotional distress" or was placed in "reasonable fear"
Prof. Moore, when will you learn that none of fears are reasonable?
Notsy,
You may be a moron but you're not an anonymous chickenshit are you? Surely you're not one of those phony soldiers who'd rather wait for somebody else to battle Maggiore in court, when you have the opportunity to vent your righteous wrath on her personally in a public forum where you can expose her for what she is, and for what you are.
John moore reminds of the nerdy hallway monitor that wants to give everybody detention.
Get a life seriously, did it ever occur to you that your lame site AIDS truth has such little support bc no one agrees with what your doing except those super militant nerdy wackos the hoofnagle brothers and their ilk?
I told you we all saw an alternative film on hiv highlighting duesberg at my dorm at cal, more than half the floor thought the hiv hypothesis was dubious at best, you are an enememy of free speech and academic freedom, experts dont freak out over absurd arguments, if a few phds denied gravity and people jumped off buildings experts would not start a group called "gravity truth"
You are just doing the "denialists" a favor trying to get people fired, universities start looking in to these issues and start agreeing with the dissidents, like the old Dean at CAL! NO wonder they refuse to fire Culshaw, Maniotis etc, they know youre full of sanctimoniuos bullshit. Keep up the good work, nerdy idiotic highschool hallway monitor.
Remember, there is a reason you are not getting any support from 99% of the microbiology professers in the world not tied to the aids industry, they probably all think your nuts.
Cooler,
Don't you want to point out to Prof Moore that in order to better understand the AIDS epidemic there is a certain work of fiction that you think he should read?
Prof. Moore, is obviosly delirious. He even perceives collegial well wishings as "veiled death threats" and posts them on his site!! http://www.aidstruth.org/bialy-quotes.php
I believe one of Prof Moore's problems is his exaggerated faith in synthetic drugs. We, the Good Prof's well wishers, have repeatedly attempted to contact his shrink to inform him that overuse of Thorazine is paranoia inducing in addition to a couple of other side-effects and well known characteristics of Prof Moore's behaviour:
Abnormal secretion of milk, abnormalities in movement and posture, agitation, anemia, asthma, blood disorders, breast development in males, chewing movements, constipation, difficulty breathing, difficulty swallowing, dizziness, drooling, drowsiness, dry mouth, ejaculation problems, eye problems causing fixed gaze, fainting, fever, flu-like symptoms, fluid accumulation and swelling, headache, heart attack, high or low blood sugar, hives, impotence, inability to urinate, inability to move or talk, increase of appetite, infections, insomnia, intestinal blockage, involuntary movements of arms and legs, tongue, face, mouth, or jaw, irregular blood pressure, pulse, and heartbeat, irregular or no menstrual periods, jitteriness, light-headedness (on standing up), lockjaw, mask-like face, muscle stiffness and rigidity, narrow or dilated pupils, nasal congestion, nausea, pain and stiffness in the neck, persistent, painful erections, pill-rolling motion, protruding tongue, puckering of the mouth, puffing of the cheeks, rapid heartbeat, red or purple spots on the skin, rigid arms, feet, head, and muscles (including the back), seizures, sensitivity to light, severe allergic reactions, shuffling walk, skin inflammation and peeling, sore throat, spasms in jaw, face, tongue, neck, mouth, and feet, sweating, swelling of breasts in women, swelling of the throat, tremors, twitching in the body, neck, shoulders and face, twisted neck, visual problems, weight gain, yellowed skin and whites of eyes,
http://www.healthsquare.com/newrx/tho1441.htm
Idiot,
shyh ching lo's animal models are far from fiction, infact he is the only scientist since koch to discover a microbe that induced disease in every species of animal he inoculated, mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans, perhaps you should spends some time in the lab with Lo and his collegues at the Armed forces institute of patholgy, when you find out how much more capable scientists operate, and youll discover your scientific career is a work of fiction, and your phd was bought for 59 cents at wal mart.
Just keep sticking with those microbes like hiv/hpv/hep c that do zilch in animals and have 40 year window periods. You can eliminate kochs postulates and come up with franklins postulates.
1. the microbe must be supported by a drug company
2. the microbe must not induce disease in animals
3. the microbe must not be visible by electron microscopy
4. If the microbe is not supported by a drug company a desperate administration with press conference must be held to announce the microbe to the world before publishing.
5. NO epidemiolgical studies should be carried out to see if people with this species specifc microbe with no other risk factors get sick, just keep calling people denialists and extending the window period, 10-12 years sounds good.
Franklin/moores postulates..........................(just collapsed in complete laughter)
Thank you for the compliment. Lets now look at your "facts"
Claim 1) Maggiore is HIV positive.
False. Maggiore is positive, negative, indeterminate, negative. indeterminate, positive...It has been established by the use of highly specific HIV testing kits. Don't deny it.
Claim 2)Her daughter died of AIDS
Still in legal dispute it appears. The coroners report is being challenged and relevant medical records are not being released to the Scovils nor to you btw. you are simply gambling on this one.
Claim 2)Aids is caused by HIV.
Maybe. There is growing suspicion that other factors drive disease progression in HIV infection. We'll know the answer to this one once we narrow down those pesky "other factors". Quite a radical shift considering "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS" is said to be engraved in stone.
"How did EJ get infected? By the tooth fairy? By the stork that delivered her? Err, I don't think so.............."
Where the Hell did you get that?
"she's the only HIV infected person I hope never takes ARVs because she deserves to suffer the same fate she caused to so many children who died of AIDS in South Africa as a result of her intervention there with Mbeki in 2000."
Cold cruelty that makes you an unbelievable asshole. Maggiore anly speaks of her experience of being hit with an HIV diagnosis and invites people to stop an simply consider what the consequences are. She's damn right too...there is an increadible amount of camplacency about this whole HIV issue world wide, even you bitch about it. Accusing her of having the blood of African babies on her hands is plain hysteria on your part and using them in a hysterical internet flame job betrays a careless attitude towards the true nature of the AIDS disaster in Africa.
JP Moore writes in. "A Dangerous Two-Way Street"
The New York Times, Sunday, June 4, 2006
"The courting of the denialists by the Mbeki administration gave them a lifeline in America. For example, President Mbeki was photographed meeting Christine Maggiore, a Californian who campaigns against using antiretrovirals to prevent transmission of HIV from mothers to children."
She was photographed....thats it, thats all. She was invited by Mbeki...he had questions he wanted to ask her. She answered. Quite harmless stuff. Thats not meddling. Also she doesn't campaign against using antiretrovirals. This is another example of dumbing down the debate by omitting small but significant details (sloganeering being the worst form of dumbing down by its ommission of everything. Maggiore campaings for her RIGHT to make the ultimate descisions about her children's welfare and there is nothing perverse about that. Perverse is the "Nanny state" because it destroys families by replacing the family core, the parents, with the government; a.k.a. "some other dude, some other chick that the government doesn't know either."
"And she's hated by all decent people for exploiting her dead daughter so shamelessly to promote a political agenda"
Easy cowboy. Did you say political agenda? Did you formulate that phrase carefully or did those words just fly off your keybored at random? What political agenda? The reason why I am so stunned by you and your likes, whoever they maybe, is that amidst all the accusations of profiteering, abusing, murdering, exploiting EJ etc.No one has EVER offered to explain HOW she profits from all this. EVER. There is no motive you can attribute to her aside from the gratuitous, but ultimately self-defeating in its irrelevance, "wackjob". So ein Kran schwimmt einfach nicht! (It fulla hoooles; it ain't goin' floatin' none!)
"In a just world, Maggiore would be imprisoned for what she did. In this one, she will lose her law suit against the LA Coroner and that will be the final verdict on the death of her daughter"
by just world, you mean the one YOU control?
"Smart move suing, Maggiore - now the truth WILL come out, for everyone to see."
careful what you wish for...she's itching for her day in court.
Well, the standards of education at the University of California certainly seem to be sub-optimal nowadays. "Cooler" is unable to: 1) spell with any consistent accuracy; 2) use basic English grammar correctly; 3) string a coherent paragraph together. No wonder she or he has fallen for the intellectually bereft arguments of the AIDS denialists. I just hope her or his parents are paying for her or his education, as any investment by the taxpayer in this young person has obviously been wasted.
"Maggiore is culpable for what happened, as is her physician Fleiss, who just had the book thrown at him by the CA medical board."
Really? I guess that depends on your definition of "the book"
"LA Times Reports Charges Against EJ's Doctor Paul Fleiss Dropped"
Carla Hall
Los Angeles Times
October 9th
So what's your suggestion Prof John Thorazine? Should we campaign to have that breeding ground of denialism, University of California, shut down and spend the taxpayers' money on microbicides instead?
"1) spell with any consistent accuracy; 2) use basic English grammar correctly; 3) string a coherent paragraph together."
the grammarian strikes again. Rearranging letters carefull to make no point at all
Pat you're nitpicking again in that typical denialist way. Just because they missed by a mile or two it doesn't mean they didn't throw the book. You know, like the vaccine trials: they did evoke antibodies, just not the right ones.
why would I bother spellchecking on a stupid blog son? Not just me, half the floor on cal, my brother who has a masters from stanford buisness school, my friend who wen to IIT, (indian institute of technology) 10 times harder to get into than harvard, are we just a little jealous?
I think this is all about about one thing, your jealousy of shyh ching lo md phd, cheif of the armed forces of pathology division of infectious disease division, you cant stand the fact that he supported duesberg in 1990 and is the only scientist since Koch to discover a microbe that sickened every animal inoculated. BOW YOUR HEAD TO LO BOW YOUR HEAD SON HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR YOUR SCIENTIFIC SUPERIORS. HAVE SOME SHAME THAT YOU HIV HACKS HAVE ENABLED THIS MICROBE TO SPREAD THROUGH THE POPULATION CAUSING AN EPIDEMIC OF CHRONIC MULTI ORGANIC ILLNESSES. GOD DAMN HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR OUR MEN IN UNIFORM.
BUILD A SHRINE FOR LO IN YOUR LIVING ROOM, BOW YOUR HEAD IN AWE TO HIM EVERYDAY. FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL stupid bonehead. Get a sense of humor. Get a life.
"Pat you're nitpicking again in that typical denialist way. Just because they missed by a mile or two it doesn't mean they didn't throw the book.
you're off the wall man. What's a mile or two? was it a pocket book?
"You know, like the vaccine trials: they did evoke antibodies, just not the right ones."
what is this supposed to mean. I spoke of vaccine trials?
mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans..........no wonder montagnier wrote in his book "virus" how sad it is that more scientists were not working on this, its all about the money, when garth and niancy nicolson phd's found it in the blood of GWI vets armed defense intelligence agents warned them to stop their research jeez wonder why?
project day lily google it, part of the bioweapons program true story slightly fictionilized, all backed by Lo's work on pub med.
Induced a fatal wasting disease in monkeys and mice, with nuerological involvement, visible with the electron microscope.
Caused aids like symptoms in chimps, deformed and killed embryos, not found in one healthy control...............the perfect biological weapon. the new tuskegee expirement. oh please god help us all! Nicolson is finding it in abroad range of illnesses misdiagnosed as CFS/ALS. Montagnier and lo found it many AIDS patients. Why must you people unleash this microbe on the people, can franklin and moore spend some time in LO's lab and learn from your scientific elder, remember he was considered a scientific genius in China, thats why the military brought him here. PLease get some tutalige from your father Lo. PLease bow your head in awe, for mediocre scientists like franklin and moore need to get educated Lo style.
Yeah, right. There have been entire governments supporting HIV-alternative theories--they certainly could afford to set somebody up with a lab. Or you could set up a little foundation to collect private donations from other denialists and fund a denialist "scientist" to do some research. So you can't turn to conspiracy theories to explain away the failure of HIV denialism to make any significant progress. The reality is that denialists are all talk--denialist doctrine has led to no significant scientific discoveries. If HIV is caused by drugs, then why haven't denialist scientists discovered the mechanism by which these drugs damage the immune system? There are plenty of scientists studying harmful effects of abused drugs, yet nobody has found any kind of damage that could account for AIDS.
And why would a big pharmaceutical companies like Merck be sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into development of HIV vaccines if they didn't seriously believe that HIV was real and that a vaccine could be proved in clinical trials protective against AIDS? After all, these are hard-nosed businessmen, with the money to hire the best scientists. Even in the unlikely event that they couldn't figure out a way to make money off the true cause of AIDS (if indeed it is something other than HIV), why would they be sinking enormous amounts of money into testing HIV vaccines for protection against AIDS?
Dear Pat,
The subject of Dr. Fleiss and his Medical Board review was discussed in this thread two weeks ago. The document containing the decision against Dr. Paul Fleiss is available as a pdf at aidstruth.
The Medical Board revoked the doctor's license to practice medicine in California. Revoked. The board stayed their decision for a three year probation period as the result of an agreement with Fleiss. Because Fleiss did not want his case to go to hearing, Fleiss admitted to one of the lesser charges against him, cooperated fully with the Board, and promised to refer HIV-infected patients to a specialist.
Fleiss can keep his license now unless he violates his probation, but he is hardly getting off free. I won't list all of the terms of his probation because the document is available. There are many. They are restrictive and punitive.
No one is happy with this decision. I think the doctor's license should have been revoked for good. Now, more children may suffer because of his brand of "woo." Denialists are pretending publicly that the decision was a victory, but those who know the facts realize that Fleiss is being punished. The harshness of the probation terms shows the Board is punishing him for more than a minor record-keeping problem.
Dear Pope, you write that
I am not anonymous. Tara has my email address, and you know what they say about AIDStruth women and secrets don't you? By the way, I am genuinely worried about you, not so much because you appear to have studied the Loch Ness Monster more intensely than Prof Bauer himself
Spoken like a true denialist: wrong on both counts. First, I do not know Tara and Tara has never written to me. You are anonymous to me and probably to everyone else on this blog. When someone recognizes a denialist here, he or she immediately jumps to paranoid conclusions, but I doubt they are justified.
Second, I must give credit where credit is due. I once read a book about the Loch Ness Monster. Dr. Bauer once wrote a book, several hundred pages long, about the Loch Ness Monster. The man is really quite a clown when it comes to biology, but he has spent decades studying Nessie, and I hope you will at least give him credit for that.
Dear Dr. Moore,
You may have noticed from his responses that "cooler" is not really a denialist. He is a plant. Someone is parodying the denialists and their mindset. "cooler" is just a joke, a very developed and extended hoax. At least, that's how it looks to me.
Whoever is behind it: your "cooler" creation has been very amusing for me and everyone else, but you've been doing the same material over and over, and it's getting old. You've also overdone things a bit. No real human is both as stupid and as persistent as your "cooler" character. Why not try a new persona? Just a suggestion...
They do believe it. Believing doesn't make it so, and the money for the nonexistent AIDS vaccine is not going to flow freely forever.
Dear Professor Moore,
Cooler has taken a liking to you. Perhaps you should invite him over for a drink and get better acquainted. It might blossom from there.
mark, you need to bow your head to Lo as well.
elk, you need to bow your head to Lo as well, at least those other 2 clowns are mediocre scientists, god knows what you are, probably exxons highest paid gas station attendent, keep on pumping.
Chris Noble and Trlll,
Why not address the points made by the papers I cited?
It's interestng that the book you copied from was published in 1995 which is 5 years after this paper appeared in the literature
No, that's a lie, Chris, the computer salesman. I'm citing a paper in the published literature in 1989.
Since Tara omitted this small piece of information on the closed ICC thread, here is the real story of ethics violations on black and hispanic orphans in the ICC AIDS drug trials, brought to light by Liam Scheff and the BBC documentary Guinea Pig Kids. How embarassing that our own government found ethics violations and then forced steps to correct them. Liam is to be lauded for his role. The BBC documentary is to be lauded for bringing this ethics violation to the public. This type of unethical medical experimentation on children is disgusting and repulsive, as are the immoral lowlifes who defend this criminal abuse of children.
Liam Scheff is a hero, and the BBC should rightfully stand their ground and refuse to cave in to these repulsive cowards who have the gall to send a letter of complaint to the BBC. Guinea Pig Kids performed a valuable public service uncovering the ugly sore of ICC ethics violations.
HIV drugs are highly toxic and cause death. Giving these experimental drugs to orphans without proper consent is the same type of medical experimentation done by the nazis during the holocaust. The repulsive figures defending this experimentation deserve the same fate as these poor defenseless chidren.
Dear ElkMountainMan,
Thanks for your insights. I certainly agree with you that "cooler" is not what he claims to be: a student at U Cal. There are too many inconsistencies and idiosyncracies in what he writes, and overall it's clear that he's an elderly man, not a young kid. Is he a plant and a parody? Hard to tell. His writings are clearly insane and inane, obsessive and mono-dimensional. Unfortunately, that's far from unique among the known, identifiable AIDS denialists; indeed, it's almost their defining trait. So, I think there's every possibility he's real, mentally disturbed for sure, but real nonetheless. Having said that, I don't reject your suggestion out of hand, as it's clearly possible you're right, and I'm sure you've read more of this "person's" postings than I have. I don't propose to waste any more thoughts on him however; whoever he is, he's an asset to AIDS science as he's a classic exemplifier of the silliness that underlies AIDS denialists' arguments (sic) about science.
Keep up the good work with your own postings. You know what you're talking about!
Best wishes
John
Also, I couldn't help noticing that, in a post made earlier this evening, "Pat" defends Ms Christine Maggiore against an anonymous attack by saying: "she doesn't campaign against using antiretrovirals". This is a breathtakingly absurd statement, even by the standards of Pat's other comments. How else can one interpret a photograph on the cover of 'Mothering Magazine' depicting Ms Maggiore's heavily pregnant abdomen on which a red circle and diagonal bar, and the label "No AZT", have been painted? If that's not a "campaign against using antiretorovirals" then what, pray, was its purpose? The proselytising text of the article in 'Mothering Magazine' is also consistent with the photograph, as was Ms Maggiore's "advice" to President Mbeki when she was photographed with him in 2000 at the time of the infamous President's Commission. Indeed, Ms Maggiore has boasted of the advice she gave the President, in multiple internet postings over the years, advice that he ban the use of ARVs to prevent mother to child HIV transmisssion, advice that lead to many deaths and much misery among South African infants and their relatives and care-givers.
So, is Pat merely ignorant of the facts (likely, given the illiterate quality of his other posts), or is he attempting to re-write history in the hope that nobody will notice he's doing it? If the latter, then he's going to fool only a very few of the people for only a very little of the time, just the small subset who will believe anything that someone like "Pat" tells them (i.e., the AIDS denialists who frequent this site).
moore,
I graduated Cal in 2006 lived in unit 3 my freshman and sophmore year, so stop lying about my life. My general point is derived from Kochs postulates, microbes that induce disease in every species of animal and that are found in many complex multi organic illnesses are more of a threat to humanity than those that dont.
My sister suffered from a mysterious infection that was very debilitating and shyh ching lo's brilliant research saved her life. So stop insulting people who suffer from this horrible pathogen that can masquerade as many different illnesses, and can be easily be misdiagnosed as CFS etc.
Im sorry youre too dumb to realize that and you and your retroviral hack pals have tried to rewrite kochs postulates. I'm sorry you feel the need to insult and dismiss vastly more intelligent and more ethical scientists like Lo and the Nicolsons that are not bought off by drug companies like you are.
Lets get rid of Kochs postulates and replace them with Moore's postulates.
1. The microbe must be supported by a drug company
2. The microbe must not induce disease in animals
3. The microbe must not be visible by electron microscopy
4. If the microbe is not supported by a drug company a desperate administration can prove its pathenogenicity via a press conference before a scientific paper is published
5. No epidemiolgical studies should be carried out to see if people with this species specifc microbe with no other risk factors get sick, just keep calling people denialists and extending the window period, 10-12 years sounds good to me.
Moore brush up on some microbiology from Dr. Lo, this is the way you prove a microbe is pathenogenic in humans. Peer reviewed, LO went on to inoculate mice, chimpanzees, embyros etc and they all sickened died. You should be ashamed of yourself for letting this microbe spread through the population. Read montagniers book "virus" and you might learn something about mycoplasmas. Lo's brilliant work, garth nicolson has went on to found this microbe via PCR in many complex multi organic illnesses misdiagnosed as ALS/CFS.
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/1990/ATN09501.html
A repulsive unethical lowlife said:
Quite the opposite, the advice to ban retroviral drugs in South Afdrica has saved many lives from the toxic effects of these horrendous drugs. Giving AZT to pregnant mothers is the most repulsive disgusting form of fetal poisoning imaginable. There is absolutely NO health benefit.
Misguided people (like Moore and Bergman) who advocate AZT for pregnant mothers will be held accountable for this. Moore and Bergman take a similar position defending the nazi style medical experimentation on ICC orphans. The American Justice system will deal with these crimes on a day of reckoning which is swiftly approaching.
South Africa is quite correct in rejecting the use of AZT in pregnant mothers. Maggiore is quite correct to wear a T shirt which opposes the use of AZT in pregnant mothers.
People like Moore and Bergman are not only wrong, they are pompous, arrogant and repulsively wrong.
Dear Cooler,
I have understood that it is standard practice, when somebody is tested HIV+, to be then tested for a range of common opportunistic infections.
At least on major group of researchers, i.e. Montagnier group (see details in his 2005 submited US patent) found that a large group of HIV+ have also mycoplasma.
Therefore I think that you sister should have been screened for mycoplasmas by the hospital that was treating her.
If she was not, I think you should clarify why.
Was it an error from the lab technician or an error of hospital procedures. Would she be in title of compensation for mistreatment ?
Mr Moore. You haven't answered my questions regarding Bergmans flipflop and how she came to change her mind. One day Maggiore is a crook for "pretending" to be positive and now she's a crook for denying being positive. Science is at the source of the confusion she is fighting against.
Considering her testing history and the fact that AZT can have serious consequences to a child, she made the right decision. Hell, even Bergman thought she was negative for sure so why should she take AZT? The odds were in her favor and don't argue otherwise, HIV science is about odds, not facts. She made the right call and had every right to make that call. Where is your evidence that EJ died of AIDS? Why do you have access to the records and she doesn't. How many people did you infect and kill with your failed vaginal smears? You speculate wildly about the blood on Maggiore's hands but we can actually count the people infected as a direct result of your viral tinkering.
An open letter to Cornell University. Please cut and paste and mail in to:
Office of the Dean
Weill Medical College of Cornell University
NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center
1300 York Avenue, Box 144
New York, NY 10021
Or Email to: publicaffairs@med.cornell.edu
------------------------------
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Office of the Dean
Weill Medical College of Cornell University
NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center
1300 York Avenue, Box 144
New York, NY 10021
publicaffairs@med.cornell.edu
David J. Skorton, M.D. President of the University
Antonio M. Gotto, Jr., M.D., D.Phil. Provost for Medical Affairs and Dean of the Medical College
Dr. Andrew Schafer, chairman of the Department of Medicine at the Medical College and physician-in-chief at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell, Cornell University
Dear Gentlemen,
This is a letter of complaint concerning the activities of John P Moore PhD, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Cornell Medical College, Weill Cornell Graduate School of Medical Sciences, and Cornell University,
This individual has engaged in the following activities:
A) Defense of Unethical Medical Experimentation.
The US government has determined that unethical conduct took place on the part of Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in regard to medical experimentation on black and Hispanic orphans without obtaining proper informed consent This fact was reported by the Associated Press (1). Moore is defending this unethical medical experimentation with a complaint to the BBC concerning their documentary, Guinea Pig Kids, which revealed the unethical medial experimentation on children as mentioned above. This complaint letter to the BBC originated from the New York-based Center for HIV Law and Policy which is a front for Moore's activities.(2)
B) Suppression of Academic Freedom
Moore engages in a campaign of smear tactics and academic back stabbing against other highly regarded academics of good standing who disagree with Moore on questions of biological science. At this same time, Moore has cowardly refused to openly debate his academic opponents in a public forum. (3)
C) Moore maintains a defamatory and libelous website called AIDSTruth.com, in which Moore uses defamatory labels and smear tactics to attack his academic opponents.(4)
In addition, this letter is a demand for an open academic debate in a public forum on the merits of Moore's views versus the scientific views of the highly regarded academic individuals singled out on Moore's web site. Moore's activities represent an affront to academic freedom, ethics in human medical experimentation, and human decency. I appeal to you to take the appropriate action.
Regards,
Name ____________________
Address____________________
Phone number_________________
Year Graduated from Cornell______________________
Or other Medical School or University Affiliation_________________________
References:
(1) Thursday, Jun. 16, 2005 - 1:46 PM By JOHN SOLOMON Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - "The government has concluded at least some AIDS drug experiments involving foster children violated federal rules designed to ensure vulnerable youths were protected from the risks of medical research. "
"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Human Research Protections concluded that Columbia University Presbyterian Medical Center in New York, where several foster children were enrolled in drug studies in the 1990s, failed to obtain and evaluate whether it had proper consent, information and safeguards for the foster kids."
(2) 'Serious concern' at BBC over flawed HIV film Leigh Holmwood Media Guardian Tuesday October 23 2007. Far from being flawed, the film accurately portrayed ethics violations in the unlawful medical experimentation on black and hispanic orphans without informed consent at ICC.
(3) see aidstruth.org which mentions a number of Moore's opponents by name along with defamatory labels and smear tactics.
(4) aidstruth.org
--------------------------
Sir Elkie,
Sir John assures us you know what you are talking about, so would you mind elaborating on this?:
The harshness of the probation terms shows the Board is punishing him [Fleiss] for more than a minor record-keeping problem.
I'm sure you're familiar with the sentencing guidelines in these cases, so impress me.
Also, one more time, how come all you brave AIDS Crusaders let this stand? Why aren't you out there with your banners demanding that this case be tried? Baby killers on the loose subverting orderly society, and you're supposed to be the good guys who always know what they're talking about, right? So what are you afraid of?
Cooler,
Don't be so upset with Prof. Moore. He's always lying. He also understands what the important issues are; that's why he spends half his posts on speculations about your age and similar fascinating subjects. It's cleverly designed to show how serious and grown up he is compared to the
"denialists". Very cleverly designed indeed. . .
The constant harping on grammar or spelling is something he learned from "denialist" and compatriot, Anthony Liversidge,
(Newaidsreview). In both cases the insistence on form serves
to cover up the complete lack of content. You see, Sir John is not exactly what you'd call an educated man outside the narrowly defined field of failed microbicides - which I'm sure you've already guessed from his lackluster and getting worse all the time appearances here. Especially the one about "denialists" being obsessive and mono-dimensional
ought to crack up anybody who has the stomach to read through just a couple of Sir John's literary compositions. Anyway, like most mediocre existences devoid of personal style, Prof. Moore has to find role models to imitate. In this case the choice fell on Anthony Liversidge.
Here, Cooler, let me demonstrate to you how it's all hot air:
Sir John, following venom dripped from your quill:
Ms Maggiore has boasted of the advice she gave the President, in multiple internet postings over the years, advice that he ban the use of ARVs to prevent mother to child HIV transmisssion, advice that lead to many deaths and much misery among South African infants and their relatives and care-givers.
How do you know 1) that Christine Maggiore's chats with Mbeki in practice altered the course of South African AIDS policies? How do you know 2) that it has led to deaths and misery? Would you care to cite some studies backing up your point?
On a related note, the latest Household Survey from Statistics South Africa puts the population of South Africa at 48.5 million people, the Census Bureau's efforts to predict population changes in South Africa based on a "with AIDS" model was as usual way off. The "with AIDS" model has an undercount of 4.5 million people, whereas The "without AIDS" model is short 0.8 million people. The "Without AIDS" model has thus been the best predictor by far for actual population size in South Africa.
What's your answer to that, brave Sir John? Did you find a misplaced comma somewhere you'd like to do a review article on, or are you just going to chicken out as usual? - Gallantly obviously.
cooler, BOW YOUR HEAD SON!!!! Respeck your scientific elders. John P. Moore, he wasn't just considered a scientific genious in his home land he was the G-D DEFANITION! That's why the United STates GOVAMINT made him come here. RESPECK!!
215 HIV papers in the scientific lit, SON!!! Five TIMES what yall got with LO!!
Make a shrine in your COMMUNITY, SON!! Put on the robes of a priest to Moore!! Live your life in humble service to the GODS OF SCIENCE!!
Etc. sheesh cooler how do you do it all day and night?
I asked:
Who instigated the twisting of Maggiore's prior good health anyway, ummh?
Franklin answers:
"I thought Ms. Maggiore instigated the public discussion of her health status and the health status of her children."
Can you re-read my question and try again?
Hint: Maggiore was in good health until she was tested +,-,+,-, godknowswhat, etc... What is her health status?
"215 HIV papers in the scientific lit, SON!!! Five TIMES what yall got with LO!!"
Authority by sheer numbers...alot like old welsh law where the more witnesses you came up with the more right you were.
How many of these describe him finding nothing or spreading disease?
"How else can one interpret a photograph on the cover of 'Mothering Magazine' depicting Ms Maggiore's heavily pregnant abdomen on which a red circle and diagonal bar, and the label "No AZT"
Many ways, I should know I work with pictures all day long so let me share a professional secret with yall. Pictures speak a million words? Hogwash, they LIE like politicians. All photographers agree on this point. Why do you think propaganda is all about sloganeering and pictures? Because both burry the truth.
All I said was that I thought Ms. Maggiore instigated the public discussion of her health status and the health status of her children.
Can you point to a public discussion of Ms. Maggiore's health status or of the health status of her children that antedates Ms. Maggiore's own public discussions of these issues?
Pat I was imitating cooler. I don't think numbers by itself means anything except alot of papers does mean alot of work. Oh and if ten people see a murder isn't it more reliable then if nobody sees it? Or one person who always hated the murderer. Cmon you look at all the evidence, numbers is part of the evidence.
Oh and pat why you always beleive every thing Maggiore says. Did she release all those test results like I asked her, no. So she's just confused about it she doesn't even know what pneumonia is and if PCP is like bacterial pnuemonia. She's stupid about the thing she spends all her life talking about. how sad that is why i don't beleive her.
"Pat, I was imitating cooler."
I wonder why I couldn't tell the difference. She talks about her life as it is affected by your science. You deny that what you do has had a direc t and massive effect on her private life and she, as a non scientist is simply trying to make sense of it and you dogs only can bark so she barks back. People want to smash her door down and take her remaining child away. I am not even a parent and I can understand and I fully support her in that way. Are you a mother Adele? You obviously don't believe the anguish she had to go through and believe she's in it for the money but you never demonstrate how...gratuitous crap, I say.
Franklin,
I know what you said, i just dont know why you said it since I didn't ask about discussions; I asked who initially threw a monkey wrench into her previously good health. Again what is her health status?
PS: You seem offended that people discuss their personal experiences in public, why?
Knowing about personal experiences seems vital too me.
You asked who was the instigator.
I pointed out that Maggiore, herself, was the instigator.
Again what is her health status?
The mom is alive and well for many years and therefore can not possibly have had HIV. If she had HIV she would have died long ago without the "miraculous life saving drugs".
Since she obvious never had HIV, then it also follows that the daughter could not have had HIV tranmitted from her mother. The daughter could not have died from anything remotely associated with HIV.
This logic is compelling and applies to anyone.
"Who instigated the twisting of Maggiore's prior good health anyway, ummh?"
was my question. I'll explain it to you...She was in perfect health until her string of conflicting diagnoses...that is the twisting. She was negative as long as it served Moore's and Bergman's bullshit but when the political landscape changed so did their opinions but the venom didn't. Who's the obvious asshole?
pointed out that Maggiore, herself, was the instigator.
And you lied, Frankie, as has been amply pointed out.
Adele the offer is still open, all expenses paid for anyone who wants to come and educate Christine Maggiore about HIV, PCP etc. If you weren't a girl, I'd say you're a chickenshit like the rest.
Btw. Have spoken to your god, Moore, about how to operate the spellcheck on your computer? It's the sign of a real AIDStruth scientist if you can manage that. And please don't ask why I mention it honey bun. . .
For people who claim to be caring about people's well being you are being increadibly crude with this unfortunate woman. Whatever you guys claim to be you are neither educators nor healthcare practitioners. The world would never give angry pricks like you any licence to get near actual people with your venomous garbage.
some of you people lack a sense of humor, I thought that stuff about "bow your head" was hilarious! MOst aids apologists lack personality, intelligence and are too ignorant to see a joke when it slaps them in the face, like the nerdy insipid high school hallway monitor, John Moore. I was always known to have a good sense of humor in college, unlike you boring turkeys that cant take a joke. Get a life.
Brazanga,
nobody gets screened for mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans in America, bc doctors here only listen to one of 2 sources 1) drug companies 2) Or press conferences, as in the case with hiv. There are some exceptions, but for the most part PCP doctors are totally ignorant of the peer reviewed litertaure, but this is not theit fault, I've shown many Lo and nicolsons work and they are very impressed.
In order for a hypothesis to get to be well known and accepted it has to be bankrolled by a drug company (like hpv and hepatitis c, microbes that fail all of Kochs postulates) or a desperate administration has to have a press conference, as in the case with HIV. There are some exceptions but this is the general rule.
Science has changed, just follow the money, back in the old days Koch could induce disease in experimental animals and that would be it, Like Lo did, but now those things dont matter. Chiron and merck can create new microbes that fail all of Kochs postulates, like hpv and hepatitis C that are barely detectable, have 40 year window periods, dont do zilch in most every animal and pseudoscientists like moore and Franklin will push "life saving" money making treatments for their drug company masters. These people are so stupid its unbeleivable.
Maggiore's husband is to this day HIV - yet her daughter died of AIDS. This position could only support Duesberg's assertion that HIV is MOSTLY PERINATALLY TRANSMITTED!
Pat says:
No, Pat. The private consultations that Maggiore had with her physicians as they tried to get to the botom of her test results was not "twisting."
The twisting started when Maggiore began publicly discussing selected aspects of her health history.
So Frankie, what is it about Maggiore's health that causes you to remote diagnose her HIV+?
Any mom has to be HIV positive by definition whenever a child of that mom has a coroner's report which states the child died of HIV opportunisitc infection. That's why.
Wait, there is a slight contradiction brewing here.
But this same mom has to be HIV negative because she is alive and well after many years without HIV drugs. Yet she has to be HIV positive because of a coroner's report that the child died of HIV.
We have just discovered a new disease called HIV both postive and negative at the same time, or alternating HIV positivity negativity, sort of like 60 cycle alternating current. Such a new discovery merits a nobel prize from sweden and a 6.3 billion dollar NIH budget? No? You can send it to Adele.
Cooler,
Happy to see that you recognise that Adele is very funny.
May be you can make a team with Montagnier (he is in the US now) discussing the case of your sister, and asking how mycoplasma could be made as a routine analysis for HIV+ in the US.
This may be more useful than trying to convince people who think that the mycoplasma question is irrelevant to HIV/AIDS.
Montagnier last published ideas on mycoplasma (the ones that I could find) are in his patents :
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20050164173.pdf
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20050255129.pdf
Here's an excellent article on the dangers of alternative medicines and quackery, from the UK press today.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2200814,00.html>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2200814,00.html
The cranks who swear by citronella oil
To its fans, homeopathy is the ultimate cure-all. In fact, its effects can be positively deadly
Nick Cohen
Sunday October 28, 2007
The Observer
On 1 December, faith healers will meet at Roots & Shoots in south London to discuss how to treat Aids with magic pills. They won't call themselves faith healers, of course, or shamans or juju men. They will present themselves as 'homeopaths': serious men and women whose remedies are as good as conventional medicine.
According to the advance publicity, Hilary Fairclough, a homeopath endorsed by no less than Jeanette Winterson, will describe the 'impressive' results from her clinic in Botswana. Harry van der Zee, co-founder of the Amma Resonance Healing Foundation, will say that 'in just a few days or weeks' African Aids patients he treated became 'symptom-free and able to return to their jobs and schools or to look after their children again'. All in all, the Society of Homeopaths promises to provide 'fascinating insights' for World Aids Day.
It can do no such thing. Of all the pseudo-sciences on offer, homeopathy is the most obviously spurious. Devised by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century, it holds that the smaller the dose of a mineral or herb the more potent it is. Thus, if you go into a chemist and buy a homeopathic sulphur remedy marked 30C, the proportion of sulphur to inert packaging in a pill is 1 to 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. A glass of water is more likely to cure you.
Yet dismissing homeopathy as quackery given by and for the feeble-minded is surprisingly hard. Anti-elitism dominates our society and many feel uncomfortable saying that the six million people who take alternative medicines are foolish - to put the case against them at its kindest. They sincerely believe in phoney remedies and sincerity trumps sense in modern culture.
In rich and privileged societies where good health is taken for granted, homeopathy feels somehow natural when set against cold, conventional medicine. Today's audiences have no difficulty believing doctors and drugs companies are more villainous than their alternative rivals. Scrabbling around for a new plot after the end of the Cold War, John le Carre came up with The Constant Gardener, a story about drug manufacturers murdering Africans. 'Big pharmaceuticals are right up there with the arms dealers,' declares one character, who couldn't tell the difference between an antibiotic and a cluster bomb. Far from being dismissed as shallow, The Constant Gardener was a hit as a novel and a film.
You might have thought that the medical establishment would make a stand for science. After all, the reputations of the chief medical officer, Department of Health civil servants and doctors depend on their being able to say that they have tested their remedies in double-blind trials and understand why and how they work. But they happily go along with fake treatments that don't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny.
GPs use homeopaths as a dumping ground for hypochondriacs and the state pays for five homeopathic 'hospitals'. With the flood of money to the NHS about to be stemmed, Whitehall ought to close them and concentrate scarce resources on medicine that works.
However, any minister bold enough to argue for the effective use of public funds would face strong opposition. About 100 MPs signed a Commons motion asserting that homeopathic hospitals were 'valuable national assets' that could magic away conditions from eczema to irritable bowel syndrome. Well-known loons were joined by otherwise intelligent politicians who were content to have constituents conned.
Maybe they believed the standard justification for the homeopathy that the 'placebo effect' is a real psychological phenomenon. Patients suffering from minor ailments can feel better after taking a sugared pill. I've never liked the argument because there would be no placebo effect if patients were told the truth. To endorse homeopathy on the NHS is to endorse state deception. In his forthcoming Counterknowledge, Damian Thompson of the Daily Telegraph goes further and makes a persuasive case that what we tend to dismiss as harmless fads for Cherie Blair and her kind cause immense suffering in the wider world.
The NHS's backing for public homeopathic hospitals legitimises private homeopaths. An investigation by Newsnight showed 10 of them putting patients' lives in danger by rejecting anti-malarial drugs for pills containing infinitesimal quantities of garlic and citronella oil. But you have to turn to the Africa le Carre couldn't see to understand how the bugbears of people we think of as eccentrics can turn lethal.
For years, South African President Thabo Mbeki has done his best to hinder the distribution of anti-retroviral drugs. He listens to Peter Duesberg, a biologist who argues that to prevent Aids, all you need to do is eat well and avoid recreational drugs. After hearing Duesberg speak at a conference, Anthony Fauci, the usually mild-mannered Aids adviser to the American administration, said: 'This is murder. It's really that simple.'
It's not just Duesberg. Bogus nutritionists in Britain and Germany claim vitamin C is as effective a treatment for Aids as anti-retrovirals and, as we have seen, homeopaths are claiming Africans can walk out of their clinics 'symptom-free'. Don't think that just because they seem obscure cranks their ideas can't have influence when the net makes them available to anyone anxious to deny the established facts about Aids.
Suppose the old regime hadn't fallen and a white minority government was indulging Aids denialists. I think it's fair to guess the streets of the world's capitals would be full of demonstrators accusing the apartheid government of being complicit in the mass killing of blacks.
Terms such as 'genocide' and 'ethnic cleansing' would be tossed about and those who provided spurious arguments to justify the neglect of South Africa's Aids' victims would be denounced as the accomplices of a criminal policy.
As it is, there are no demonstrations because it is a black government presiding over the disaster and its supporters aren't in big pharmaceutical companies but funny little alternative institutes we too causally dismiss as quaint.
" (Some) Old scientists never die; they only smell that way" to paraphrase an old song from WWI ..........
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/weekinreview/28johnson.html?_r=1&adxn…
October 28, 2007
Ideas & Trends
Bright Scientists, Dim Notions
By GEORGE JOHNSON
AT a conference in Cambridge, Mass., in 1988 called "How the Brain Works," Francis Crick suggested that neuroscientific understanding would move further along if only he and his colleagues were allowed to experiment on prisoners. You couldn't tell if he was kidding, and Crick being Crick, he probably didn't care. Emboldened by a Nobel Prize in 1962 for helping uncoil the secret of life, Dr. Crick, who died in 2004, wasn't shy about offering bold opinions -- including speculations that life might have been seeded on Earth as part of an experiment by aliens.
The notion, called directed panspermia, had something of an intellectual pedigree. But when James Watson, the other strand of the double helix, went off the deep end two Sundays ago in The Times of London, implying that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on.
Since the publication in 1968 of his opinionated memoir, "The Double Helix," Dr. Watson, 79, has been known for his provocative statements (please see "Stupidity Should be Cured, Says DNA Discoverer," New Scientist, Feb. 28, 2003), but this time he apologized. Last week, uncharacteristically subdued, he announced his retirement as chancellor and member of the board of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, where he had presided during much of the genetic revolution.
Though the pronouncements are rarely so jarring, there is a long tradition of great scientists letting down their guard. Actors, politicians and rock stars routinely make ill-considered comments. But when someone like Dr. Watson goes over the top, colleagues fear that the public may misconstrue the pronouncements as carrying science's stamp of approval.
Kary Mullis, after grabbing a piece of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, dove head first off the platform, expounding on the virtues of LSD and astrology and expressing his doubts about global warming, the ozone hole, and H.I.V. as the cause of AIDS. On the latter point he was following the lead of Peter Duesberg, a molecular and cell biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and member of the National Academy of Sciences, who still insists that AIDS is caused by recreational drug use and even by one of the pharmaceuticals used for treatment.
Iconoclasts at heart, the best scientists are faced with an occupational hazard: having left their mark on one small patch of ground, they are tempted to stir up trouble elsewhere.
"With my own advancing years, I'm mindful of the three different ways scientists can grow old," Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal of the United Kingdom and president of the Royal Society, wrote in an e-mail message. The first two choices are either to become an administrator or to content yourself with doing science that will probably be mediocre. ("In contrast to composers," Dr. Rees observed, "there are few scientists whose last works are their greatest.") The third choice is to strike off half-cocked into unfamiliar territory -- and quickly get in over your head. "All too many examples of this!" he lamented.
Creationists still gleefully pounce on a quote from the Cambridge University astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who late in his career compared the likelihood of a living cell arising through evolution to "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard" and assembling a Boeing 747. This caricature of the evolutionary process led to the coinage of the term Hoyle's Fallacy. Dr. Hoyle also promoted the notion that epidemics are caused by viruses hitchhiking on the tails of comets.
Sometimes the wandering from one's home turf extends all the way to the paranormal. In 2001, when officials of the Royal Mail, the British postal service, issued a package of stamps commemorating the centenary of the Nobel Prize, they sought the counsel of Brian Josephson, who shared the prize for physics in 1973 for his superconductivity research. Physicists across Britain recoiled when an official pamphlet accompanying the stamps predicted that quantum mechanics might lead to an understanding of mental telepathy.
"Perhaps we should have checked that," a spokeswoman for the Royal Mail told Nature at the time. "But if he has won a Nobel Prize for his work, that should give him some credibility."
With science treading right to the bleeding edge of the knowable, maybe the Royal Mail can be forgiven for mistaking pseudoscience for the real thing. In an article in The Observer of London, David Deutsch, a quantum theorist at Oxford University, dismissed Dr. Josephson's speculations as "utter rubbish." Dr. Deutsch is known for proposing the existence of a multiplicity of parallel universes.
There is a difference of course between bold speculations and Dr. Watson's reckless remarks. In announcing his retirement, in an oddly oblique e-mailed dispatch, he expressed hope that the latest biological research, at Cold Spring Harbor and elsewhere, would lead to treatments for mental illness and cancer. Invoking his "Scots-Irish Appalachian heritage" and a faith in reason and social justice passed on by his parents, he sounded sad and confused, as though this time he had succeeded in dumbfounding even himself.
The mom is alive and well for many years and therefore can not possibly have had HIV. If she had HIV she would have died long ago without the "miraculous life saving drugs". Since she obvious never had HIV, then it also follows that the daughter could not have had HIV tranmitted from her mother. The daughter could not have died from anything remotely associated with HIV.
This logic is compelling and applies to anyone.
!!!!! Y E S !!!!!!!!
Well said !!!!!
Having read several discussions on Aetiology, I can but notice that over and over again, countless points are made by the so-called denialists, all of them never really opposed to. I cannot understand how come grown-ups, who know how to type in messages without too many typos und thus still do have some functioning brain cells left over, and who read all these points, still hang on so absolutely unconditionally to the obviously very questionable HIV hypothesis.
The denialists' "countless points" are rarely responded to because they are so illiterate from a scientific perspective, and repetitious, in that they have been responded to many, many times in the past. But since they do not understand science, the denialists simply adopt the classic "American in Paris' approach and say the same things again ONLY LOUDER. It doesn't mean they are entitled to a response.
Having said that, there are many, well established examples of HIV-infected men and women who control their infections for many years. They are generally referred to as 'Long term non-progressors' (or sometimes 'Elite Controllers'), and constitute a few percent of the total HIV-infected population. Various genetic factors, and probably some virologic factors, contribute to this fortunate outcome, an outcome not shared by the majority of HIV-1-infected people. Most long-term non-progressors have relatively low levels of plasma HIV-1 viremia, although this is not always seen, as there are multiple factors that can contribute to the non-progressive state.
Ms Maggiore may fall into the above category of HIV-1-infected individuals. She is certainly infected, because her daughter died of AIDS, but she has publicly described so many different versions of her medical history that there is no way of knowing what her true status is, nor what her prognosis may be if she continues to elect not to take ARVs.
Transmission of HIV-1 from a mother to an infant has been well documented at very low levels of maternal plasma viremia, based on cohort studies going back to the mid-1990s. The risk of transmission increases with the level of plasma viremia, but not linearly. And, as noted, transmission can occur even when plasma viremia is very low. In other words, a true long term non-progressor could certainly give birth to an HIV-infected child. The child may not inherit all the mother's favorable genetic factors, thereby progressing to AIDS and death while the mother remains relatively healthy.
As the risk of mother-to-child transmission is around 25% or so in the absence of ARV use, it's not statistically surprising that one child could be HIV-infected, another not.
The risks of HIV transmission by sexual intercourse are not the same as the risks of mother to child transmission, being generally lower. Among several factors that influence the probability of sexual transmission is the level of HIV-1 viremia in vaginal fluids, which is not always proportional to the level of plasma viremia (likewise for viral loads in the semen of HIV-infected men, which can differ markedly, both ways, from the levels found in the blood).
Overall, there's nothing particularly remarkable about what Ms Maggiore has chosen to self-report reagarding her family and how HIV-1 has, or has not, affected it.
Givens:
Because they have been obsoleted by more recent studies. Another hallmark of denialists is that no wrong argument ever dies; since they don't read the actual scientific literature, but just the quote-mined excerpts in the denialist literature, they continue to cite the same claims for decades after they were shown to be wrong. Yes, there was a time when it was difficult to find HIV in some AIDS patients. And indeed, if more sensitive PCR tests had also failed to find HIV, then the HIV theory of AIDS would have been in trouble. But in fact, PCR tests showed that HIV was indeed present, confirming the predictions of the HIV theory. It was results like this that ultimately convinced virtually all scientists that HIV was indeed the cause of AIDS.
Prof Moore,
I think we all appreciate seeing you engage in an almost rational manner almost with the issues, even though we are obviously not as scientifically literate as yourself.
Let me assure you I thoroughly enjoyed the lesson on LTNPs, the odds on low viremia transmission risk and sexual transmission risk - and, perhaps most interesting, the info that a mother can easily pass on a more virulent strain of HIV and/or inferior genetics to her daughter (but not her son). Btw did you see the recent study which concluded, variations in CCR5 and CCL3L1 combined accounted for 6 percent variability in AIDS progression rates.?
However, and please excuse me for cutting to the case, the question was not what's within the realm of the possible, or even the probable. The question was how can you be so sure Christine Maggiore is HIV+ when Jeanne Bergman apparently isn't? And how can you be so sure Eliza-Jane died of AIDS?
Did you see the recent study which concluded,
variations in CCR5 and CCL3L1 combined accounted for 6 percent variability in AIDS progression rates
oops! That recent study is so obnoxious it slipped in twice. Oh well.
Trrll, how many times do I have to explain to you, a real biologist that PCR doesn't detect "HIV"; it detects the bits and pieces of RNA it has been primed to pick up. That's not clinically relevant.
Dear "Molecular Entry Claw", I refer you to the policy statement on the AIDS Truth website regarding how bona fide scientists will not engage in debate or discussions with AIDS denialists such as yourself. That particularly applies to denialists who choose to shield themselves by pseudonyms (although it's perfectly obvious who you are). Hence, as a matter of policy (and ethics), I will ignore any question you care to pose of me. I will, however, on occasion, make whatever posting on this site I believe would be tactically useful in AIDS sciences' fight to destroy AIDS denialism.
Dear Prof. Moore,
I'm glad it's perfectly obvious to you who I am. I change monikers once in awhile to keep up with the mutable pathogen, but I make no attempt to hide who is behind the pseudonym by changing writing styles or otherwise. Dr. Trrl would also know who I am by the friendly style of my message him. Sir Elkie, however, thinks I am anonymous. He has now been disabused of that notion I hope.
I don't expect answers to my questions, especially not the good ones. People can judge for themselves. However, I repeat that we are ready to debate you on any issue you would care to raise, scientific, political, ethical in a sensible, open, curteous and transparent manner. You have chosen a different way of doing things. So be it.
Your aids truth website represents like 2 people, you and your drug company hack pal wainberg, stop saying that you represent the entire scientific community.
Most independent microbiologists not funded by AIDS inc have not made statements either way on the hiv issue, and many have never read the arguments of the AIDS rethinkers bc of the heavy Orwellian censorship. If they did your illusion of a consensus would dissapear.
Margulis and Pollack are 2 examples, never aware of the rethinkers arguments they supported the hiv theory for years, once they had informed consent, they realized the flaws of the hiv hypothesis.
Bialy gave a lecture to South American Scientists, before they thought it was BS, after they all felt more research is needed.
Same thing happened to My friends and I in the dorms.
Shutup with your sacntimonius drivel and lies. Get laid, seriously you need it.
Now, this is amazing! Maybe I should be proud but I'm not sure at all about that, but anyway, the illustrious professor John Moore answers, within two hours and on a Sunday, some scientifically ignorant anonymous "Silent Bystander" who only showed just a bit of surprise, on some discussion board where the same Professor Moore completely ignores the posts of his equally illustrious peers who, as far as I can judge, wipe the floor with said Moore's hypothesis about the relation between HIV and Aids.
Mr John Moore, listen. Or better: read, and don't stop reading this message before you've got to the end. Scientifically spoken I know next to nothing when it comes to viruses and the like. Honestly, I couldn't care less but I became curious some weeks ago when a friend of mine told me about Aids dissent and the way it is generally received by what you obviously like to call the "Scientific Community". I simply couldn't believe things were as he told me but as said, I also became a bit curious and started to read some of the Internet pages my friend referred to. And indeed, I find a situation absolutely conforming my friend's description.
Hence my little message.
Really, I had hoped, a bit childish, maybe, that it would somehow make people reconsider things. And what have I obtained? The most obnoxious, self righteous and pompous answer one could ever imagine. Really, how is it possible that you treat, without exception, any of your fellow scientists as some illiterate snot who knows nothing about science, as soon as he dares to ask questions about HIV? Do you never question your hypotheses yourself, Mr Moore? And in case you really didn't, do you know enough about science that that exactly is the only valid reason to exclude a person from the "Scientific Community"?
In your post, more or less directly addressed to me, I believe, you write quite a number of dubious statements. I've picked one at random:
Did you ever hear or read the term "Circular reasoning"? I don't think so, otherwise you would have noticed and have tried to cut it out. You should work on it, really, it makes you look stupid. To help you on your way: First you raise a terribly accusing finger "You killed your daughter because you are infected!" and then, when she answers "I'm not infected!" you want to proof something by saying: "You are certainly infected because your daughter is dead!"
Now, that said, I think you are some quite nasty professor to incessantly refer to Mrs Maggiore. Don't you have a heart beating somewhere? And while we're at it, what's wrong with listening to people who managed to get away from the hell of Aids without the use of drugs? Long term non-progessors? What's that? A person who was once infected but refuses to fall ill, let's say within a couple of years, hey! that person is just as healthy as you and me! Well, let's say me. You, I don't know. I started to doubt some hours ago, about the same moment I read your silly "Behold! Keep'em on the beaten path!" answer.
The official LA Coroner's report into the death of Ms Maggiore's daughter is the definitive statement on the cause of the child's death (from AIDS). Ms Maggiore chose to post it publicly on the internet where it can be found easily enough (go to AIDStruth.org, for example). If you, "Echo...." elect to ignore its contents, you can do that of course, but that wouldn't change the facts, and scientists deal in facts. You can also choose to believe the LA Coroner's report is part of a conspiracy, as many of the denialists on this site prefer to think like this, rather than accept the truth.
Moreover, as several other commentators on this site have rightly noted, it was Ms Maggiore's choice, and nobody else's, to make her daughter's death a public matter for reasons related to her long-standing political agenda, her campaign against the use of ARVs to prevent and treat HIV infection. Had she let her daughter rest in peace, nobody else would ever have done differently. My scientific colleagues and I fight against Ms Maggiore's agenda, to prevent other children suffering the same awful, premature death her daughter underwent. The morality here is very, very simple, however you choose to interpret matters.
That's not the way biologists see it. PCR is considered the gold standard for identifying organisms. It is, after all, the genome that truly defines an organism. And PCR is extraordinarily specific, able to determine the exact nucleotide sequence of a genome, so it can't be fooled by things like endogenous retrovirus fragments and the like.
The above narrative wins the creative writing award.
This is first report in the annals of medical science describing an elite controller mom who transmits HIV to her non-elite controller daughter who then succumbs to HIV.
For a spur of the moment reply, it is incredibly creative, but unfortunately doesn't pass the bullsh_t test.
Elite Controllers are immune to the HIV installed into their genome, and they never get sick. They are a natural reservoir for HIV just as chimps in the wild are natural reservoirs for HIV. Likewise, the offspring of Elite Controllers are themselves Elite Controllers and carry HIV harmlessly in their genomes.
To believe your imaginative tale, one would also require that baby chimps who receive HIV from their moms die of AIDS in the wild, and that has never been reported.
In addition, if the mom is an elite controller, this is incompatible with the suggested use of arv's, since elite controllers are asymptomatic, never take arv's and remain well.
Try again professor.
No, I'm afraid not. I can't say that I pay a whole lot of attention to which denialist is which. There are a few, like "cooler" or "Michael," who post such distinctive lunacy that I might recognize them under a different name, but that's about it.
Dearest Dr. Trrl, an RNA/DNA fragment is not an organism. Of clinial relevance are replication competent virions. You use PCR because you can't find the virions even in a viral load of 22 millions.
"Likewise, the offspring of Elite Controllers are themselves Elite Controllers and carry HIV harmlessly in their genomes."
Wow! I score that as a Mendelian genetics denialist on my life list.
And yet, Roy, you didn't reference the studies that back up Prof. Moore's claim.
Computer salesman? That's a new one.
You didn't cite a paper. You copied and pasted from Duesberg's website and failed to attribute the text to the author. This is technically plagiarism although I doubt that Duesberg cares.
I found the text in his book "Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled" which was published in 1995. This book is basically a collection of all of his papers including the 1989 PNAS paper.
So you are correct you copied and paseted from the 1989 PNAS paper. I was wrong. Happy?
My point is that papers published after 1989 have shown that HIV can be cultured and detected by PCR in all people with AIDS. I gave one paper by Jackson et al that demonstrates this. I also noted that Duesberg failed to recognise this in his 1995 book. His claims might have been plausible in 1989 but by 1995 they had been completely refuted.
In the very early part of the epidemic AIDS disgnoses were given without confirmation of HIV infection via antibody testing. However, when all of the reported AIDS cases were reviewed only a very, very small number were found to be HIV negative.
The survey of 230,179 cases of AIDS reported to the AIDS Reporting System initially revealed 299 HIV-seronegative patients. The evaluation of 172 of these patients (58 percent) is complete. Of these 172 patients, 131 have been reclassified as being HIV-positive, 4 have been reclassified as having some other type of defined immunodeficiency, and 8 HIV-exposed infants died before their serostatus could be determined. Twenty-six seronegative patients with AIDS had died, and 1 could not be located, but the race, age, reported risk factors for HIV infection, and history of AIDS-defining conditions of these 27 patients were comparable to those of HIV-seropositive patients with AIDS.
So again, perhaps Duesberg had some plausibility in 1989. Today, in 2007, he has none.
Cutting and pasting text from a 1989 paper that has been refuted many times in the past two decades will not prove anything except for the inability of some people to accept evidence that they do not want to believe.
Sorry MEC, the citation you're looking for is:
Mendel, J.G. (1866). Versuche über Plflanzenhybriden Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Brünn, Bd. IV für das Jahr, 1865 Abhandlungen:3-47.
I understand its difficult for a nonscienctist to keep up with the latest biological research. Don't worry, I still consider you in the top 5% of well-informed denialists.
oops! That recent study is so obnoxious it slipped in twice. Oh well."
Let's consider that study MEC:
"Researchers led by Sunil Ahuja, M.D., of the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, examined genetic information from more than 3,500 HIV-1 infected and uninfected individuals.
They found that individuals who had specific combinations of two genes--CCR5, which helps facilitate HIV entry into the cell, and CCL3L1, an immune response gene--were much more likely to have reduced immune responses and a greater decline in CD4 T cells, two hallmarks of progressive HIV disease."
As an HIV/AIDS "rethinker", when a large genetic study of 3500 HIV-1 infected individuals identifies two genes as partially predicting the rate of progression to AIDS, and those two genes just happen to be genes already identified as being involved in HIV's entry into the cell, how does your brain malfunction in such a way as to allow you to conclude that this as anything but evidence that HIV causes AIDS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1101160v1
"The twisting started when Maggiore began publicly discussing selected aspects of her health history."
What is her health history???
And FUCK YOU IF YOU DODGE THAT one yet again.
"Ms Maggiore may fall into the above category of HIV-1-infected individuals. She is certainly infected, because her daughter died of AIDS, but she has publicly described so many different versions of her medical history that there is no way of knowing what her true status is, nor what her prognosis may be if she continues to elect not to take ARVs."
You pontificating fuck! SHOW ME THE MONEY. circular reasoning example number 2. first she is a cunt for pretending to be positive now she's a cunt for pretending to negative. I'ts YOUR science stop playing loose by your rules.
"she has publicly described so many different versions of her medical history that there is no way of knowing what her true status is"
Science has described her as so many things that it is now impossible to know for sure. You are saying she is inventing her conflicting status...I call it moving the goal posts. FUCK YOU!
"No, Pat. The private consultations that Maggiore had with her physicians as they tried to get to the botom of her test results was not "twisting."
What did they try to tell her? Come on, spit it out!
Sorry MEC, the citation you're looking for is:Mendel, J.G. (1866). Versuche über Plflanzenhybriden Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Brünn, Bd. IV für das Jahr, 1865 Abhandlungen:3-47.I understand its difficult for a nonscienctist to keep up with the latest biological research. Don't worry, I still consider you in the top 5% of well-informed denialists.
yes we know. MEC meant Moores claim that of the first description in medical science of an elite controller mom's kid dying of aids from the mom. any reference to this? no because he is lying. (again...yawn)
@autumnleaf:
You think the fact that Maggiore is "well" is valid evidence she could not transmit HIV to her daughter? Dream on - This is not at all an unusual event in clinical practice.
And why do you think that any degree of slow or nonprogression in a mother has to be mirrored in the child?
There are many host factors that govern susceptibility to progression. Even in the field of genetics there are a number of "protective" mechanisms affecting likelihood of progressive disease. Do you know Maggiore's HLA haplotype? Or whether she is heterozygous or homozygous for a Î32 deletion? What about her polymorphisms in MIP-1α, MIP-1β or RANTES? Do you know if she might have a Bw4 KIR motif....? No, I thought not - Innacurate generalisations about monkeys seems to be the extent of your contribution here.
The mother is not the only contibutor to the offspring's genotype. EJ could easily have factors that made her more susceptible to progressive disease than her mother is.
Actually, maybe you are correct. I once saw a child who died of malaria, when her mother didn't. OK, I'm convinced - Malaria obviously does not exist and attempts to treat it and develop a vaccine are a pharma-inspired global conspiracy.
"Hence, as a matter of policy (and ethics), I will ignore any question you care to pose of me. I will, however, on occasion, make whatever posting on this site I believe would be tactically useful in AIDS sciences' fight to destroy AIDS denialism. "
THIS, boys and girls, is spoken like a true ASSHOLE. wow
As a matter of ethics he will ignore you . Holy Mother of God! (and I dont even believe!)
Gosh, Pat, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
Why is it so hard for you dissenting folks to believe that mainstream medical scientists can genuinely want what's best for people, and feel very strongly that denying them medication will kill them, and get upset at you for telling them that the medication is poison?
I keep reading, because it's like watching a train wreck, but the tone is about killing me.
My point exactly. We only know the selected aspects that Maggiore has chosen to publicize. That's when the twisting began.
" EJ could easily have factors that made her more susceptible to progressive disease than her mother is. "
In a creative world yes.
"Actually, maybe you are correct. I once saw a child who died of malaria, when her mother didn't. OK, I'm convinced - Malaria obviously does not exist and attempts to treat it and develop a vaccine are a pharma-inspired global conspiracy."
malaria isnt sold as a sexually or vertically transmitted disease. marketing-wise very significant...your point?
"My point exactly. We only know the selected aspects that Maggiore has chosen to publicize. That's when the twisting began."
Are you saying that you are speculating?
"Gosh, Pat, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?"
Ask those who wish others dead what their mothers think before you trip in !!!
and to heck with you for not bothering with the whole thread...you would know the foul mouth otherwise
And you accuse other people of making stuff up?
I suppose you have one recorded instance of am elite controller mother giving birth to an elite controller child?
"Are you saying that you are speculating?"
No. You asked who was the instigator, and I am reminding you that Maggiore instigated the public discussion of her own health status and that of her children.
Mark, you are without a doubt the most fascist bully of the whole HIV$AIDS pack. Your appearance in the documentary "The other side of AIDS" was enough to make anyone I know who saw it puke with disgust. You're worse than Jaypee Moore, who is merely a buffoon full of hot air. You on the other hand are far more vicious.
But then, the last paragraph of your post addressed at Jaypee gave me the idea that this post was a hoax, perpetrated by the same delightful joker who produced the fake Gallo letter recently. The real Mark couldn't possibly be suspected of having any sense of humor.
Oh, and eh... Chris, I'll get to you later. Don't think I've forgotten about you. But the hogwash you came up with in your last few posts would take up too much of my time now.
"No. You asked who was the instigator, and I am reminding you that Maggiore instigated the public discussion of her own health status and that of her children."
Answer: science instigated her unknown status....you have yet to demonstarte that she is positive without using circular logic. Until her daughter died she has been accused of being an impostor. You are an ass for accusing her of going public with her dilema
what is her health status? Is she positive or negative ? Pick one and explain it without backtracking science you coward!
Bergman, until she says otherwise, is on the record as saying Maggiore is HIV negative!
Your Question: Who istigated . . .
The Answer: Ms. Magiore
"Your Question: Who istigated . . .
The Answer: Ms. Magiore"
you are allowed a thick cranium...perhaps you will now tell us that she instigated her infection for some kind of non descript profit, right?
whats her health status?
" it was Ms Maggiore's choice, and nobody else's, to make her daughter's death a public matter for reasons related to her long-standing political agenda, her campaign against the use of ARVs to prevent and treat HIV infection."
You all accuse her of having a political agenda. Which one and whats to gain.....lets now all appreciate the dead silence....who dragged her dead body in public first??? I challenge you to bring up evidence that maggiorre paraded her kids....but I sure know you did...for political gain. Don't deny, its on your website.
Hey Jen. You said:
Why is it so hard for you dissenting folks to believe that mainstream medical scientists can genuinely want what's best for people, and feel very strongly that denying them medication will kill them, and get upset at you for telling them that the medication is poison? I keep reading, because it's like watching a train wreck, but the tone is about killing me.
It does become an emotional issue for many dissidents, which can make it difficult to operate from a place of positive energy, especicially when so many of us know personally those who have been maimed or damaged by or even killed by the supposed "medications" that are promoted by the believers in HIV.
However,
I do not think it is at all difficult for dissidents to believe that mainstreamers want what is best. There is little doubt of this, but as I have said before, the history of mankind has overwhelmingly shown us that mankind has time and again failed to recognize truth from falsehood. Mankind, millions upon millions throughout human history, have repetively, unknowingly, and unwittingly, followed leaders who were lacking integrity to their deaths for the entire history of our life on this planet. Especially when there were profits to be gained. Especially when minorities and suppressed groups of people were part of the issue.
The difficulty arises inasfar as how to pry these people (those with the mainstream belief that HIV causes AIDS)-in particular those who are entrenched along with massive conflicts of interest, such as JP Moore/Mark Wainberg- as well as all of those with massive egoic investment in the belief, and how to pry the masses as well, loose from the obviously false belief that HIV is the cause of AIDS, so that the very real and quite obvious reasons for suppressed immune systems around the world, such as intense stress/depression-which the HIV and AIDS diagnoses and fear system contributes greatly to, and drugs both licit and illicit, and global poverty/malnutrition/lack of clean water can be fully addressed.
The HIV paradigm stands firmly in the way of getting to, and prevents funding for addressing, the root causes of massive illness and human suffering. Instead, the paradigm would have us believe that the magic toxic pills thrown at the issue are the answer to all our global human ills.
Until we crack these nuts and their false belief system which has now spread to and emotionally paralyzed more than 90% of humanity, and that keeps most of mankind focused in an irrational and negative and paralyzed state of germaphobia and irrational fear and paranoia, it will be difficult for humanity to get focused on what mankind can successfully address in terms of emotional support to repressed groups, 3rd world infrastructure, education, and more equitable global financial equalibrium. Addressing these very real impactors and human factors, instead of throwing toxic pills at phantom viruses will allow mankind to obtain optimun health. Until we do so, TB will continue to be 80% of global AIDS, and suppressed groups such as homosexuals will continue to unwittingly be frightened into believing in the need to poison themselves to death.
By the way, Jen. A properly nourished nonstressed and nontoxed individual is quite able, via nature itself, to keep all of the so-called AIDS defining illnesses at bay. You yourself are proof of this.
This entire issue will eventually turn, and it is turning around. But certainly we could use your and everyone possibles help to pry mankind loose of its ignorance.
You're the one who asked who instigated the discussion of Maggiore's health.
Apparently you don't like the answer to your question.
Maggiore instigated the discussion.
You think the fact that Maggiore is "well" is valid evidence she could not transmit HIV to her daughter? Dream on - This is not at all an unusual event in clinical practice.
the fact that a mom is well and alive after many years, without the miraculous life saving drugs, means she is most likely HIV negative.
And why do you think that any degree of slow or nonprogression in a mother has to be mirrored in the child?
So you agree that the mom is an elite controller?
There are many host factors that govern susceptibility to progression. Even in the field of genetics there are a number of "protective" mechanisms affecting likelihood of progressive disease. Do you know Maggiore's HLA haplotype? Or whether she is heterozygous or homozygous for a Î32 deletion? What about her polymorphisms in MIP-1α, MIP-1β or RANTES? Do you know if she might have a Bw4 KIR motif....?
These are research tests requiring NIH grants and not usually done in clinical practice because they are essentally bullsh_t.
No, I thought not - Innacurate generalisations about monkeys seems to be the extent of your contribution here.
Answering your own rhetorical questions seems to be the extent of yours.
The mother is not the only contibutor to the offspring's genotype. EJ could easily have factors that made her more susceptible to progressive disease than her mother is.
More horsesh_t ?
Michael,
You claim that the difficulty arises in: "how to pry the masses as well, loose from the obviously false belief that HIV is the cause of AIDS."
Yet, as far as I can tell the only evidence you have offered is your hope that by convincing people that HIV doesn't cause AIDS you will save your lover's life.
It makes it hard for you to convince people when you have no evidence for your position.
Franklin, what are your own conflicts of interest in the HIV/AIDS discussion.
You Franklin, with your conflicts of interest, frankly, fully, prove my point!
As for myself, I have none, other than being a member of the highly affected gay community who has first hand witnessed the entirety of the so called "epidemic", and since before even the first affected individuals even fell ill, in the gay and black communities.
My, my, my, potty-mouth "Pat" is an antsy little denialist isn't he? Why am I not surprised? It's what always happens when rumor, lies, innuendoes, distortions, deceptions and pseudoscience meet the cold, hard, unblinking logic of scientific facts and the truth about HIV and AIDS. The denialists, with their perverse belief systems that can't cope with the evidence, simply fall back on invective, threats, denial, and the "American in Paris" approach to presenting what they allege to be arguments. 'Twas ever thus, underpinning why serious scientists will never "debate" publicly with the AIDS denialists - it's simply not worth the effort. It's just as pointless as an atheist trying to persuade the Pastor of an Evangelical Christian Church that God does not exist. Belief systems and logic rarely interact well, and the belief system that's AIDS denialism simply cannot interact with AIDS science. Not a single credible scientist denies the causative role of HIV in AIDS or the beneficial effect of ARVs, since the facts are long established and accepted by all reputable elements of the world's scientific community. That the denialists don't understand the science is neither here nor there; all that matters is preventing these people from damaging the lives of others who are still capable of rational thought.
Holy Cow John! Your comments re: potty mouthed Pat are so witty, insightful, and enlightening, you really should post it on AIDSTRUTH.
Apart from telling HIV+ people not to take antiretrovirals what else do you do with your valuable time?
I'll ask you a simple question that requires only a yes or a no.
Do RNA viruses such as TYMV contain RNA polymerases that are necessary for their replication?
Scientists that have questioned the hiv hypothesis as some time
Kary mullis nobel prize winner
Walter gilbert nobel prize winning harvardmicrobiologist
luc montagnier discoverer of hiv
shyh ching lo worlds foremost infectious disease pathologist
Duesberg recognized as the worlds leader on retroviruses
vs.
airhead john moore
mark wainberg
now why would so many brilliant scientists question hiv?
the lack of a reliable animal model, not one chimp out of hundereds has died of aids after 20 years
the low amount of blood tcell infection, 1/1000 t cells or so.
most microbes wreak the most havok before antibodies, not 10 years after, thats why we get vaccines.
The lack of a controlled study seeing if hiv positive people with no other risk factors such as AZT,severe stress, severe drug abuse, mycoplasmas get aids vs matched hiv negative controls.
And here's another example of how denialists like "Pat" behave: with sheer, unadulterated laziness. He or she says:
"I challenge you to bring up evidence that maggiorre paraded her kids"
Now, why should I or any other scientist spend time doing this? "Pat" has a computer and is clearly familiar with the internet. Ms Maggiore's activities are very well documented on the internet, which she and her supporters have used to advance their agenda for many years now. Indeed, she runs, or is strongly associated with, two websites that advance the AIDS denialist position, one of which is specifically devoted to the issues surrounding her daughter's death. "Pat" could find all this information with a few keystrokes, but he appears too lazy (or too incompetent?) to do so. Now why is that?
The scientific literature is often, unfortunately, poorly accessible to the lay public, and scientifically untrained people can have trouble understanding it. But Ms Maggiore never publishes in the scientific literature; she and her supporters use the internet, and appear in popular magazines abstracted on the internet. So "Pat" has no excuse for not knowing the answer to his/her "challenge", other than apathy or an inability to surf the net. And that's typical of the denialists, unfortunately - always wanting others to do their research for them......
"Cooler" as usual gets his facts wrong:
Walter Gilbert long ago accepted that HIV causes AIDS, and Luc Montagnier never questioned the causative role of HIV in AIDS, merely suggested (and long ago retracted/revised) that mycoplasma might have an ADDITIONAL influence on disease progression. Duesberg and Mullis have no credibility within the scientific community; one has only to read today's New York Times to see how they are regarded. Dr Lo has made no statement that I'm aware of about HIV and AIDS since about 1993 or so, so it's not clear what he presently thinks on the opic, but whatever he does think nowadays, it's rather unlikely he would have told "Cooler".
Oh, and on the vs side, how about the tens of thousands of trained professional scientists who have published the hundreds of thousands of papers in the peer reviewed literature that long ago proved that HIV causes AIDS. "Cooler" would, of course respond by saying that all these professionals are in the pay of the pharmaceutical industry. So, assuming that everyone is bribed, what would that cost? What's a reasonable bribe nowadays, what would it take to persuade a professional to act corruptly after a lifetime's training, risking ruin if discovered? $100,000? $1 m? Per annum, presumably? Multiply the cost of the necessary bribe by the number of people needing them, and then multiply by the number of years that this alleged "conspiracy" has been going on, and we're talking pretty large sums of money...... Brown envelopes? Swiss bank accounts? Or do we all get persuaded to act unethically because we get a free pen and a be-logoed post-it pad now and then? But surely, after all these years, SOMEONE would have spilled the beans?
Or maybe there's no conspiracy after all, no bribery going on, just honest professionals doing their best to save lives by trying to discover better ways to prevent and treat HIV infection.
There are cheaper means to keep the conspiracy hidden!
Disappeared scientists
Christine Maggiore wrote this on a Denialist forum.
So Maggiore blames the victims who apparently chose to die. Nothing to do with HIV. Don't you find it callous that when former dissidents die from AIDS the remaining dissidents feel no qualms about making up lies about them?
More bullshit. There have been bad relationships, poverty and unemployment for centuries. A high proportion of today's society would fall into this category but they don't get AIDS unless they are infected with HIV.
Maggiore wonders! Could it have something to do with people like Duesberg and Maggiore telling them not to trust doctors (particularly not "orthodox" doctors) and not to take antiretroviral drugs.
Yes, its hard to find a doctor that won't recommend testing your child for HIV.
I imagine that most scientists questioned the HIV hypothesis at some time. I certainly did. Scientists are by disposition skeptics. But one by one, they were convinced by the overwhelming mass of data supporting the HIV hypothesis and inconsistent with other hypotheses, such as Duesberg's "drugs and unhealthy habits" hypotheses.
Which scientists questioned the HIV hypothesis at some time? Most of them.
Which of them question the HIV hypothesis today? Virtually none.
No, an RNA/DNA fragment is not an organism. Neither is an electron micrograph or a Western blot. All of these are scientific assays used to detect organisms that nobody can perceive directly because they are too small. Of these, PCR-based genomic sequencing is recognized by biologists as being the most sensitive, reliable, and informative.
DT:
There are many host factors that govern susceptibility to progression.
And those are...? Those celllular receptors which so elegantly explain why most white heterosexauls don't get AIDS account for 6 percent. Roy thinks that's more han plenty for overwhelming correlation.
Even in the field of genetics there are a number of "protective" mechanisms affecting likelihood of progressive disease. Do you know Maggiore's HLA haplotype? Or whether she is heterozygous or homozygous for a Î32 deletion? What about her polymorphisms in MIP-1α, MIP-1β or RANTES? Do you know if she might have a Bw4 KIR motif....? No, I thought not
Do you know, DT? Or are you just making it up as you go along? You're the one that has declared Maggiore HIV+, You explain exactly what those "polymorphisms" and "motifs" mean.
So Maggiore blames the victims who apparently chose to die. Nothing to do with HIV. Don't you find it callous that when former dissidents die from AIDS the remaining dissidents feel no qualms about making up lies about them?
Dr. Noble, did you know the people in question? CHritine Maggiore did Don't you think it's callous to make up lies about Christine Maggiore and her friends simply because of a positive HIV test?
Oh, and on the vs side, how about the tens of thousands of trained professional scientists who have published the hundreds of thousands of papers in the peer reviewed literature that long ago proved that HIV causes AIDS. "Cooler" would, of course respond by saying that all these professionals are in the pay of the pharmaceutical industry.
No he wouldn't Prof. Moore, although you'd desperately wish that were the case. He'd say that the majority of those scientists will, like Trrll here appeal to some kind of vague authority and think it somehow settles the matter:
All of these are scientific assays used to detect organisms that nobody can perceive directly because they are too small. Of these, PCR-based genomic sequencing is recognized by biologists as being the most sensitive,
reliable, and informative.
There's nothing strange about that; if they didn't believe in HIV, they wouldn't be working with it. Just like priests with no faith rarely become priests in the first place. You can think of it as "natural selection". Perhaps you.Prof Mooreare of the opinion that all Cathoic priests are being bribed by the Vatican? It seems to me you don't:
Or maybe there's no conspiracy after all, no bribery going on, just honest professionals doing their best to save lives by trying to discover better ways to prevent and treat HIV infection.
Which leaves us with only one conspiracy theory, namely your own "Worldwide Well Coordinated Nefarious Denialist Conspiracy", which you have devoted all your righteous passion to fight.
Prof. Moore, not only are you paranoid, you are stark raving mad. Get off the Thorazine before it is too late. (No that was well meant advice, not a veiled threat of having you assassinated by over-prescribing your favourite drug.)
Rex Poindexter's partner has made it very clear that Maggiore's comments are false. I put more stock in his account than Maggiore's.
Believing that somebody "chose to die" or chose "to go home" might be comforting for Maggiore but it is simply cognitive dissonance and insulting to the people that have died.
Dissidents should know that if they are HIV+ and progress to AIDS and die then their former friends will make up stories about how they "chose to die" or they were secretly taking vast amounts of drugs etc.
I can remember very well the treatment that Jack Levine got when he began to question what his former dissident friends were telling him. He progressed to AIDS despite not believing that HIV causes AIDS and despite living a healthy lifestyle. His former friends turned on him. Perhaps he was simply a threat to their belief structure. Marcel Girodian (a pseudonym), one of the more paranoid dissidents, accused Jack Levine of being an orthodox plant. Fred Cline accused him of never being a true dissident. Obviously no true dissident gets AIDS only the ones that choose to die.
Duesberg's heartfelt feelings towards his dear friend "Hugh" Christie were touching. They must have been very close friends.
Believing that somebody "chose to die" or chose "to go home" might be comforting for Maggiore but it is simply cognitive dissonance and insulting to the people that have died.
Or maybe there's no conspiracy after all, no bribery going on, just honest professionals doing their best to save lives by trying to discover better ways to prevent and treat HIV infection.
While we are on the topic of free choice to live or die, what kind of free choice was given to black and hispanic orphans of ICC who were given "life saving miraculous drugs" that killed some of them in unethical medical experimentation documented by the AP. Where are the honest professionals doing their best to protect these vulnerable kids from Nazi holocaust style medical experimentation ? Shame on Columbia Presbyterian for this inhumanity to defenseless children. Shame on those who defend this horrendous crime.
Yes, its hard to find a doctor that won't recommend testing your child for HIV.
Thanks to the internet, the information is getting out. Many doctors know the truth that HIV drugs are toxic, and the HIV antibody tests can be misleading.
To find a doctor, CLICK HERE.
Not a single credible scientist denies the causative role of HIV in AIDS or the beneficial effect of ARVs, since the facts are long established and accepted by all reputable elements of the world's scientific community
Circular reasoning again? If a scientist questions the "alleged"causative role of HIV, then gosh, this is just NOT a CREDIBLE scientist.
The reality is that there are thousands of names of credible scientists, MD's and health care professionals posted on the internet who question the "alleged" causative role of HIV. The numbers increase every year that goes by. Why? NO vaccine, NO causative mechanism, NO animal model, and a huge pile of money dumped down a very empty hole with NOthing to show for it.
"You're the one who asked who instigated the discussion of Maggiore's health.
Apparently you don't like the answer to your question.
Maggiore instigated the discussion."
Franklin you' re choosing to be daft . I asked what threw her good health into turmoil...not who started yapping when...
Rex Poindexter's partner has made it very clear that Maggiore's comments are false. I put more stock in his account than Maggiore's.
Believing that somebody "chose to die" or chose "to go home" might be comforting for Maggiore but it is simply cognitive dissonance and insulting to the people that have died.
Dr. Noble, where has Rex Poindexter accused Christine Maggiore of lying, and about what exactly?
Since, when Dr. Noble has a false statement beocme synonymous with a lie. No don't tell me, I know. Every time you see the opportunity to f-a-l-s-e-l-y accuse dissidents.
Fibber fibs,
there are thousands of names of credible scientists, MD's and health care professionals posted on the internet who question the "alleged" causative role of HIV. The numbers increase every year that goes by. Why?
A professional mathematician like Fibonacci should know that the numbers fallacy is much more convincing when your numbers are based in reality. Replace "thousands" with "hundreds" and you might be right, fibber.
MDs and "credible scientists" are very much in the minority on the "Rethinking AIDS" list. The few real scientists (like Margulis) on the list of 2,500 students, journos, and quack healers are completely ignorant of virology. They make it obvious whenever they speak on the topic.
You might want to ask Wilhelm "Iconoclaster" Godschalk why "the numbers increase." One reason: because as people die, or realize they were wrong, their names are not removed from the list. Another reason: because Godschalk and David Crowe add the names of respected people who are in no way HIV/AIDS denialists. They even put Linus Pauling on their list because he suggested Vitamin C might be good for AIDS patients in addition to antiretroviral therapy. Linus Pauling accepted HIV exists and causes AIDS and said antiretrovirals were the best existing therapy. He was not a denialist. Other people are on the list because they have said in public that AZT monotherapy is unacceptably toxic by today's standards. Everybody agrees, including John Moore and Mark Wainberg. Like Pauling, they know HIV exists and causes AIDS. They are not denialists.
Fibber, this list has been around in some form for almost twenty years. Despite all this time, and even stooping to highjacking the reputations of credible professionals, Crowe can only show 2500 names, and not a single name of a scientist who researches HIV.
What sort of "free choice" do you give your kids if they decide that they don't want to to to the doctor or dentist?
Molecular Entry Claw, you asked me yesterday about "sentencing guidelines," urging me to support my assertion that,
The harshness of the probation terms shows the Board is punishing him [Fleiss] for more than a minor record-keeping problem.
MEC, no strict sentencing guidelines exist. A Medical Board Review is not a criminal trial. In general, a record-keeping problem is punished with a fine/requirement to pay costs and a coursework requirement regarding record-keeping standards. If you are genuinely interested in this topic, most state medical boards maintain a website with details of their decisions.
Not only is Dr. Fleiss required to pay costs and take courses on record-keeping, his license was formally revoked, and he is on probation for three years. You can read about the many conditions of his probation above and beyond costs and a record-keeping course, in the Board's decision.
The fact that the Board considered Fleiss' promise to refer HIV-positive patients to specialists a "mitigating" factor also shows their decision was based on Fleiss' treatment of HIV patients balanced by his cooperation, not just a minor record-keeping problem.
As for why I do not protest this decision in the streets, I am not on the Medical Board. I of course defer to their decision. They are the authority. I also don't call Dr. Fleiss a baby killer, MEC. Dr. Fleiss didn't even see the Scovill child in the weeks before her death. His lack of appropriate action before that can be plausibly blamed on the parents (as he apparently did in his discussions with the Board). Similarly, the parents' lack of appropriate action can be plausibly blamed on the doctors; that's why the DA didn't take legal steps against Ms. Maggiore and her husband. After all, they did take their kids to doctors, such as they were.
You see, MEC, I happen to believe that if EJ died of AIDS, HIV and Pneumocystis were the killers, not Dr. Fleiss or Ms. Maggiore. Fleiss and the parents were lax, maybe ignorant, maybe incompetent, but they are not killers. In allowing HIV to kill the child, there is ample blame for all, but the direct killer was HIV with an OI accomplice.
On your anonymity or lack thereof, I honestly do not know who you are. I don't care, either, since I do know that you are not a scientist or are doing a very good job of concealing your knowledge. And although you seem to enjoy debate, you don't exhibit much in the way of consistent logic. You remind me of a creationist whose authority on the topic of molecular mechanisms of evolution is the first two chapters of the bible. How can trrll explain "polymorphisms" and "motifs" to someone who knows nothing of biology and immunology?
MDs and "credible scientists" are very much in the minority on the "Rethinking AIDS" list. The few real scientists (like Margulis) on the list of 2,500 students, journos, and quack healers are completely ignorant of virology.
Crowe can only show 2500 names, and not a single name of a scientist who researches HIV.
Moving the goalposts on us Elkie? Your new definition of a "credible scientist" on the crowe list means a phd in virology, and an NIH meal ticket, otherwise they labeled as "quack healers"?
elkie, you take the cake, talk about stacking the deck.
The MD's, DO's and other health professionals on the list are licensed to practice medicine as they see it, not as your see it, elkie.
The "quack healers", are the likes of you, elkie, and your buddy the phd cornell virologist who defends unethical and immoral Nazi style medical experimentation on black and hispanic orphans at the ICC.
It used to be that quack healers sold harmless plastic pyramids and at least gave some human attention with the "laying on of hands", but these were harmless therapies. You elkie, and your buddies are the dangerous quack healers because you were the ones who held out hope to a entire population of homosexuals, drug addicts and minorities and then murdered them in cold blood with AZT genocide.
Elk can you please try to talk some sense into Moore; he is stark raving mad in accusing people of having blood on their hands and is looking gravely unhinged. If people are so ignorant that they endanger their children don't you think Mr Moore has an obligation to educate? Do you think he is helping anyone by shouting them down...what do you think peoples reactions are to his dementia? If he is so unwilling to educate it is little wonder that denialist garbage is becoming a real danger to his cause. He, and others, have chosen to abandon the field to people with perhaps dangerous ideas but at least they try to make their case; John just calls you all kinds of horrible things. Again don't do it for me do it for the public at large.
"AZT monotherapy is unacceptably toxic by today's standards. Everybody agrees, including John Moore and Mark Wainberg."
So they were completely wrong then... with what nerve can they be so cock-sure today?
You can read about the many conditions of his probation above and beyond costs and a record-keeping course, in the Board's decision.
I can, and I have, Sir Elkie. I saw nothing "severe" except our transparent bluff.
As for why I do not protest this decision in the streets, I am not on the Medical Board. I of course defer to their decision.
Why is that a matter of course? Would you also defer if Joseph Mengele were head of the Medical Board? Have you no independent conviction strong enough to translate into action WishyWashyMountainMan?
You see, MEC, I happen to believe that if EJ died of AIDS, HIV and Pneumocystis were the killers, not Dr. Fleiss or Ms. Maggiore. Fleiss and the parents were lax, maybe ignorant, maybe incompetent, but they are not killers. In allowing HIV to kill the child, there is ample blame for all, but the direct killer was HIV with an OI accomplice.
No I don't see that at all. I see an anonymous somebody flip-flopping his ass out of all responsibility for his initial innuendos against Al-Bayati. WishyWashyMountainMan
you may if you so desire, choose to defer to the
"ignorance and incompetence" of your corrupt leaders, but, as opposed to them, Maggiore and Fleiss have real jobs and real responsibilities, it is neither a credible nor a valid defence in their case - especially not from your camp's point of view. You are now surely disappointing Prof. Moore, who otherwise thought so highly of you.
Bottom line is, all you have are anonymous innuendos and the fact that people with power and influence have managed to squeeze a grieving mother and a 74 year old physician a wee bit.
The "polymorphisms" and "motifs" came from DT not Trrll. But I'm sure he appreciates the rescue attempt nonetheless.
It certainly reinforces my point that denialists are virtually all armchair virologists, unwilling or unable to invest their own effort and money into conducting actual experiments to pursue their theories of AIDS.
I don't even require somebody working to be working in the HIV/AIDS field. I'll accept as credible any scientist currently working in either the field of virology or epidemiology (anybody with a PubMed-listed publication in either field in the last 5 years). Let's say that we delete everybody from your list who doesn't meet that definition. Who is left?
"Make a shrine in your COMMUNITY, SON!! Put on the robes of a priest to Moore!! Live your life in humble service to the GODS OF SCIENCE!!"
Good advice, Adele! I've decided John Mattick, Bruce Ames and Ted Steele are better choices, however.
I'm not sure what "completely wrong" means here, since the statement is that AZT is unacceptable as a monotherapy, which means it is useful in conjunction with other therapies. On top of that, you seem unaware of the scientific method, you present ideas, test them, then rework them until you get somewhere closer to reality. Note, this is not what you do.
Dr. Sibailly has published research on HIV and is on that list. He doesn't want to be though, David Crowe just wouldn't remove his name.
-----Original Message-----
From: david.crowe@
Sent: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:00:00 -0600
To: tsibailly2000@
Subject:
Dr. Sibailly;
For some reason your email never reached me, so I apologize for the delay in responding. Thanks to Brad for forwarding the email.
First of all, a list does not require permission. There is a list of HIV-positive people on Wikipedia, for example, based on public information, just as your inclusion was based on public information. We really have no moral obligation to remove your name unless we somehow misquoted you. As a matter of principle, we always respect requests by someone to remove their name, but obviously we first have to perform due diligence on the request...
I am happy to remove your name, but first I need you to answer some questions that I have:
* Our listing is for a Severin Sibailly yet you are emailing me as Toussaint Sibailly. How do we know that you are Severin Sibailly?
* Do you deny ever saying, as recorded in a 1993 Meditel documentary, "Generally speaking the two women we have just seen this morning are asymptomatic. They have no signs of AIDS, but the problem is, we don't know when they were infected. But what puzzles us is the fact that many of the women who are classed as [HIV] negative fulfill the definitions for AIDS."? If you did not say this, then who is on tape making this statement? If you did say this, can you explain how this can be interpreted as support for the HIV=AIDS=Death dogma?
Regarding 1993, are you referring to the Bangui definition of AIDS which was developed in 1986, which does not require an HIV test, but only common symptoms like fever, cough, diarrhea and weight loss for an AIDS diagnosis? Or the US definition which, in 1993, was modified to allow people with a positive HIV test and low CD4 cell counts (<200) to be classified as AIDS despite no symptoms?
While you're at it, perhaps you could reveal what peer reviewed literature you think contains the proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS. I ask you this as a public service, since we have been unable to find this. I'm hoping that your firmly held views are not just based on your faith in higher status scientists, but based on actual science. If you cannot provide a list of references, I will sadly just have to assume that you are yet another faith-based doctor.
Regards,
David Crowe
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: tsibailly2000@
> Sent: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:49:13 +0000 (GMT)
> To: david.crowe@
> Subject: Re : Re : Inclusion on "AIDS rethinkers" listing
>
> Dear David,
>
> I don't want to spend my time on this.
>
> I am sure you did not understand understand what you have heard or seen. If you are talking to 1993, please refer to the Bagui's criteria for AIDS case definition.
>
> Just for intelectual honesty purpose, you should have asked for my permission before having my name on your list.
>
> I hope this is the last message I am sending to you and again I will appreciate it if you could remove my name on your list and forget me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dr Sibailly
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: david.crowe@
> Sent: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 18:00:00 -0600
> To: tsibailly2000@
> Subject: Re : Inclusion on "AIDS rethinkers" listing
>
> Toussaint;
>
> We added people to this list based on their published statements.
>
> Are you saying that you never said publicly that many HIV-negative women in Africa have Aids?
>
> If that statement is true, why would you want to be removed from a list that merely states the truth about your approach to AIDS?
>
> According to our information, you made the following statement on a Meditel video "AIDS and Africa" that first aired in 1993: "Generally speaking the two women we have just seen this morning are asymptomatic. They have no signs of AIDS, but the problem is, we don't know when they were infected. But what puzzles us is the fact that many of the women who are classed as [HIV] negative fulfill the definitions for AIDS."
>
> Do you deny that? Or can you explain how it doesn't mean what a straightforward interpretation of the words seems to say?
>
> And can you confirm that you go by the name Severin as well as Toussaint?
>
> Regards,
>
> David Crowe
>
I posted the full text of these articles on the string yesterday afternoon, but they were held back for approval. I just want to make sure they weren't missed by the denialists.
Here's an excellent article on the dangers of alternative medicines and quackery, from the UK press.
The cranks who swear by citronella oil
To its fans, homeopathy is the ultimate cure-all. In fact, its effects can be positively deadly
Nick Cohen
Sunday October 28, 2007
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2200814,00.html
And this one, from the New York Times, demonstrates the way that Duesberg and Mullis are regarded nowadays.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/weekinreview/28johnson.html
October 28, 2007
Ideas & Trends
Bright Scientists, Dim Notions
By GEORGE JOHNSON
I hope the links work as the articles make excellent reading, at least for those capable of understanding their messages.
Incidentally, "Fibba...." does have it right (for once) when he or she writes:
"Circular reasoning again? If a scientist questions the "alleged"causative role of HIV, then gosh, this is just NOT a CREDIBLE scientist."
That's exactly the point: Since there are no credible reasons to deny the causative role of HIV infection in AIDS or the beneficial effects of ARVs for treating HIV infection when it has caused symptomatic disease (AIDS), then by definition any scientist who does engage in those denials is simply not credible. That's why the careers of the very, very few AIDS denialist scientists imploded: not because they questioned the facts, but because they were so obviously wrong, to the point that they became regarded as foolish. From the career development/survival perspective, being regarded as a fool on the science is a state from which there is almost never any way back. It's not a "circular argument" per se, it's merely the facts of life in professional science. Galileo, the denialists' favorite scientist, is different from Duesberg in one critical regard: Galileo was right about the facts.
It's also worth studying Judge Sulan's outstanding analysis of what constitutes an "expert witness" in a lawsuit, an analysis he based on the shockingly inept performance of the "Perth Group" in the Paranzee trial (see the material posted on AIDS Truth). Judge Sulan's definition of an expert witness in a trial that involves the science of HIV and AIDS would exclude every single AIDS denialist scientist, as not one of them has ever studied HIV professionally.
As regards the scientists included on the RA list of alleged " AIDS rethinkers", that list is now being actively investigated and pruned. I noted above how "Cooler" falsely stated that certain scientists are AIDS denialists, when they are not. And as 'ElkMountainMan' notes above, the RA list is highly dubious in respect of how it has been assembled and maintained; a considerable number of the people listed on it are neither AIDS denialists nor even aware that they are listed as such. The dead ones (like Linus Pauling) can't ask to be removed, but the live ones can, and they are now doing so, as Mr "Press Release" David Crowe knows all too well. On that list, there is not a single credible scientist (see above).
"I'm not sure what "completely wrong" means here, since the statement is that AZT is unacceptable as a monotherapy, which means it is useful in conjunction with other therapies. On top of that, you seem unaware of the scientific method, you present ideas, test them, then rework them until you get somewhere closer to reality. Note, this is not what you do."
The statement is not
"AZT is unacceptable as a monotherapy"
but rather:
"AZT monotherapy is unacceptably toxic by today's standards. Everybody agrees, including John Moore and Mark Wainberg."
It is truely amazing...you see words where there are none...need to get your head checked
pat, please enlighten me about how that changes my statement? The specific claim is that AZT monotherapy is unacceptable due to its toxicity, how does that alter that AZT might be acceptable in conjunction with other drugs?
"Here's an excellent article on the dangers of alternative medicines and quackery, from the UK press today."
Very nice Professor Moore some morale boosting for the troops, a reminder of the horrific enemy lest they have doubts thanks to denialists propaganda. Who needs documentation of your charges and such niceties as due process, why not just inspire the ground troops by recommending the immediate rounding up of holistic physicians and treating them as heretics were in the Middle Ages. We need a New Inquisition to get pharma moving at high gear in these perilous times for the US dollar and an obvious remedy of getting those ARV's to Africa at maximum speed. We know how little concern our leaders have for collateral damage.
Also, following "molecular entry claw" (another tribute to your great work) let me praise your coming out as an essayist. My guess is both Michael Schermer and Anthony Liversidge are flattered by your imitations of their style, and it looks like you have a promising career as a professional skeptic. Only in the unlikely event of the collapse of your current career, of course.
I could at this point likewise recycle the pro altmed slogans. But I prefer for now to criticise, which, last time I checked, is still allowed in the good old US of A. It seems, my good professor, you've forgotten one important thing in your newfound zeal to attack alternative medicine in all its horrible incarnations. For, alas, the UK press you just cited is not peer reviwed nor did the hit jobbers who ran the story even bother to investigate the subject they were covering. Wouldn't professional standards of fair and objective journalism require them to find out what the homeopaths are basing their practice on? Is there no such literature at all? Is one supposed to take seriously the debunking of an immunologist (Benveniste) by a magician? Could such blasphemy as information theory supporting homeopathy ever come from the mouth of a molecular biologist? Or does it reduce, once again, to my propaganda is better than your propaganda?
As a careful scientist, I'm sure you realize it's incumbent upon your intelligent self to use that God given brain of yours to investigate and understand the other side's arguments so that your responses can be ... well ... scientific!
But no, it's much more fun to repeat ancient quackbuster slogans in that literary style you've recently picked up from the gentlemanly blog host of NAR but, alas, you haven't quite got it yet. His long winded essays do not rely on plagiarizing long articles to the extent that they exceed his own grammatically correct verbiage.
"With science treading right to the bleeding edge of the knowable, maybe the Royal Mail can be forgiven for mistaking pseudoscience for the real thing. In an article in The Observer of London, David Deutsch, a quantum theorist at Oxford University, dismissed Dr. Josephson's speculations as "utter rubbish." Dr. Deutsch is known for proposing the existence of a multiplicity of parallel universes."
But I do give you points for your bold leap into the world of quantum physics, since it's pretty much guaranteed that we can all play this game without knowing what we're talking about. But alas, even here the boundaries of what constitutes the knowable can be quite blurry when one contemplates such phenomena as dark energy and Boltzman brains. If one thinks of a god pushing the galaxies apart or another trickster god popping into existence for a few milliseconds to take a look around, well, those are just metaphors. Of course.
Meanwhile, in biomedical jobs, this kind of freewheeling speculation apparently must be stamped out at once. What a horror it must be to be employed in the Church of the Latter Day Molecular Biologists where constipated gods run around making sure that heretical inferences from data that support alternative medicine are verboten. This Church, I think, has three great commandments. One: Thou shalt not think of pseudoscientific things. Two: Pseudoscience is defined by the gods who employ you. Three: Thou shalt not question the definitions of pseudoscience as put forth by your gods, because never forget, we employ you.
Yours in Eris - May Discordia bless you and Praise f-ing Bob,
Gene
I think I should clarify what I personally think about AZT monotherapy, rather than have anyone assume anything based on what other people are saying (Mark Wainberg's views are up to him to express, should he choose to do so, not for me to guess at, although since my views are scientifically based, he'd probably agree with them).
AZT is no longer used as monotherapy for the same reason no HIV drug is ever now used as monotherapy: the rapid emergence of resistance due to selection for HIV-1 variants that are able to replicate in the presence of the drug. Resistance can emerge de novo, because of random mutation followed by selection for any virus that can replicate efficiently despite the presence of the drug. Alternatively, a pre-existing, minor variant(s) present among the HIV-1 quasispecies has a natural advantage in the presence of the drug and increases in relative prevalence to become the dominant virus. In either case, resistant strains expand to become the dominant population in vivo, and the drug loses effectiveness. This situation applies, as I say, to ALL HIV drugs tested to date. It typically takes several weeks, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter (it depends upon the nature of the resistance pathway, the number of mutations required to confer resistance, the fitness loss the resistance mutation confers on the virus, and whether compensatory mutations to increase fitness are also required).
Combining drugs with different mechanisms of action (e.g., a protease inhibitor, two different classes of RT inhibitor, a fusion inhibitor or an integrase inhibitor) largely overcomes this problem, because the probability of any one virus being resistant to two drugs simultaneously is less than the probability of it being resistant to any one drug (the odds are multiplicative, not additive). So when three different drugs are used, HIV-1 replication usually is suppressed, and stays suppressed for a prolonged period if the patient is adherent to therapy. That's the basis of combination therapy, which is clearly proven to work.
AZT at the doses used in combination therapy is not toxic for most people. The notion that "AZT is incompatible with life" is a standard denialist myth that reflects ignorance of pharmacology, toxicology, virology and, in general, science. It's been long refuted, but is still regularly wheeled out by the denialists as part of their AMERICAN IN PARIS approach to fooling some of the people some of the time (and themselves all of the time). Much higher doses of AZT than those used in HAART are probably toxic, but then that applies to ALL drugs (ever heard of the concept of an overdose?), just as it does to common salt or even water (both of which will kill humans when consumed to excess).
"pat, please enlighten me about how that changes my statement? The specific claim is that AZT monotherapy is unacceptable due to its toxicity, how does that alter that AZT might be acceptable in conjunction with other drugs?"
I posted the claim as written by...franklin?
Besides you know what you are trying to hide. Yes AZT monotherapy is worth shit but what you are forgetting to mention was that the dosage was increadibly toxic too just like JP Moore explains, everything in excess kills...its true. I have the feeling here you are trying NOT to mention the extremely high dosages. AZT can kill and it has killed many in the early days due to high dosages. So is AZT good for people? It appears that the less of that stuff you take, the longer you live.
Mr. Moore,
Does Bergman still believe Maggiore is HIV negative?
Montagnier and lo were evil hiv denilaists in 1990, infact when montagineir said "hiv might be benign" in 1990, half of the drug company hacks left the room. Thats what science is all about! When someone challenges the governments bogus hypothesis, just treat the scientist like garbage, it works, montagnier quickly changed his tune. Im sure this is the way nazi scientists would react if an honest german scientist said "all races are equal."
shyh ching lo md phd the cheif of the armed forces of pathology division of infectious disease unit and his staff applauded duesberg, Lo, one of the few scientists to examine the dead bodies of AIDS patients was puzzled when he could barely find any HIV.
He Said "aids is much more complicated than hiv"
"there is no good explanation how and why the virus breaks free of the antibody protection"
miami herald 1990
Do you think Lo and the rest of the scientists at the AFIP agree with Moore's intimidation tactics, especially when he was still in diapers while they were actually working in the labratory examining the bodies of AIDS patients?
Hes never retracted that statment, point being its going to be hard to get an honest answer from scientists with all the Stalinist intimidation that Moore uses. If you dont agree with me I'll smear your name and get you fired! Yeah thats what science is all about.
Moore is a fraud and a liar, thats why universities are shunning him when he tries to end people's careers. Keep it up, your just helping the denialist cause.
Nothing has changed since 1990, when these brave scientists spoke out then, AIDS inc flipped out in no different manner than they do now.
Walter gilbert repeateadly supported Deusberg publicly saying the lack of animal model made the case unproven. In one private email after years of being harrased by the intimidation tactics AIDS inc he said that the "success" of arv's made him change his mind,im sure he doesnt agree with the disgusting tactics of Moore to smear, name call and try to get fired people, like he does with Duesberg etc. Especially when he had the same views a short while ago.
One email meant to be private does not nullify the things gilbert said for years prior publicly, there still is no animal model, its been 20 years now and not one chimpanzee out of hundereds inoculated has died of AIDS.
As for the hundereds of scientists who work with hiv, if I worked for a company that had an idiotic buisness plan, as long as I got paid and would be unemployed without them, I wouldnt think much about it.
Oh by the way Margulis and Pollack, two more professers have just come out to expose the flaws in the hiv hypothesis.
Whoa now pat, I think it's quite a jump to say I am hiding something. All I did was point out that AZT monotherapy is something that most professionals no longer use but that does not mean it cannot be used with other drugs. I never claimed AZT monotherapy was a good idea nor did my statement require going into dosages in any way since that was not the point being made. If you want to talk about dosages then do so, but don't pretend that because I comment on a point you did, and not more, that I am some how hiding something.
cooler, do you have any awesome quotes from anything later than 1990? I'm not sure if you are aware, but science is quite dynamic, meaning things we believed to be valid 18 years ago may no longer be believed to be true. Please note, this does not appear to be true for yourself as I seem to see you post the same things over and over again despite corrections by others.
Apy
You said:
"AZT monotherapy is unacceptable due to its toxicity"
Now, you KNOW that it is not "monotherapy" that makes AZT toxic. You constructed this sentence to avoid having to write "AZT in high doses is toxic"...
We saw that years ago, dramatically reduced the dosages, threw in some coloured m&m's and called it "life-saving"
Yes, apy, I concur: "Cooler" does seem to have some (albeit flawed and twisted) knowledge of the state of AIDS science in the early 1990's, and next to nothing about what has happened since. This time-warp is of particular interest in relation to his claim earlier in this string that he's a young man who graduated from U of Cal in 2006. If that's a true statement, it would make him about 10 years old when the only events he appears to know a little about took place. Was he a precocious child? Or is he an adult whose intellectual development stopped at around the age of 10? Judged from his stated need to rely on a spell checker, it's hard to believe he graduated from any bona fide College, unless standards have dropped shockingly. Like I say, he's a typical AIDS denialist, hiding behind a pseudonym and making up the facts as he goes along, on a whim and as it suits him (or her).
Let me congratulate you Professor Moore for finally, at long last, publicly commenting in a substantive manner so that one can make out the subject in contention: the astounding, unprecedented and unique biological properties of this HIV-1 retrovirus. It now seems that you are inviting criticism of your beloved hypothesis. And my apologies to Elkie if I still owe him a response up there, but this is all too much for little ol' me. So I will proceed.
"Transmission of HIV-1 from a mother to an infant has been well documented at very low levels of maternal plasma viremia, based on cohort studies going back to the mid-1990s." (Professor Moore)
Transmission of a mother's antibodies to an infant has also been well documented. Endogenous not-usually-transcribed RNA in the blood of chronically stressed populations - well documented. Regulatory RNA in microvesicles that look like retroviruses? A hypothesis that's catching on with those who think out of the box.
Essex et al documented cross reactions of so-called HIV tests with prevalent tuberculosis and malaria infections. But I suspect this is another example of the repetition that has been debunked so many times by slogans and the posting of hundreds of titles which denialists ignore for the oddest of reasons. Such as: the article itself doesn't back up what's in the title, the paper assumes its own conclusions, no one can explain the paradoxical properties of lentivirus as quasispecies (such nonsensical ideas as Occam's razor be appied to all this data - I mean the very idea), etc. And my favorite mystical property attributed to 10kb of nucleotide information - the ability to hide from the immune system.
"Having said that, there are many, well established examples of HIV-infected men and women who control their infections for many years. They are generally referred to as 'Long term non-progressors' (or sometimes 'Elite Controllers'), and constitute a few percent of the total HIV-infected population. Various genetic factors, and probably some virologic factors, contribute to this fortunate outcome, an outcome not shared by the majority of HIV-1-infected people. Most long-term non-progressors have relatively low levels of plasma HIV-1 viremia, although this is not always seen, as there are multiple factors that can contribute to the non-progressive state." (ibid)
Elite Controllers. I like that, a sense of letting the cat out of the bag here. But let's see, we have "genetic factors" and "virological factors" that contribute to "fortunate outcomes" of long term non-progressors. Here we see a clear example of why HIV-1 science is still at the phlogiston phase, with not much rigor at all, at all. Oh yeah, viremia which once meant evidence of multiplying virus but in the Bizarro World created by the Church of the LDMB, we ignore greater sensitivity of the diagnostic tests with smaller fragments of the genome detected and how they boost those numbers into the 10^5 - 10^7 per ml range. Then, applying Zen logic to the problem of never having enough material to demonstrate that a whole entity is actually there behind those numbers - bingo - an argument that cannot be refuted.
Trust us folks, we're just saving lives not doing it for the money or the continued privileged employment (or retirements) we enjoy. Can we document how many lives we're prolonging with our miracle medicines, well not exactly see we have these surrogate markers and they've been disproven also but we must go along saving lives ... we never repeat ourselves because that would be evidence of mental disorder but we're the ones saving lives so no we can't be criticised and ...
luv and kisses ...
"Resistance can emerge de novo, because of random mutation followed by selection for any virus that can replicate efficiently despite the presence of the drug. Alternatively, a pre-existing, minor variant(s) present among the HIV-1 quasispecies has a natural advantage in the presence of the drug and increases in relative prevalence to become the dominant virus." (Professor Moore)
What's the catch? Try the wild ass guess known as "replicate efficiently". You see, here's another miraculous property of HIV-1 where reverse transcriptase makes an unprecedented evolutionary leap to behave as an RNA replicase and DNA transforms to RNA-like behavior, transubstantiations that have drawn the envy of the Catholic Church in their breathtaking implications.
Moore,
I know so much about microbiology from that time period because my sister was horribly ill with an undiagnosed infection that persisted for years causing a tremendous amount of suffering for her and our family, forcing me to scour pub med and the internet for answers.
It was Lo's groundbreaking work that was published in 1990 that led to her cure, the only scientist since koch to discover a microbe, mycoplasma pentetrans/incognitus that induced disease in every species of animal inoculated. After personally arranging for a test with Dr. garth nicolson, she tested positive and is now in remission. I'm sorry that you are a microbiologist at an "Ivy League" school and can not understand Kochs postulates and animal models. (I've never considered Cornell the real ivy league anyways, and I'm not alone. LOL)
The hiv orthodoxy did everything to supress and dismiss this research because it upset their monolithic hiv religion, hence attempting to murder millions of people infected with Lo's pathenognic mycoplamas that are the cause of many multi organic illnesses.
I really couldnt care less if you dont beleive I graduated from Cal, maybe I'll make a you tube video one day of my friends and I, all that have graduated from prestigious schools like Stanford and the Indian Institute of technology that doubt hiv hypothesis to prove what a bufoon you are.
Here's two excellent sites for those interested in exposing the dangers of Alternative Medicines and associated quackery for treating HIV infection (or indeed, for treating anything at all).
http://counterknowledge.com
http://www.quackometer.net
pat you seem to be harping on something I'm not sure of so I can't directly answer you unless you are specific. As stated by Dr Moore and you agreed, just about anything in excess is deleterious. One of the possible benefits of using multiple therapies is you can, perhaps, use a lesser dosage of one drug and there might be some synergy between the lot of them. My point seems very clear to me but perhaps that is only because I am aware of what I am attempting to say. AZT monotherapy is is ineffective. There are some issues with toxicity at high dosages as I understand but on top of that there is the issue of HIV mutating, which Dr Moore spoke to earlier. Now I'm aware that you are in some camp that either doesn't believe in HIV or does believe in it but not that it causes AIDS, I don't know since many seem more interested in opposing the HIV theory than presenting a rational explanation (except you jspreen, you are quite clear about your beliefs which is fantastic!). But many other people do believe the evidence that HIV causes AIDS and AZT monotherapy being ineffective is cause for concern so multiple therapies have been created and has been shown through that pesky scientific method to be more effective as a long term treatment. If there is some specific point I am missing that you feel I should bother with here then please tell me and provide some study or further information, rather than accuse me of being misleading or deceitful.
Now, if you stop for a second before writing a scathing response to this about how HIV doesn't cause AIDS or something similar bear in mind that the specific point I'm making is that the AZT monotherapy is ineffective so it has, for the most part, been replaced by more effective therapies. This is, as far as I know, quite accepted in the scientific community so I'm unsure of why you are so adamant in attacking AZT monotherapy when it seems most of the scientists have beat you to it.
Finally, if you have independently verifiable proof that high doses of AZT are being given to people and these are resulting in side effects that are worse than the perceived effects of AIDS then I'll read it or listen to it or whatever but please bear in mind it must be independently verifiable or else you are wasting my time and I won't give a dam if you say AZT causes monkeys to fly out patients asses splitting them in half in the process.
Inducing death and disease in every animal inoclated, chimpanzees, mice, monkeys and embryos. Lo is nobel prize material for discovering this, and those who have dismissed his work will have some serious questions to answer for enabling this genocide. This is criminal in my mind.
"pat you seem to be harping on something I'm not sure of so I can't directly answer you unless you are specific."
I am quite specific and you obfustcate when you say AZT "monotherapy" is toxic.
The statement which started the craze:
I don't see me saying anything htere other than it's unacceptable as a monotherapy. I did not give a reason, much less an obfuscated one. After you berated me about it I said "due to its toxicity". Issues with its toxicity aren't even the full story but there I said it. The reasoning behind AZT being unacceptable as a monotherapy is rather irrelevant to my statement since that doesn't seem to be what you were talking about in the piece I responded to, yet you seem to think it, for some reason, makes or breaks my response.
I would like to make one correction to my original statement though. I claim that AZT being unacceptable as a monotherapy meant it would be acceptable when used with something else, this is obviously not true, there is nothing that states if something is not good alone it will be good mixed. But this does seem to be the case with AZT, it seems to work quite well when mixed with other therapies.
Pat repeats the discredited Denialist claims about AZT:
S/he does so without citing any actual scientific data.
Pope did the same last month on the "Intro to HIV Denial Thread."
But when we reviewed the results of Palella et al. (1998), who studied a large population of AIDS patients treated in New York City between 1994 and 1997, we found that the mortality rate for patients receiving no anti-retroviral therapy was 1.5 times greater than the mortality rate of patients receiving nucleoside analogue monotherapy.
Compared to patients receiving combination therapy including a protease inhibitor, patients receiving no antiretroviral therapy had a 4.5-fold increased risk of death.
So nucleoside analogue monotherapy was better than no treatment, but, as Dr. Moore explained, above, combination therapies are even more effective.
pat seems to give himself away in his own statement:
AZT in excess kills? I'm not surprised to hear that but could you please define 'excess'?
pat, could you please tell us what dosage AZT is fatal at over what period of time? Could you also tell us what the typical AZT dosage is under monotherapy as well as in possible usage in multiple therapies?
Please note, I am not arguing that AZT in excess does not harm a person, I am curious to learn the dosages and time frame for the harm and how this compares for someone on ARVs.
Thanks
1500mg...1200 mg like in them days. You're the educator, you tell me how long anyone can keep that up.
December 27, 1989
Federal Delay in Lowering Standard For Doses of AIDS Drug Is Assailed
By GINA KOLATA
I'm not an educator and never claimed to be.
Do you have anything more recent than 1990? See my statement to cooler earlier.
You did not fully answer my question too, please answer fully.
Cooler, I don't read Dr. Lo's work the same way you do. He proposed initially that M. penetrans was a potentially etiologic agent for AIDS, then, as time passed and he did more experiments, proposed that both M. penetrans and M. fermentans potentiated HIV infection and possibly also cachexia in AIDS patients. These days, his mycoplasma work is mostly about malignant transformation/oncogenesis.
I found papers by Dr. Lo, in addition to the silvered leaf monkey paper, that looked at M. penetrans in chicken embryos (a proposed culture method, because culturing mycoplasmas is really difficult), but that's really all I found as far as discussion of animal inoculation was concerned. What's the citation for the other inoculations, please?
Dr. Lo did look for associations between M. penetrans and disease in Gulf War I vets and in people with chronic fatigue, and didn't find any:
Lo SC, Levin L, Ribas J, Chung R, Wang RY, Wear D, Shih JW. 2000. Lack of serological evidence for Mycoplasma fermentans infection in army Gulf War veterans: a large scale case-control study.Epidemiol Infect. 2000 Dec;125(3):609-16.
Komaroff AL, Bell DS, Cheney PR, Lo SC. Absence of antibody to Mycoplasma fermentans in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. 1993. Clin Infect Dis. 1993 Dec;17(6):1074-5.
The reason that they look for antibodies for mycoplasmas instead of culturing the organisms directly is, apart from the difficulty of getting the culture out intact and uncontaminated from the appropriate human tissue at the time of disease, that mycoplasmas are notoriously slow-growing to culture on their own, but are a common contaminant in cell and tissue culture. So they're really hard to grow and look at directly, but we do mount immune responses to them. Dr. Lo clearly didn't fulfill Koch's postulates for cachexia or immunodeficiency and mycoplasmas - he didn't publish anything about infecting people with isolated and cultured mycoplasma and re-creating the disease. (And he has 45 PubMed-indexed papers on mycoplasmas, most of which deal with human disease or models thereof, so presumably he's not being prevented from publishing his work.)
This hilarious thread has in common with most other dog fights over the idea whether or not Aids is caused by HIV - or, while we're at it, whether or not innumerable pieces of human flesh together with truckloads of aircraft parts were hidden between the weeds of an immaculate lawn -, that even a simpleminded and only moderately informed 21st century Internet surfer merely needs to read a couple of random contributions to be immediately catapulted some centuries back in time and stand eye to eye with a bunch of Spanish Inquisition professionals.
Ok, the Spanish Inquisition bit is nothing new so let's skip that and get to the better part. To me, what's so infinitely interesting is the hilarious side of the whole thing. Example: The so-called Denialists are said, over and over again, to use the moving goalpost tactics. Now, each time I read this ridiculous accusation, the same phrase invariably pops up in my admittedly extremely powerful brain:
Wat je zegt ben je zelf.
Or, infinitely more comprehensible for everyone here:
C'est celui qui le dit qui l'est.
Or, if you know how to word it in English: This is your moment of glory. Grab it! Rise and shine, post your translation and help the good to definitely get rid of the bad and the ugly.
The goal post moving, it's on the apologists' side exclusively. Didn't you notice? Yes, you did? Of course you did, it's so obvious. You know what J. P. Moore & Co make me think of? Of some moron climbing a wooden pole on fire. Up they go, desperately trying to get their asses away from the flames. But the higher they climb, the harder the fall.
Goal post moving... You say the initial publications don't hold any credible argument with which to defend the HIV=Aids hypothesis. And what do they say?
Morons as I've said! Don't they know that if you choose the wrong direction, all progress will only get you further away from your goal?
Yes, people probably have no idea what it was like here before vaccinations and anti-biotics as well.
I have a book here (I'm in Scotland) called "Battle for health", published in 1944. It uses what were then cutting edge graphical representations to get across what effects modern medicine has had. Smallpox, from hundreds a year to 1; Diptheria, 12 through 26 down to 8 per hundred thousand. And so on.
Not to mention that even after WWW2, there were still sanatoriums outside many towns. My sister stayed in what had been one when she had her first radiotherapists job, and I think I worked out that the place had been a sanatorium from its location, and it turned out I was correct.
People are scarily uneducated about what keeps them safe.
all progress will only get you further away from your goal?
Yea Jan... Like this great news...
"The Merck vaccine's failure is not only a big disappointment for the developer, it even has shattered hopes of all the AIDS preventing agencies and AIDS researchers who were desperately waiting for a preventative vaccine to treat the lethal infectious disease."
(click on "carter" for link)
Dear Brad,
Thank you for posting the exchange between Dr. T.S. Sibailly and David Crowe. It supports my points from this morning better than anything I could write.
In his email to Dr. Sibailly, Crowe shows his true colors. He writes,
There is a list of HIV-positive people on Wikipedia, for example, based on public information, just as your inclusion was based on public information.
Of course, Dr. Sibailly's inclusion was based not on public information, but on David Crowe's interpretation of public info, a quote. From a sentence in an interview, Crowe decided that Dr. Sibailly doubted that HIV causes AIDS. Without confirming this with Dr. Sibailly, Crowe included his name on a list of denialists.
What Crowe did to Dr. Sebailly has a legal name: defamation. What if I found a quote from a respected scientist saying in an interview, "Yeah, I like kids," and I twisted this into a sordid admission of perverted sexual appetites for young children? What if I then listed the scientist's name on a 'net list of "The 2500: Perverted and Proud?" This is no different from what Crowe has done to Sibailly.
"Due diligence," writes Crowe, yet he hasn't the ability to look up Dr. Sibailly's name? Listed as "Sibailly, TS" on his writings? TS, Toussaint Severin. And Crowe demands references, extensive justifications.
Twice, Sibailly demanded that he be removed. Crowe ignored him (didn't get the email), then made his own rude demands.
Today, Dr. Sibailly remains on this shamefully fraudulent and defamatory list. Apparently, Crowe is angling for a lawsuit...for publicity's sake, of course.
Moore et al.
HIV=AIDS was "proven" ca. 1984 (The well read I'm suer will recognize that year) Nobody has set out to prove the theory since, so what's all this after 1990 stuff?
Is AZT at 1200-1500 mg. a day for extended periods a good idea or not?
Did Moore, Gallo et al. claim it was a good idea back when it was common practice?
Oh but that was then, now we KNOW there aren't any WMDs.
How many people did you kill?
"I'm not an educator and never claimed to be.
Do you have anything more recent than 1990? See my statement to cooler earlier.
You did not fully answer my question too, please answer fully."
This is a piece FROM THAT TIME when AZT was given in highly toxic doses. What do you mean more recent? Oh, I get it...you have flash cards to tell you what to write.
Which question?
There ARE problems with the peer-reviewed literature and the publishing practices that prevail today
(John Moore - when it's not about HIV science)
Re AZT,
every drug must be evaluated in terms of cost and benefit.
Benefit: AZT is quite effective in the short term (for example, to prevent transmission) and in combination with other drugs. Over the long term, and by itself, AZT increases survival chances over no drug treatment, as was pointed out earlier today.
Cost: long-term AZT monotherapy (and long-term monotherapy with most drugs) can lead to drug resistance. This is the main reason (not the toxicity issue) for why AZT monotherapy is no longer the standard. There are better strategies today, many, many different combinations. The toxicity of AZT, as for any drug, is dose-dependent. As we discussed weeks ago, the side effects even of high-dose AZT are not indistinguishable from AIDS, and not every recipient has side effects. It is false to state that 400,000 people died from AZT. They died of AIDS. Or do Patrick and MEC have some cases of AIDS-free AZT fatalities they wish to share with us?
Or do Patrick and MEC have some cases of AIDS-free AZT fatalities they wish to share with us?
!!!!??? Sir Elkie, I'll give you a chance to reconsider that one, since after all you are a scienist and everything
As fo the other part of your inane Comment, when your local MD pharma drug pusher anno 1986 saw your positive HIV test + the following symptoms, what do you think the diagnosis was going to be, 1. AZT poisoning 2. AIDS?
"RETROVIR (ZIDOVUDINE) MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH SEVERE HEMATOLOGIC TOXICITY INCLUDING GRANULOCYTOPENIA AND SEVERE ANEMIA PARTICULARLY IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED HIV DISEASE (SEE WARNINGS). PROLONGED USE OF RETROVIR HAS ALSO BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH WITH SYMPTOMATIC MYOPATHY SIMILAR TO THAT PRODUCED BY HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS." (Glaxo Wellcome)
Please allow me to translate. "Granulocytopenia", also called "neutropenia" means that the primary cells of the immune system, neutrophils, have been depleted, along with some other cells, eosinophils and basophils, which are less numerous but still important.
This condition can be mild, moderate, or severe. The clinical course of severe neutropenia, as described in the basic pathology textbook, Pathologic Basis of Disease by Robbins (5th Ed.), which is used in most medical schools to study pathology, describes what happens to people with severe neutropenia.
CLINICAL COURSE: The symptoms and signs of neutropenias are those of bacterial infections. ... In severe agranulocytosis with virtual absence of neutrophils, these infections may become so overwhelming as to cause death within a few days." (Robbins, p.631).
This sounds disturbingly similar to a description of AIDS. Robbins also states, in italics, that "the most severe forms of neutropenias are produced by drugs." What is not mentioned in any textbook is that AZT has been found in five studies performed after its rushed FDA approval to be equally toxic to T-cells, the very cells whose absence is blamed on HIV.(2) This is not surprising since T-cells are produced in the bone marrow, and all the other cells produced there are depleted by AZT. AZT may cause an initial increase in T-cells as the body's immune system responds to the toxic stress being placed on it by AZT, but in relatively short time the T-cells, neutrophils, and other immune system cells begin to decline.
http://notaids.com/en/aidsmeds
Nonscientists often seem to have the mistaken idea that a theory is "proven" by some key paper and once it is done it is done. This is not the way scientists see it.
Science is not mathematics. Scientific proof is by exclusion, so a theory may be proved false, but it cannot be proved true.
So a theory is continuously being tested. What often confuses nonscientists is that once theory X begins to be widely accepted, scientists stop bothering to mention in their papers that they are testing theory X, because you don't get much credit for providing more evidence to support an idea that most people already believe is probably correct. The stated goal of the paper will be to find out something else, and the fact that the results are consistent with theory X will often not even rate a mention. The experiments that test the underlying theory may even be referred to as controls, and might even be only briefly noted in the Methods section rather than Results. But that doesn't mean that scientists don't notice whether the results are consistent with accepted theory.
So we often see denialists and scientists talking genuinely at cross purposes, with denialists demanding "the paper" that proves HIV causes AIDS--and when scientists respond with blank looks or a general admonition to "look it up in PubMed," they think that we are being deceptive or willfully obtuse.
Or else the denialist starts nitpicking at Gallo's work thinking that must be "the paper," because the titles and abstracts of subsequent papers don't seem to mention anything about testing the theory--they all just seem to assume it to be correct. While the scientists wonder why those denialist guys are harping on obsolete work, when there are literally tens of thousands of papers confirming those results, and with better methodology to boot.
The difference, of course, is that the experienced scientist knows the predictions of the theory, and is mentally checking all of the results of each paper for consistency with the theory, whether the authors mention it or not. For most us, it is not some key paper that convinced us, but the steady accumulation of a huge mass of data that was gathered incidentally along the way.
You appear to have some major comprehension problems. Rex Poindexter died from AIDS.
Christine Maggiore made up some story about Rex choosing to die.
Rex Poindexter's partner responded.
The "rethinker" movement is dependent upon a few "dissident scientists" such as Duesberg who are HIV negative and a steady supply of HIV positive people that want to believe that HIV does not cause AIDS.
Every now and then a dissident will come onto one of the rethinker websites saying that he/she has such and such an opportunistic infection and ask other "rethinkers" what they should do. They get lot's of helpful advice about realigning their chakras and which homeopathic remedies to take and a list of doctors that practise orgone therapy or ozone therapy or both. For some reason you don't hear from the former dissidents again. But not to worry because there is a steady supply of people infected with HIV that want to deny that HIV causes AIDS.
Jen m,
the silver leaf monkeys only had a weak antibody response when near death,so The nicolsons stress using the PCR. When Lo first published on finding mycoplasma incognitus in AIDS patients, and hiv negative immunocompetent people who died of mysterious infections he used the PCR and the electron microscope, and culture to identify the organism, not antibody testing, knowing full well its not reliable.
The nicolsons have found Lo's pathenogenic mycoplasmas via pcr in a subset of patients misdiagnosed with ALS/RA/CFS. Even the DOD confirmed that mycoplasma incognitus was in the blood of 45% of GWI vets in their rigged GWI antibiotic study.
Why Lo suddenly decided to use antibody testing is very strange, almost as strange as Garth nicolson being visited by armed defense intelligence agents threating him to stop his research when he found it in the blood of GWI vets. Seems as though it was part of the bioweapons program, open minded people should read true story slightly fictionilized called Project Day Lily.
I dont get it, your country murdered 3 million in vietnam, 1 million in Iraq, the tuskegee experiment etc, and you people call me a wacko when I bring up possible criminal behavior by the state. Some of you need help.
Lo inoculated mice, chimpanzees, silver leafed monkeys and embryos inducing disease and death. He didnt find it one healthy control.
Youve seen the studies on embryos deforming/dying and the monkeys who suffered a fatal wasting disease. Lo inoculated mice as well, You will probably have to have full access to the Journal he published in to see the details. Here is a quote from NIH scientist tully.
"The meeting was led by Dr. Joel B. Baseman, a mycoplasma expert at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio. He said the participants were ''very impressed with the quality of science that Dr. Lo's group displayed.''
''The pathology data was solid and convinced us that the agent is in the tissues,'' Dr. Baseman said. The ability of M. incognitus to cause a fatal wasting disease in monkeys and mice persuaded most participants that the microbe ''has the potential to cause disease in humans,'' Dr. Baseman said
New york times 1990
Reccomendation by the panel was for more funding, result, Fauci sabotaged it, caused genocide, and Lo gave up. Luckily Nicolson carried on and has saved many lives.
As for the chimpanzee inoculation, it came later in one of Lo's patents in 1993. Lo probably realized the whole scientific process was dominated by drug company hacks and crooked politicians like Fauci, so I dont blame him for not trying to publish again, when he already induced disease in mice and monkeys, which is ironic when hiv, hpv and hep c do zilch in animals, and it was like pulling teeth to get any funding from the lying murderer Fauci and his retroviral hack pals like Gallo.
An excerpt from Lo's patent in 93.
Sixteen chimpanzees are divided into four groups. Group A is inoculated intravenously with 1 ml of M. penetrans as isolated in Example 1 Group B is inoculated with 1 ml of fluid containing 10.sup.6 M. penetrans-infected mammalian cells. Group C is inoculated with 1 ml of fluid containing 10.sup.6 inactivated or attenuated M. penetrans, and Group D is the control group and did not receive an inoculation of the infected mammalian cells.
All chimpanzees in Groups A and B developed symptoms of AIDS. However, none of the chimpanzees in Groups C and D developed the symptoms of AIDS. The chimpanzees of Group C are rendered immune to subsequent challenge of intravenous inoculation with 1 ml of M. penetrans or 1 ml containing 10.sup.6 M. penetrans-infected NIH/3T3 cells.
This agent is real and is slowly spreading through the population causing a wide array of multi organic illnesses often misdiagnosed with garbage can diagnosis like CFS/als/ra. Anyone that denies it has no understanding of microbiology.
WTF?
Jen m,
I have a long post responding to your post on Lo and mycoplasmas awaiting moderation, hopefully it will get posted soon.
Let me guess, Cooler.
You recommend that she Google a certain work of fiction.
You need to forget spelling, syntax and grammar.
[cooler]shyh lo highest army scientist ever bow head in awe! monkeys injectd all die/sicken CFS GWS AIDS mycoplasma incognitus googel projectdaylily true science partily fictivalised[/cooler]
I already told you, your whole career is a work of fiction, microbes that do zilch in animals and have 40 year window periods like HPV are pushed on the public by frauds like you, where as other microbes that induce disease/death in every animal slowly spread through the population, destroying people and their families. Keep up the good work.
I suggest you and Moore intern in Lo's lab in DC to learn about how to really prove a microbe is pathenogenic.
This is getting really insulting, you are insulting my sisters illness, this washed up computer repair salesmen who pretends to be a microbiologist, you people make me sick.
Nobody that I can see is questioning whether mycoplasmas are pathogenic. They are questioning whether they cause CFS, GWS, ALS, AIDS .... These are two separate questions which your addled mind cannot seem to differentiate.
Are you stupid?
CFS is a denegrating blanket term invented by the CDC to marginilize the disease, grouping people with several different diseases under one denegrating umbrella. You dont group diseases by the symptoms, you group them by the cause, computer repair salesmen.
If we grouped diseases by the symptoms then everybody with a headache and fever would be diagnosed with meningitis.
You group diseases by the cause, and a new disease catergory called "mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans positive" should be created, and symptomatic patients who are positive should be treated.
PhD: What do you want us to say? Yes, we did it. We made a mistake and killed off all those AIDS people with AZT ? Well just forget it, we will never confess to this. That will never happen. Besides, I was still in graduate school when that happened, so I can't be blamed. We were all just doing our jobs. Its not easy competing for grant money and get ahead in academia.
MD, NIH: Yes of course the AZT killed many AIDs cases. In those days we didn't know what we know now. Besides, we had to give them the AZT, or our own careers would have been destroyed. The FDA approved AZT and that was the accepted treatment at the time. I wasn't responsible for that. I am a good person, I was only doing my job.
Anonymous: Nazi doctors performing medical experiments on concentration camp victims during the holocaust also considered themselves to be "good people" just doing their jobs.
After wiping out thousands of drug addicts, homosexuals and minorities with AZT, how could anyone trust the toxic drugs of the white coats? People do remember. Trust is a difficult thing to regain once lost.
This is the randomized placbo-controlled trial that established the efficacy of AZT when used at a dose of 250 mg every four hours (1500 mg per day).
When the study was terminated, 19 patients receiving placebo had died but only 1 patient receiving AZT had died.
Hardly supportive of the denialist canard that high-dose AZT was equivalent to poisoning AIDS patients.
The essayist that Tara links in the top post and thinks is so great is Greta Christina, who writes pornography and sex toy reviews.
Greta is currently writing "Best Erotic Comics," and is the editor of "Paying For It: A Guide by Sex Workers for Their Clients." Greta Christina lives in San Francisco with her wife, Ingrid.
Greta Christina's blog is sponsored by sex toys ads. Needless to say Greta is not a virologist, nor even a biologist, but she does have a degree from Reed College and believes in astrology.
Way to go Tara, you really know how to pick them. Where is your next HIV AIDS article coming from, Mad Magazine ?
Sorry to burst your bubble, frankie.
The only way you could burst a bubble is if you could explain why 19 died in the placebo group compared to only one in the AZT arm.
None of the speculations made by various denialists can account for this. If unblinding really was a problem and patients swapped placebo for AZT as alleged then this would have lead to more equal mortality in both groups.
The results from the trial demonstrate that AZT monotherapy in the short term dramatically reduces mortality in people with full blown AIDS.
Very easy. The study lasted only 4 months. The results were not reproducible. And, most critically, the investigators compromised and corrupted their own study by giving multiple blood transfusion to 30 patients in the AZT arm, who were suffering life-threatening anemia from the drug, and probably would have died without such transfusions.
Did you read only the abstract or the entire paper, Chris?
Above, you were busted for lying:
So you are correct you copied and paseted from the 1989 PNAS paper. I was wrong. Happy?
In acknowledging your lie, you lied again. I cited a section from the prestigious, high-impact journal, Proceedings of National Academy of Science. Of course, you evade the substance of the citations which demonstrated that as of 1989, the virus still did not satisfy Koch's postulate. Then, you throw up all these lies and distractions.
It is clear you have no interest in science. You distort your opponent's argument, selectively cite papers, read only the abstracts, not the entire papers, and lie.
This is typical of an activist, wedded a priori to an opinion, not to facts. Good luck in your computer field.
How interesting that John P. Moore would tout his much ballyhooed AIDStruth.org website, the one that gets a meager 60 or hits per day, according to Science
Here's what the Editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, had to say about it:
"Science is treated as truth, that anything that's published in a journal has to be right. That's wrong. We publish stuff that's wrong every day. And the idea that science is about truth on a daily basis is a complete flaw, so I worry about you calling your website AIDS.truth. That creates an expectation. It fuels the myth that science is delivering truth on a daily basis. And we know it doesn't." (Richard Horton, International AIDS Conference, 8/06.)
Of course, AIDS isn't about science. It's about politics, selling drugs, and providing jobs to mediocre scientists -- like Moore.
Wow! That deserves to be in BOLD PRINT:
Here's what the Editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, had to say about AIDSTRUTH:
"Science is treated as truth, that anything that's published in a journal has to be right. That's wrong. We publish stuff that's wrong every day. And the idea that science is about truth on a daily basis is a complete flaw, so I worry about you calling your website AIDS.truth. That creates an expectation. It fuels the myth that science is delivering truth on a daily basis. And we know it doesn't." (Richard Horton, International AIDS Conference, 8/06.)
Firstly, I acknowledged I was wrong. There is a difference bewteen lying and being wrong. It was mistake on my part and I did the right thing by admitting that I made a mistake.
Duesberg selectively cherry picked papers in his 1989 paper. He was not honestly reporting the science. The papers I gave you, which you show no sign of reading, show that HIV is indeed detectable through virus culture and PCR in virtually all cases of AIDS. You comment that Duesberg was right in 1989 is hardly relevant if he was wrong in 1990.
None of this explains why 19 died in the placebo group compared to 1 in the AZT group. Are you saying that people in the placebo group died because they weren't given blood transfusions?
The study was terminated early (after 5.5 months) because there was a huge difference between the mortality in the placebo group and the AZT group.
The discussion of the paper concludes with "Further studies will be needed to define the optimal dose of AZT and to understand the full range of benefit in the various stages of HIV infection."
Further studies showed that AZT was equally efective at reduced doses and with fewer sides and that AZT monotherapy was not beneficial during the clinical asymptomatic stage of HIV infection.
Chris,
AZT is Azidothymidine. I'm sure a man of your intelligence knows that DNA is composed of A(Adenine), C (Cytosine), G (Guanine) and T (Thymidine).
That is why AZT is called a nucleoside analog -- the nucleoside (Thymidine), the analog (imitation).
In short, AZT is phony DNA, meant to terminate cell division. So, HIV is dangerous -- they claim -- because it kills cells. Well, AZT kills cells, too. Much more efficiently, whether used in monotherapy or jumbled together in a strange chemical "cocktail"
Thanks for the lecture. It's a pity that you get all your information from denialist websites.
Contrary to denialist folklore AZT was dropped as a cancer drug not because it was too toxic but because it failed to inhibit the growth of cancer cells. It wasn't particularly good at inhibiting DNA polymerases.
AZT has a higher affinity for HIV reverse transcriptase than for cellular DNA polyemerases. This means that it can inhibit the replication of HIV at concentrations lower than that necessary to inhibit cellular DNA polymerases. (There are some cellular DNA polymerases in mitochondria that are more susceptible to AZT and this one of the reasons for AZT's toxicity.) An contrary to Duesberg's assertions the purpose of AZT therapy is not to kill HIV infected T-cells but to inhibit HIV replication.
The Fischl study demonstrated that at least in the short term in patients with severe immune suppression that the benefits of AZT monotherapy outweighed the toxicities.
I finally read the essay linked in the original post. Few writers are so eloquent where personal experience and sexuality intersect politics. I'm glad I read it, and don't think I could've said any of it better.
It also strikes me as similar to the current push to record the memories of WWII survivors and the concerted efforts to memorialize the Jewish holocaust. I'd like to see a movement dedicated to gathering and preserving the memories of gay survivors of the early days of AIDS. It was unimaginable, and we need to know, empathize with, and never forget this important piece of the history of being human.
An intelligent blog that can deal with sexuality is a rare find, too. Definitely goes into my bookmarks (the non-worksafe ones). And Greta Christina's unashamed candor is just as brave and clear when she's writing about other subjects as when she writes on sexuality. This one's a keeper.
It's a good thing that a HIV Antibody Test or CD4 test wasn't around during the holocaust or it would have been stated that these people died from AIDS instead of malnutrition and lack of proper medical care. How ridiculous now to state that some drug users, malnourihsed or persons with chronic health issues are dying from an unproven, mutating virus. This makes just as much sense as that. Every AIDS defining disease has been on the planet as long as those of who are HIV+ have been around. We just created a new game or disease with a new name and new criteria. It isn't real, only to those who profit from it.
Ahhh... I told myself I would stay away from this blog, but some things are simply too much to resist -- almost like crack cocaine (not that I'd know...)
"So we often see denialists and scientists talking genuinely at cross purposes, with denialists demanding 'the paper' that proves HIV causes AIDS -- and when scientists respond with blank looks or a general admonition to 'look it up in PubMed,' they think that we are being deceptive or willfully obtuse.
Or else the denialist starts nitpicking at Gallo's work thinking that must be 'the paper,' because the titles and abstracts of subsequent papers don't seem to mention anything about testing the theory -- they all just seem to assume it to be correct. While the scientists wonder why those denialist guys are harping on obsolete work, when there are literally tens of thousands of papers confirming those results, and with better methodology to boot.
The difference, of course, is that the experienced scientist knows the predictions of the theory, and is mentally checking all of the results of each paper for consistency with the theory, whether the authors mention it or not. For most us, it is not some key paper that convinced us, but the steady accumulation of a huge mass of data that was gathered incidentally along the way."
{Ahem}... Pardon my French, but what a load of horseshit.
In ANY scientific theory, there is either a single paper or a collection of papers that establishes that theory.
For example, if someone asks you for the scientific proof of the double-helix structure of DNA, you can quote the 1953 Watson-Crick paper (which -- ironically -- probably wouldn't pass "peer review" today) originally proposing it, and any working biologist could easily come up with a handful of important papers in the subsequent decade further elucidating the structure of DNA and confirming the double-helix hypothesis.
For another example, I'm sure if many of you were given a week's worth time (or less) in the stacks, you could find the pivotal papers supporting the half dozen or so multiple lines of evidence proving the theory of evolution. It might take more time than for the double-helix structure of DNA, but it wouldn't be hard.
If we wanted to know why all working physicists think the electromagnetic theory is true, we could cite a veritable string of papers -- both theoretical and experimental -- conducted by Faraday, Maxwell, Ampere, Hertz, Lorentz, and Boltzmann.
And while it is technically true that in mathematics, a theorem only needs to be "proved once", there is such a thing as "experimental verification" even in mathematics -- different proofs may be found for the same theorem, using different techniques, or totally different approaches; multiples examples from widely varying branches of mathematics might verify the result; and of course, the most important "verification" of all -- the proof(s) is read repeatedly by more and more mathematicians. In any case, citing papers in math is no problem.
Now of course, especially in the non-mathematical cases above, actually going through and assembling the references and papers into a coherent summary article would be a tedious chore, and given that most of the relevant working practitioners in the fields involved are already thoroughly convinced of the claims, they would consider it also an extraordinary waste of time.
HOWEVER,
IF PRESSED, such a tedious chore could be accomplished. For example,
Suppose you're a geneticist, and someone came up to you and claimed that the double-helix structure of DNA was all some gigantic "hoax" manufactured by the "genetics establishment" to maintain the job security and grant funding for geneticists. And that your "secret decoder ring" really was part of some ritualistic cult. After said geneticist got over his/her justifiable indignation at the charge, suppose someone came to the geneticist and said, "I'll pay you handsomely to go to the stacks and assemble the most convincing summary article with references that you can muster establishing the double-helix structure of DNA. I'll even pay for your salary for time off from work, and smooth things over with your boss." Who could refuse? And who doubts that the geneticist would succeed? It's a slam dunk. And without citing some anonymous collection of "tens of thousands of papers confirming the theory, with better methodology to boot". And not some "steady accumulation of a huge mass of data that was gathered incidentally along the way." And without telling them to "look it up in PubMed". I'm talking about SPECIFIC PAPERS WITH NAMES AND TITLES AND JOURNAL NAMES AND REFEREES, THAT YOU CAN HOLD IN YOUR HAND.
And you could say a similar thing with regard to the theory of evolution. Yeah, it would be tedious and frustrating and seem like a waste of time. But if you were paid enough, you could do it. And it's been done. I've read books that run down exactly what the main lines of evidence for evolution are, and for each line, some of the major SPECIFIC papers supporting that line. It's one of the major reasons I think the theory of evolution is true.
And so on, and so on. For electromagnetic theory, for the theory of functions of a complex variable, for ANY major theory in science or mathematics, you can do the SAME THING. So don't tell me "those denialist guys are harping on obsolete work". And don't tell me I "don't understand science" -- I understand ****ing science.
So, let's see how the HIV hypothesis stands up in this light.
In May 1984, Robert Gallo published four articles in Science magazine which he claimed a month earlier supported the claim that HTLV-III was the "probable cause of AIDS". At this point, Montagnier's 1983 paper on LAV was the only previous paper purporting a viral link to AIDS, and even Montagnier was extremely cautious in his claims about a causal relationship. So basically, Gallo's May 1984 papers were the FIRST papers to make a BOLD claim about a viral aetiology of AIDS. So, at this point, the viral hypothesis was not much more than a sparkle in Gallo's eyes.
I would now like to quote extensively from the Preface to the 1986 publication "Confronting AIDS", published by the Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academy of Sciences:
"In October 1985 the Institute of Medicine devoted its annual meeting to the subject of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)... That annual meeting was not intended to develop recommendations about the best course of action for dealing with the problems it surveyed, but the Institute of Medicine realized that recommendations were needed and that, to develop them, national leadership was essential. As a result, in early 1986 the presidents of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), with the approval of the councils of these organizations, decided to initiate a special effort to assess the extent of the problems arising from AIDS and to propose an appropriate national response.... The topics to be addressed in the study were specified as follows: 'The committee shall assess the current understanding of the virus that causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) [my emphasis], its transmission, the natural history of infection and associated disease, the epidemiology of conditions associated with the virus, and the likely trends in these."
TIME OUT.
The period of time between May 1984 and October 1985 is 17 months. SOMETIME in that 17 month period, the HIV hypothesis went from being a sparkle in Robert Gallo's eyes, to being a threat that warranted a multifaceted approach by the leading medical and scientific institutions of the United States. MOREOVER, in just 17 months time, it had already been concluded by the leading medical and scientific institutions of the US (the NAS and IOM) that:
1. "AIDS" is a coherent disease entity.
2. "AIDS" is infectious ("transmission"; "natural history of infection").
3. "AIDS" is caused by a virus (HTLV-III/LAV).
Now, I have a VERY simple question for all the AIDS apologists in the house:
QUESTION: What paper, or group of papers, published in the 17-month period between Gallo's May 1984 Science papers, and October 1985, convinced the leading medical and scientific experts of the United States of the veracity of the above 3 statements?
Harvey Bialy has already identified the 3 papers he believes transformed HTLV-III from the "probable cause of AIDS" into "the AIDS virus" between May 1984 and January 1985, (Google "Fast Food Etiology: The Invention of the AIDS Virus by Science and Nature") and has found them totally lacking in support of the relevant claim. It should be emphasized that he notes that the FIRST paper in which HTLV-III was officially declared the cause of AIDS cites the following justification:
"A retrovirus found in T-cell cultures from these patients is strongly implicated in the aetiology of AIDS because of the high frequency of isolation and the prevalence of specific antibodies in the patients."
In other words, the very FIRST paper claiming HTLV-III to be the cause of AIDS cites epidemiological correlation and the presence of "specific" [sic] antibodies as its ONLY justification.
It is incumbent upon the HIV apologists either to demonstrate why they believe these 3 papers prove HIV causes AIDS, or to produce some other collection of papers published between May 1984 and October 1985 which they believe do so, or to admit that the leading medical and scientific experts in the US at that time made a completely unjustified and unwarranted conclusion.
I continue quoting from the Preface:
"The committee held two public meetings, one in San Francisco and one in New York City... Committee staff members participated in a workshop held by the Public Health Service at Coolfont, Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, June 4-6, 1986, to produce a plan for the prevention of AIDS and the control of the AIDS virus [sic].... In July 1986 the steering committee held its final meeting in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to integrate the contributions from the panels and the working groups... [T]his report represents the committee's evaluation as of August 1986."
From the ABSTRACT:
"A massive, continuing campaign should begin immediately to increase awareness of ways in which persons can protect themselves against infection, such as using condoms, avoiding anal intercourse, and not sharing drug injection equipment. The campaign should employ all the skills and tactics of education and media persuasion [my emphasis]... The committee estimates that by the end of the decade approximately $1 billion annually [my emphasis], much of it from federal sources, will be needed for education and other public health measures that it recommends... The other arm of the attack on the epidemic is research... The committee calls for extensive basic and applied biomedical investigations to better understand the disease and increase the likelihood of producing a safe and effective drug or vaccine as soon as possible. This program must involve both private industry and the public sector working together... The committee believes that such a program of research will require at least $1 billion in public funds annually by 1990 [my emphasis]... The $2-billion yearly expenditure proposed for responding to the epidemic is a small fraction of the billions of dollars for care that the epidemic is sure to cost, especially if it is not rapidly curbed. [my emphasis]
So, between May 1984 and August 1986, a period of just 27 months, SOMETHING in the scientific literature convinced the leading medical and scientific experts in the US not only of the aforementioned 3 points, but also that AT LEAST $2 billion annually should be exclusively devoted to this single hypothesis of AIDS causation, and that a massive propaganda campaign aimed at the public was necessary to curb the spread of the epidemic.
To recapitulate:
1. May 1984 -- HTLV-III causation is a sprakle in Gallo's eyes.
2. August 1986 -- At least $2 billion annually should be spent based exclusively on the hypothesis that HTLV-III causes AIDS, and a massive public propaganda campaign should ensue.
I ask the HIV apologists again: What was published in those 27 months to cause all those scientists and doctors to think that putting all their $2 billion in a single causation basket was worth it?? The AIDS literature at that time wasn't enormous -- not by today's standards -- so the SPECIFIC papers shouldn't be hard to find.
As far as beyond August 1986, anyone who can publish a clear refutation of the dissident claims in the literature WITH THEIR NAME ATTACHED TO IT (similar to the cases above of going to the stacks and assembling a short summary with references with regard to DNA, evolution, or electromagnetics) would certainly win instant gratification and accolades from the establishment for "shutting dissidents up". Yet the only such documents I've been able to find are anonymous, non-peer reviewed writings like the NIH "Evidence that HIV Causes AIDS", or the Durban Declaration, or pathetic attempts like O'Brien's "Koch's postulates fulfilled" swimming in the backwaters of the literature.
darin
As usual Drain Brown totally misunderstands the nature of the problem. It is encumbent upon the Denialists to demonstrate to the scientific community that any of their theories have any merit. Denialists suffer from the delusion that the world revolves around them. There are plenty of cranks on the internet demanding that people prove Einstein's relativity to them.
Duesberg and Bialy have demonstrated that they will ignore any evidence presented to them.
I could go through and find some of these key papers, for instance Jay Levy's isolation of ARV in 1984 that replicated Gallo's and Montagniers work, Weiss's demonstration that HIV binds to receptors on CD4+ cells. There are several other key papers published in this time period. These are what convinced the scientific community.
Dairn also ignores several papers such as those by Ascher et al, Schechter et al and Darby et al that have specifically dealt with and refuted Duesberg's claims. The fact that Duesberg still clings dogmatically to his assertion that HIV cannot cause AIDS is proof only of his dogmatism.
If science worked the way that Denialists pretend then we would still be trying to convince phogiston proponents that oxygen exists.
There are contrarian cranks at every point in history. Eventually they die and are forgotten.
"This is the randomized placbo-controlled trial that established the efficacy of AZT when used at a dose of 250 mg every four hours (1500 mg per day). "
Thats funny...of course no one paper can disprove a theory but ONE paper establishes AZT as safe...inspite of all the evidence to the contrary. A besides it is from the late 80's so I ask humbly: " do you have nothing more recent?
As usual Drain Brown totally misunderstands the nature of the problem. It is encumbent upon the Denialists to demonstrate to the scientific community that any of their theories have any merit........There are contrarian cranks at every point in history. Eventually they die and are forgotten.
Typically sidesteping and failing to address a single one of darins points, clearly demonstrating darin is quite correct.
MORE LIES FROM CHRIS NOBLE - EASY TO CHECK.
Not only does a single study suffice for Chris Noble to establish the dubious VERY short term benefits of AZT, when I asked him to verify his latest unfounded slander of Christine Maggiore...
Dr. Noble, where has Rex Poindexter accused Christine Maggiore of lying, and about what exactly?
... he answered rudely,
You appear to have some major comprehension problems. Rex Poindexter died from AIDS. Christine Maggiore made up some story about Rex choosing to die.
Rex Poindexter's partner responded.
I am the Domestic Partner of the late Rex Poindexter and also the Trustee of his estate. Christine's comments regarding Rex's illness and healthcare are false. I will not get into them here. Attached is a short account of how Rex changed his mind and mine about the dissident movement. Good Luck, John Boucher
I have already asked Chris Noble how a mere false statement
makes a lie rather than an honest mistake. I am still very interested in his answer, since HIV science, indeed all science but especially HIV science, is supposedly built on these "honest mistakes". I have further asked Chris Noble exactly which statement(s) of Christine Maggiore's Poindexter's partner has claimed is/are false. As is plainly obvious he couldn't come up with any beause it wasn't specified in hs reference. Just as with AZT, all Chris Noble needs is the merest hint for his slanderous imagination to work on to start running his cowardly mouth.
John Givens suspects Chris Noble only reads the abstracts of the studies he cites. In this case he hasn't read anything at all before he made up his lying accusation that Christine Maggiore claimed Rex Poindexter died because he chose not to live. Dr. Noble references mails in this thread:
http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/general.msnw?action=get_message&m…
Here Maggiore specifically - SPECIFICALLY - makes a distinction between unnamed dissidents whom she supects in teh end simply gave up on living and Rex Poindexter:
I know of several HIV positives and a couple close friends who included themselves in the "dissident movement" that died because they chose not to live. Being without satisfying personal relationships and regular employment, in debt for various reasons (including not planning for a future they didn't believe they would have), depressed about the lack of a place in our society for gay men over 40, having lost countless friends and lovers to so-called AIDS, they quit taking care of their most basic, life-sustaining needs like eating food and drinking water. Kind of like what happens sometimes with truly older persons after a partner dies--they just don't care to go on, and give up and die, too.
Some others, like Rex, died because, for one reason or another, they chose not to treat outstanding medical conditions that in absence of treatment became quite serious.
Rex Poindexter had told Christine Maggiore about certain conditions (among them a lump under his ribs) he hadn't gotten treatment for in time. This may be false info, or Maggiore may have misunderstood its aetiological importance, but that has nothing to do with professional smearjobber Chris Noble accusations. Anybody who reads the actual words of Maggiore will see she REPEATEDLY QUALIFIES everything she says in terms such as these:
First of all, I think any ethical medical professional would agree that it would be irresponsible to offer conclusions about a cause death without having analyzed the medical records of the people who passed away.
Whether the issue is the drugs he peddles or the persons he smears, Chris Noble remains a transparent liar.
Here, we have another great illustration of the gulf between scientific thinking and denialist thinking. When a denialist encounters a paper he doesn't want to believe, he goes through a paper looking for "flaws" -- if he finds one, then he feels justified in disregarding the results entirely.
A scientist also goes through an important paper with a fine-toothed comb. He knows that he will find "flaws" -- pretty much every paper has flaws or limitations of some kind. But then he thinks beyond that; he considers, "What is the potential impact of this flaw on the conclusions of the paper?"
So let me give you an example of how a scientist would reason regarding your objections.
The study lasted only 4 months.
This is true. This is an ethical limitation--an ethical scientist cannot continue a study if patients in one arm are dying at a massively greater rate than the other. But so what? AZT is still prolonging life. Even if people in the AZT arm started dying of side-effects after 4 weeks, an 19 to 1 lead is so great that the chance of the AZT death rate surpassing the placebo death rate is very small. Will some people die from AZT who would have survived longer without it? Almost certainly. Almost every drug kills some people--people die every year from aspirin. But most patients prefer to play the odds.
The results were not reproducible.
This is false, according to the scientific meaning of "not reproducible," which would mean that a second, similar study of AZT vs placebo was carried out, and AZT did not improve survival, which is untrue. It is correct to say, "the protective effect of AZT was so large that the study could not be ethically repeated."
And, most critically, the investigators compromised and corrupted their own study by giving multiple blood transfusion to 30 patients in the AZT arm.
Clinically insignificant. So you may have to give transfusions to some of your AZT patients, so what? AZT plus transfusions is still extending survival compared to placebo alone. The only way this could "corrupt" the study would be if transfusions alone were somehow protective against AIDS. Higher side effects in AZT patients could impair blinding, but that also cannot account for the results. If some AZT patients stop taking their meds, that would reduce the difference between the AZT patients and the placebo patients. Blinding is important when the margin between groups is small, like a couple of patients, because researchers sometimes give extra scrutiny to patients who respond oppositely from what was expected, and can be more likely to catch medical errors in those patients, but this kind of bias cannot possibly account for a 19 to 1 margin.
What is more, AZT was embraced by clinicians at the front lines of AIDS therapy, and by most people with AIDS. These weren't statisticians, but they were people with immense practical experience with AIDS. Based on that experience, they found that the AZT patients did better. The importance of this cannot be overestimated. Sometimes, a drug may look good in clinical trials, but it doesn't pass the "smell test" at the front lines--it just doesn't seem to work that well in real patients, or the side effects are so miserable, and the benefit so transient, that it just doesn't seem worth it from the standpoint of quality of life. This was not the case for AZT.
And it is worth noting that while it was not ethically possible to carry out another study of AZT vs placebo, it was possible to test different doses and dosing regiments of AZT against one another, as well as newer ARV drugs against AZT. So we know that modern therapies are at least as effective as the original AZT regime, and substantially less toxic.
Well said. The AIDS patients in Greta's essay were victims of AZT genocide comparable to the holocaust. In both historical periods, medical doctors played a key role in the extermination of, and unethical medical experimentation on the victims.
Greta the HIV AIDS activist clown, pornographer and sex toy saleslady could easily play the naughty clown at the circus who attempts to masturbate on an attractive girl in the front row only to be chased away by the "policeman" clown.
How fitting that a clown be selected as leader of the AIDS Activist Movement.
Greta's Clown Costume.
The following exerpts from Greta'a essay sum it up :
"They don't remember the days when a diagnosis [of AIDS] was pretty much a death sentence -- a sentence to a slow, painful death."
"And they don't remember what it was like when the [drug] cocktail came along, and suddenly people started getting better and living longer."
"They don't remember what it was like when AIDS turned, almost overnight, from a deadly illness to a chronic but often survivable one."
Greta the Clown is blissfully unaware of the observations made by others during the early AIDS years. San Francisco gays reported their AIDS companions and friends were dying from AZT toxicity rather than AIDS, and when the drug treatment switched from AZT to the less toxic drug cocktails, mortality rates dropped. Typical for clown thinking (if there is such a thing), Greta thinks the cocktails are "life saving" rather than less deadly than AZT".
AZT toxicity is quite distinct from opportunistic infection and easily identified. Greta's description of AIDS causing " a slow and painful death" is a perfect description of the muscle pain and neuropathy caused by mitochondrial toxicity of AZT. Death from immune failure and opportunistic infection is usually rapid, without chronic muscle weakness and pain (which are obvious signs of AZT toxicity).
Greta's essay is hardly a source for evidence that HIV causes AIDS, or that HIV drugs are effective at prolonging life, or of anything serious for that matter. She is a clown, and the essay is an enthusiastic acceptance and sincere regurgitation of the lies and distortions brought to you by the AIDS propaganda machine. And that's why Tara selected her.
Noreen, your comparison of the Holocaust with the use of antivirals by doctors to treat sick patients effectively is very disappointing. If AIDS treatment was intended as "genocide," then it has had quite the opposite effect. Instead of killing patients, it has decreased both mortality and morbidity everywhere it has been applied.
Pat writes,
Thats funny...of course no one paper can disprove a theory but ONE paper establishes AZT as safe...inspite of all the evidence to the contrary.
"Safe," Patrick? What does "safe" mean to you? Perhaps you did not read the 1987 NEJM study, whose authors state, "Although a subset of patients tolerated AZT for an extended period with few toxic effects, the drug should be administered with caution because of its toxicity and the limited experience with it to date."
Every drug has potential dose-dependent toxicities. Every patient must decide with his or her physician if these potential toxicities outweigh the potential benefits of taking a drug. Most patients, faced with AIDS or cancer or any potentially fatal condition, decide that possible side effects, even severe side effects are acceptable in exchange for extra time, life. What gives you the right, Pat, to decide for these patients that their lives are not worth (potential) side effects?
Of course, you, MEC, "lostrust," and the rest have not bothered to read even one paper in the literature on AZT. (Just as a little piece of trivia, there are more papers on AZT than names on David Crowe's defamatory list of "rethinkers.")
In the literature, we find that scientists recognized potential problems of AZT from the start, and worked to find ways to reduce the side effects. The 1987 NEJM paper notes that acetaminophen increases the risk of side effects and should be avoided. I won't list the many papers appearing over the next several years that looked at methods of reducing side effects, but you can find them if you are truly interested.
At least by 1988 (Dournon E et al, Lancet Dec 1988), doctors were exploring reduced dosage to increase the therapeutic index. Does "genocide" include recognizing a serious problem (anemia) in a minority of patients and taking steps to correct it?
Again, side effects were not observed in all patients, and some studies had very encouraging results. Pizzo PA, et al, NEJM, Oct 6 1988, used intravenous AZT to achieve constant levels in a group of pediatric AIDS patients who had severe symptoms before AZT treatment, such as encephalopathy. Anemia was the only side effect observed, balanced by steady improvement in neurological performance. "Most patients also had increased appetite and weight, decreased lymphadenopathy and hepatosplenomegaly, decreased immunoglobulin levels, and increased numbers of CD4 cells."
Soon, additional drugs became available. Reduced dosages and combination therapies further reduced toxicities and increased therapeutic index. AZT was found effective at preventing transmission (mother-child and post-exposure prophylaxis).
"Lack of long-term effects of in utero exposure to zidovudine among uninfected children born to HIV-infected women." Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 219/076 Teams. JAMA Jan 13, 1999.
Sandberg and Slikker, FASEB Journal Sep 1995, review 71 papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the "Developmental Pharmacology and Toxicology" of 4 approved dideoxynucleosides, including AZT. They conclude, "the risk for teratogenic effects after postimplantational exposure appears to be low..."
Klug S, et al, Arch. Toxicol, 1991, found that AZT did not cause fetal abnormalities in pregnant rats
even at hundreds of times the dose prescribed to pregnant women at the time.
These are just a few of the hundreds of papers on the subject of transmission prevention by AZT.
Recent papers, Pat? We all know about the mitochondrial DNA polymerase and its sensitivity to AZT, correct? Hanes and Johnson, in Nucleic Acids Research, Oct 16, 2007, report "A novel mechanism of selectivity against AZT by the human mitochondrial DNA polymerase." Yes, "against," Pat. That is, experimental evidence shows that AZT is not as toxic to the mitochondrial DNA polymerase as theory had suggested. It is "safer" than some had thought, to use your inexact terminology.
Pat, MEC, and the rest provide no solutions to real medical problems. Medicine has been fighting AIDS and drug toxicities for more than twenty years. Many scientists have dedicated their lives to improving the health of patients like carter and Noreen, by fighting OIs, restricting the virus, improving treatment strategies, and reducing side effects. You are free to call these people Nazis and genocidal thugs, but don't be surprised when most of the beneficiaries of their work disagree.
What's disappointing is not treating the opportunistic disease at hand by the same, proven methods. Instead, a patient must take numerous, toxic medicines forever. I would halfway understand if the patient took the antiretrovirals until they got better but this is not the case at all. And to add insult to injury, one is labeled with an incurable disease for the rest of one's life. This is nonsense since any of the AIDS-defining diseases are curable or survivable. Shouldn't an AIDS patient ever be considered to be in remission, afterall, we even give cancer patients this luxury?
Thank you, this reinforces my point. There is indeed often a single paper or collection that establishes the theory, but it is the work that comes after that convinces everybody that the theory is essentially correct (and corrects the areas where it is wrong). So modern belief in the double helix structure of DNA does not rest at all on the Watson-Crick paper, and if subsequent studies had come up with a structure that better fit the data, that paper would now barely rate a footnote (indeed, as it turns out, there are other DNA structures, but Watson and Crick found the dominant one). Or other methods of visualizing DNA structure could have yielded different results. So the first papers establish the theory, but it is the subsequent work that ultimately convinces the overall scientific community that it is right. For example, if the therapeutic strategies devised based on the HIV theory had failed to work in the clinics, as judged by the clinicians extensive practical experience working with AIDS patients, then the entire approach would likely have collapsed. Walter Gilbert, for example, wrote of being skeptical of the HIV hypothesis for many years, but ultimately being convinced by the success of antiviral therapy.
It is likely that much of the work that convinced people in the field was not actually published by that time. What typically occurs when a hot result is published is that labs all over the world jump on it and start trying to replicate it and extend it. After a year and a half, little of that work will have been published, but scientists in the field will be talking to one another about it, and will have a good idea of whether other labs are able to confirm it. So all of the people actually working in the field will know if the "buzz" is favorable or unfavorable, and this is one point at which a new theory can collapse. So it is hardly surprising that after 17 months there was general agreement among virologists that the evidence for the virus was strong enough to support a major effort. Then there is a second phase in which those results are published, and begin to convince clinicians and scientists who are working on other aspects of the disease.
Again, if anybody actually wants to see a good sampling of the papers that the modern understanding of HIV/AIDS rests upon, a good starting point is the references cited on the NIH NIAID website
"Firstly, I acknowledged I was wrong. There is a difference bewteen lying and being wrong. It was mistake on my part and I did the right thing by admitting that I made a mistake."
While we are on the topic of forgiveness and doing the right thing:
henryhbauer.homestead.com/Iwaswrong.html
Here, we have another great illustration of the gulf between scientific thinking and denialist thinking. When a denialist encounters a paper he doesn't want to believe, he goes through a paper looking for "flaws" -- if he finds one, then he feels justified in disregarding the results entirely.
Who is disregarding the results? Rethinkers certainly do not disregard the study's conclusion that "The results of Concorde do not encourage the early use of zidovudine [AZT] in symptom-free HIV-infected adults". But is it not at least allowed to point out if a supposedly blinded study isn't blinded? Neither was it a strict AZT vs. placebo study; it was in large part an immediate AZT vs. deferred AZT study.
Even if people in the AZT arm started dying of side-effects after 4 weeks, an 19 to 1 lead is so great that the chance of the AZT death rate surpassing the placebo death rate is very small.
And yet this is what happened. After 21 months the
"deferred AZT" arm of the study was doing better than the immediate AZT arm.
This is false, according to the scientific meaning of "not reproducible," which would mean that a second, similar study of AZT vs placebo was carried out, and AZT did not improve survival, which is untrue. It is correct to say, "the protective effect of AZT was so large that the study could not be ethically repeated."
Only Dr. Trrll could admit in such a pompously roundabout manner that the results were not reproduced. As we've seen already there was ample jusitfication for reconsidering the result and the "ethics" behind it.
And, most critically, the investigators compromised and corrupted their own study by giving multiple blood transfusion to 30 patients in the AZT arm. (Pat)
Clinically insignificant. So you may have to give transfusions to some of your AZT patients, so what? AZT plus transfusions is still extending survival compared to placebo alone. The only way this could "corrupt" the study would be if transfusions alone were somehow protective against AIDS. Higher side effects in AZT patients could impair blinding, but that also cannot account for the results. If some AZT patients stop taking their meds, that would reduce the difference between the AZT patients and the placebo patients. Blinding is important when the margin between groups is small, like a couple of patients, because researchers sometimes give extra scrutiny to patients who respond oppositely from what was expected, and can be more likely to catch medical errors in those patients, but this kind of bias cannot possibly account for a 19 to 1 margin.
"Clinically" aside, the fact that the study is effectively unblinded allowing doctors to treat the patients according to their bias; that it is no longer AZT vs. "placebo" but AZT and blood transfusions vs. placebo is insignificant? Wow! Welcome to the world of real science according to Dr. Trrl.
Sometimes, a drug may look good in clinical trials, but it doesn't pass the "smell test" at the front lines--it just doesn't seem to work that well in real patients, or the side effects are so miserable, and the benefit so transient, that it just doesn't seem worth it from the standpoint of quality of life. This was not the case for AZT.
Repeat, in spite of unblinding and "special" treatment of the "immediate AZT" arm it was impossible to keep up the artificially inflated results in AZT's favour for more than a few months. At 21 months 42% of the original AZT group had died and 35% of the control group, which by then had also received AZT for 12 months. This is the kind of mixed bag HIV scientists call overwhelming evidence.
As the authors half admit themselves, AZT looks suitable only as a last ditch measure for patients already coming down with real OIs - likely because, just as is the rationale behind other chemotherapies, there's a chance it knocks out the OIs/cancer before it knocks out the
patient.
About Trrl's post
I'm not a scientist so this is the "smell test" which is so important in HIV science.(trrll: "Sometimes, a drug may look good in clinical trials, but it doesn't pass the "smell test" at the front lines--it just doesn't seem to work that well in real patients, or the side effects are so miserable, and the benefit so transient, that it just doesn't seem worth it from the standpoint of quality of life... --up to here you have it very good; it is this next sentence that makes you a denialist-- ... This was not the case for AZT"
"The study lasted only 4 months.
"This is true. This is an ethical limitation--an ethical scientist cannot continue a study if patients in one arm are dying at a massively greater rate than the other. But so what? AZT is still prolonging life. Even if people in the AZT arm started dying of side-effects after 4 weeks, an 19 to 1 lead is so great that the chance of the AZT death rate surpassing the placebo death rate is very small. Will some people die from AZT who would have survived longer without it? Almost certainly. Almost every drug kills some people--people die every year from aspirin. But most patients prefer to play the odds."
This is HIV science; all about odds: "Even if people in the AZT arm started dying of side-effects after 4 weeks, an 19 to 1 lead is so great that the chance of the AZT death rate surpassing the placebo death rate is very small." - How would we know for sure that the death rate is very small. Based on what gambling game is this science based on? Poker? Roulette? Craps more likely.
The results were not reproducible because..."the protective effect of AZT was so large that the study could not be ethically repeated." -HIV science IS all about politics and political correctness. Apparently the definitive hard truth CAN be too unethical to achieve.
"And, most critically, the investigators compromised and corrupted their own study by giving multiple blood transfusion to 30 patients in the AZT arm."
"Clinically insignificant. So you may have to give transfusions to some of your AZT patients, so what?"
So what, you say? Why did they need transfusions? Was the placebo arm getting transfusions? No. Why? Maybe because they didnt take AZT which in turn would have turned their bone marrow into mushy shit within a year @ 1200-1500mg as described in the scientific literature. I encourage you to read that "old" newspaper piece I mention up top because it discusses exactly why AZT therapy (as applied then) couldn't be adhered to...namely because of the vicious side effects. Fauci, in that article, blames the slow pace of change on "bureaucratic" hurddles. Why couldn't he have just stood up like Gallo did in 84 and simply gave an order to reduce the dosages? Aaaah, paperasse oblige!
"And it is worth noting that while it was not ethically possible to carry out another study of AZT vs placebo, it was possible to test different doses and dosing regiments of AZT against one another, as well as newer ARV drugs against AZT."
Maybe you should define "ethical"; this might clarify a lot more for me.
Pat, MEC, and the rest provide no solutions to real medical problems. Medicine has been fighting AIDS and drug toxicities for more than twenty years. Many scientists have dedicated their lives to improving the health of patients like carter and Noreen, by fighting OIs, restricting the virus, improving treatment strategies, and reducing side effects. You are free to call these people Nazis and genocidal thugs, but don't be surprised when most of the beneficiaries of their work disagree
Ok Sir Elkie, having watched you steadily falling apart in the course of this thread, my real solution to your real medical problem is to stop eating out of Prof. Moore's Thorazine bottle. You may not like the rethinkers' solutions, since most of them are not expensive and some of them aren't even patentable, but to say rethinkers don't try to come up with alternatives to the rat poisons you're advertizing must originate from somewhere even more unspeakable than the place you usually pull out your crap from.
You've even got Noreen on here, who is LIVING the solution to her very real medical problems.
Most "beneficiaries" of your drug pushing MAY think you are doing them a favour, because those who would disagree are either dead or know of no alternative thanks to the heavy propaganda campaigns they've been subjected to for 25 years. Just look how even the Duesberg hating Braganza gets stonewalled and struck down every time he tries to peep about "alternative" cures - also those being worked on within the mainstream.
Christ - the history is documented. People were dying of AIDS before the virus was identified. As early as 1981 and 1982, gay men, hemophiliacs, Haitians were dying from AIDS. People were dying of AIDS before AZT was used. Ryan White was diagnosed in 1984. Rock Hudson died in 1985. People were BEGGING for AZT, because they were dying without it.
---
1983:
HIV and the Blood Supply: An Analysis of Crisis Decisionmaking Critical Event NHF Communication Knowledge Base Risk Assessment Clinical Option NHF Action December 2, 1983: CDC MMWR update on AIDS in hemophiliac patients; results of treatment center survey show no cases occurred before September 1981; 21 hemophiliacs have been diagnosed with AIDS, additional patients have been reported with AIDS-related symptoms that do not fit the CDC criteria for an AIDS diagnosis December 2, 1983: NHF issues Medical Bulletin #8 with attached CDC MMWR (December 10); Medical Bulletin #9 and Chapter Advisory #12 issued on December 21, 1983 Etiology remains unknown, epidemiological evidence suggests an infectious disease
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4989&page=247
---
1987:
Approval of AZT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
Friday, March 20, 1987 James Brown -- (202) 245-6867
Robert E. Windom, M.D., assistant secretary for health, today announced
that the Food and Drug Administration has approved the drug zidovudine,
commonly known as azidothymidine, or AZT, to help certain patients with
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and advanced AIDS-Related Complex
(ARC).
---
Hemophiliac AIDS before AZT:
Between January 1, 1981 and September 4, 1987, 407 cases of hemophilia-associated acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) had been reported to the Centers for Disease Control. The number of cases diagnosed each year nearly doubled, except in 1986, when cases increased only 50 per cent. Demographic characteristics of the patients did not change over time. The majority (74 per cent) had severe hemophilia and 97 per cent received commercially produced concentrated clotting factors.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1349371
This is a super-bad day for me, so I'm just popping in to acknowledge your response, cooler, and say that I'll be responding some time later this week if you're still interested and the thread's still open.
Just a quick thought on another matter - clearly, some folks here have a milk tongue other than English. It doesn't seem useful or to the point, much less respectful, to mock syntactic and spelling errors given that some folks are trying to express themselves in a second language, especially since feelings run high on this topic.
Elk,
Firstly, HIV-AIDS uses words like "safe", "life-saving" and "miraculous" a lot more gratuitously than I ever would. It is obvious now that what you think is safe actually gives me the jitters.
Secondly, I believe the theory to be further obfuscated by the use of terms like, "encouraging results", "it appears", "further research needed", "we can safely speculate"... to describe an unambiguous "fact". If there is an ambiguous disease on this planet that has everyone's attention and wallet then it is indeed HIV/AIDS.
"You are free to call these people Nazis and genocidal thugs"
I would like to draw you attention to your habit of Schubladendenken (compartmentalization?). I am not cooler nor am I Michael nor anyone else for that matter but you know that somewhere in that brain of yours...(if only you would let it speak once in a while)I never called anyone a genocidal nazi thug. I actually chimed in here in disgust at seeing a highly paid HIV scientist savagely insult the dignity of a grieving mother...How can anyone look a child squarely in the eyes, tell them their parents are murderers and then claim that they would have been better parents??? So disgusting is that attitude that Jeanne Bergman would SPECULATE about Maggiore's health status to machinate a web of obvious lies about Maggiore supposed capitalistic intentions. No, you are not a murderer. JP Moore on the other hand well...manslaughter perhaps at best...which reminds me. I find this odd: It is unethical to do an AZT vs Placebo trial because it is unethical to withold a "miracle" drug AND at the same time it is ethical to test vaginal smears assuming their will be some kind of transmission...seing that is what is being studied, right? I think the pesky problem here really is the word "ethical".
Ethics (should) have nothing to do with the scientific method, clinically speaking, of course. Either you have scientific wonder or you don't. I think in case of the AZT study here in question no one had any scientific wonder and you said it yourself; scientists cut the study short because, hey, what are the odds that what we think won't happen might actually happen eh? (enter Murphy stage left: "someone called?")
clearly, some folks here have a milk tongue other than English. It doesn't seem useful or to the point, much less respectful, to mock syntactic and spelling errors given that some folks are trying to express themselves in a second language
You mean to say some of the posters here are American?
(-:) I of course agree with your point, Jen, but I think it would be unfair on Prof. Moore to disqualify his strongest argument.
Anyway, just so you don't waste your time, nobody denies the reality of the conditions and diseases that have been lumped together and called AIDS, north fact that
"epidemics" of some of these have been affecting certain well defined subgroups in the West and large populations in several 3rd. World countries.
Dr. Trrll,
The latest introduction to basic scientific practice is, as always, much appreciated. Unfortunately, you completely missed Darin's point that this wasn't a mere "buzz". It was a full steam ahead downhill freight train laden with an absolute scientific faith that brooked no pause for thought or questions.
So, between May 1984 and August 1986, a period of just 27 months, SOMETHING in the scientific literature convinced the leading medical and scientific experts in the US not only of the aforementioned 3 points, but also that AT LEAST $2 billion annually should be exclusively devoted to this single hypothesis of AIDS causation, and that a massive propaganda campaign aimed at the public was necessary to curb the spread of the epidemic. (Darin)
jen_m
It is unfortunate but what some frustrated souls do when they have absolutely nothing to say and can't resist the basest sarcastic impulse. Have you ever cornered a cat? My dog did it once and never again. Perhaps why people won't engage Moore openly...he's a feisty pussy.
I understand you don't think that the use of AZT was proven but look at it through the eyes of someone who believes the HIV theory of AIDS is factually based. AZT seemed to have been shown, beyond a statistical anomaly, to be effective. It might have been assumed to be effective but that does not mean they can jump past the study based on an assumption. Your claimed analogous situation is not so close though. An assumption is not evidence, this is how science works. Now imagine for a second scientists assumed there was a transmission of vaginal smears and disregarded the actual testing of this assumption, which is apparently what you feel they should have done? I think I am quite justified in being under the impression your statement would have read read something along the lines of attacking scientists for making an assumption and not testing it.
LDN could save many lives and just as effective as the antiretorviral medicines but without the nasty side effects. One problem is that the FDA doesn't have a fast track procedure for old drugs that are prescribed off label. Now, a drug company will not fork over the massive amounts of money required to do such a study for a drug that the patent has expired, which now makes it a cheap drug. If a philanthropist or super rich person wanted to do some good about AIDS, then funding a university study such as Penn State, which has already done a study on LDN and Chron's disease, would certainly help to get a much safer and needed drug to the AIDS persons of the world. Maybe the cure is already here!
By "buzz," I am referring to the less formal communications between scientists that precede formal publication. Scientists in a field generally have a good idea whether a research direction is proving fruitful before the papers come out. Considering the potential importance of the discovery, everybody jumped on it, trying to reproduce and extend the results. This often happens in science when there is a possible breathrough. If the follow-up studies fail, then everybody drops that direction en masse, and the blip in funding dies out quickly. It is not a matter of faith--it is a matter of following up a potentially important result to find out whether it is valid or a blind alley as quickly as possible. And as we know, the follow-up studies supported the initial findings, and the rest is history.
Another question:
if the scientific method is about falsefying, why is JP Moore yelling and threatening people with his HIV/AIDS facts?
As a layman, (of course) I would accept HIV/AIDS as a fact the day they can cure it. I would stop being offended by it all, when I stop hearing "although the mechanism behind HIV/AIDS is poorly understood, people like Duesberg should be jailed for their opinions". That is simply offending and has turned this otherwise docile creature, owing much to Gloxo (ventolin), into a highly skeptical spectator with nothing more than contempt for the sheer style of leadership. I may be the only person on the planet that hopes that HIV causes AIDS because that would mean that none of these lives and resources would have been squandered after all. If you are indeed correct and feel an urgency to act on misinformation than step 1 should be to campaign for the removal of Moore, Bergman, Weinberg et. al. foulmouthed bullies from the helm of the monumental task of public education. Anything short of that is scientific "pissing against the wind".
"I think I am quite justified in being under the impression your statement would have read read something along the lines of attacking scientists for making an assumption and not testing it"
I fear you are correct. As horrible as it might sound; I realise this as I have to type the actual words. I do not fault Moore for testing his smears..it had to be observed. I dont actually fault him; we now know that his smears are bad...ooops. at least we know that. They should do trials with placebos. the risks, for which no one can be responsible for clinically and morally, far outweigh the possibility of having a worm in the books for twenty years.
I can almost see what scares you...the monumental waste
So you don't mind willingly denying a theory of a disease until it has been cured? Are cures your only test for the validity of a theory? So do you deny the existence of the common cold? The flu? As far as I know there is no 'cure' for those, no pill to take. What about cancer? Do you only believe in cancers that have been treated and all those with small survival rates do not exist until a cure? What about herpes? Did you believe in gonorrhea while antibiotics worked on it but decided gonorrhea was not a problem as soon as resistant strains surfaced? Did staph exist until MRSA came around and now staph doesn't exist as we have no solid solution for that?
"They should do trials with placebos. the risks, for which no one can be responsible for clinically and morally, far outweigh the possibility of having a worm in the books for twenty years."
pardon ...of course
"the benefit, for which no one can be responsible for clinically and morally,far outweigh the risks of having a worm in the books for twenty years."
That was a Gallo-ian slip...
Dear Pat, you wrote,
I never called anyone a genocidal nazi thug.
Nor did I ever claim that you did. I wrote that you "are free" to do so if you like. Several of your denialist comrades have already done it on this thread. Earlier today, two even compared good-faith attempts to treat AIDS to the Holocaust.
It's interesting, Pat, that in response to your "one paper" comment, I submitted a list of articles on AZT, its side effects and benefits. Yet "firstly," "secondly," and in your "drawer-thinking" comment, all you want to discuss are the meanings of words to different writers. What "safe" means, what "life-saving" means, "unambiguous," "fact," whether I said you said he said she said. You and MEC share this trait, assuming that the substance of (or behind) a statement is irrelevant, that as long as you can re-interpret a few words, the substance doesn't matter. You must have been in school (as I was) back when post-modernism was all the rage.
Pat, may I respectfully encourage you to read just a paper or two from the scientific literature? You will find that the "vague" language in science describes research in every field, not just HIV.
Here is the part of my earlier comment that may not be as fun to dissect semantically, and which you probably didn't read, but is more in keeping with the subject of this thread: the history of HIV and AIDS.
Of course, you, MEC, "lostrust," and the rest have not bothered to read even one paper in the literature on AZT. (Just as a little piece of trivia, there are more papers on AZT than names on David Crowe's defamatory list of "rethinkers.")
In the literature, we find that scientists recognized potential problems of AZT from the start, and worked to find ways to reduce the side effects. The 1987 NEJM paper notes that acetaminophen increases the risk of side effects and should be avoided. I won't list the many papers appearing over the next several years that looked at methods of reducing side effects, but you can find them if you are truly interested.
At least by 1988 (Dournon E et al, Lancet Dec 1988), doctors were exploring reduced dosage to increase the therapeutic index. Does "genocide" include recognizing a serious problem (anemia) in a minority of patients and taking steps to correct it?
Again, side effects were not observed in all patients, and some studies had very encouraging results. Pizzo PA, et al, NEJM, Oct 6 1988, used intravenous AZT to achieve constant levels in a group of pediatric AIDS patients who had severe symptoms before AZT treatment, such as encephalopathy. Anemia was the only side effect observed, balanced by steady improvement in neurological performance. "Most patients also had increased appetite and weight, decreased lymphadenopathy and hepatosplenomegaly, decreased immunoglobulin levels, and increased numbers of CD4 cells."
Soon, additional drugs became available. Reduced dosages and combination therapies further reduced toxicities and increased therapeutic index. AZT was found effective at preventing transmission (mother-child and post-exposure prophylaxis).
"Lack of long-term effects of in utero exposure to zidovudine among uninfected children born to HIV-infected women." Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 219/076 Teams. JAMA Jan 13, 1999.
Sandberg and Slikker, FASEB Journal Sep 1995, review 71 papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the "Developmental Pharmacology and Toxicology" of 4 approved dideoxynucleosides, including AZT. They conclude, "the risk for teratogenic effects after postimplantational exposure appears to be low..."
Klug S, et al, Arch. Toxicol, 1991, found that AZT did not cause fetal abnormalities in pregnant rats
even at hundreds of times the dose prescribed to pregnant women at the time.
These are just a few of the hundreds of papers on the subject of transmission prevention by AZT.
"HIV is indeed detectable through virus culture and PCR in virtually all cases of AIDS."
OK, not a lie, but an example of HIV-think circa 1992. I have read the paper Chris Noble presented last year to back this up. It consists of sloppy diagnostics where "culturing virus" means detection of p24 in the culture. If that was negative, PCR was used to measure 250 bp of the gag gene. It's a case of increasing the sensitivity with two methods that measure different things to produce hits in "virtually all" the aids patients involved in the study. And the documented specificity problems, confirmed by later research findings, were simply ignored.
"So you don't mind willingly denying a theory of a disease until it has been cured?"
I will accept it as a theory but never as a fact. You want a fact? The sun rose today before it set again. Doubt and denial are not the same and dont let that asshole Moore tell you otherwise. Your stupid war on a ficticious Denialist Invasion is stupid...just that; a figment of your authoritative self. Somewhere you caved into dogma and have forgotten how to question. The hardest things on earth to question, my friend are always your own convictions (sure, whatever, boomerang). It is handy in life; I can attest to that. I am damn sure it is essential in sciences. There it is in a "nut" shell (cue laugh-track) I walked in from the street and found a stupid war of slander between men and women sometimes almost twice my age who can't tell the difference between a fact and a morning pimple.
"Nor did I ever claim that you did. I wrote that you "are free" to do so if you like."
I am free to call you a genocidal nazi thug, that is nice of you. thank you, but I think I'll pass. Fear not.
bored fingers:
"I didn't CALL you an asshole, I just said IF you're an asshole..."
I will quote my best friend, (thank God for the Greeks):
"If, if, if! What the fuck "IF" If my dad had wells he'd be a pick-up truck! What "IF"???
You don't understand Schubladendenken because you go on to call them my collegues. Until you start using your brain I fear our thread is dead.
"Klug S, et al, Arch. Toxicol, 1991, found that AZT did not cause fetal abnormalities in pregnant rats
even at hundreds of times the dose prescribed to pregnant women at the time."
Elkie, if you're saying that low dosing is the answer to justify putting a pregnant woman at risk of harm, let me point out that it's necessary to prove a benefit in the first place. Just because a point in time transmission of a mother's antibodies is conjectured to be hazardous to the fetus doesn't make it so. There's no proof that an epidemic dying of babies from a single killer virus passed on from their mothers is happening. Anywhere.
And you should know better that even a series of negative AZT studies from which a generalization of "can't cause" is made becomes a nullity if even one positive study demonstrates toxicity. Especially so if the biochemical mechanism consistent with the injury is known. Surely this is the case with AZT, where the following damage was documented: "because we found abnormal mitochondria only in the muscle specimens from zidovudine-treated patients and not in those from patients who had myopathy but had not received zidovudine, zidovudine - and not HIV - is likely to be responsible for these changes. Zidovudine, 3'- azido - deoxythymidine, is a 2', 3'- dideoxynucleoside analog that inhibits gamma-DNA polymerase," (amazing isn't it how those three nitrogen atoms are configured just right to gum up the works) "an enzyme found solely in the mitochondrial matrix, and interferes with the replication of mitochondrial DNA. Zidovudine was apparently capable of inducing such changes after an average of 12.8 months of thereapy." (Dalakas et al; Mitochondrial Myopathy and Zidovudine Therapy, New Engl J of Med, 322, April 19, 1990, pg1098)
There is no question that AZT will attack fast dividing cells since that was its original purpose.
So here we have another demonstration of the sloppy reasoning, lack of rigor and failure to make accurate measurements by HIV thinkers: the fallacy that negative studies - which can inadvertently or purposefully be designed to not be sensitive enough to find damage - cancel out positive studies.
It's a case of increasing the sensitivity with two methods that measure different things to produce hits in "virtually all" the aids patients involved in the study. And the documented specificity problems, confirmed by later research findings, were simply ignored.
Mr. Natural you are the one who seems to be ignoring pertinent facts. Hits are produced in "virtually all" aids patients and virtually no uninfected individuals. "Virtually all" hiv positive individuals will consistantly test positive by PCR(unless they are taking ARVs) while false positives will give inconsistant results. Most HIV positive individuals will eventually develop symptoms of immunosuppression while most HIV negative individuals won't.
Easy solution. Make a minor chemical modification to the molecule that preserves anti-opiate activity. Patent the new compound. Carry out the expensive clinical trials with that drug. Most doctors will choose to prescribe the tested drug, even if they suspect that it is not really better than naloxone, because the clinical testing data gives them more confidence that it will work.
If the big pharmaceutical companies aren't carrying out low-dose anti-opiate trials, it's not because they can't figure out how to make a patentable anti-opiate, it's because they aren't yet sufficiently convinced that LDN really works to be willing to sink their own money into the project.
Darin says:
Darin, you should go back and read the papers published by Dr. Gallo in May of 1984. And when you do, you should look up and read the references cited in those papers.
If you do this, it will become apparent to you that points 1 and 2 had already been widely accepted in the medical community even before Gallo's work was published. What remained was to identify the agent and develop effective measures for preventing and treating the infection.
Thankfully, the agent has been identified and enormous progress has been made on prevention and treatment.
Noreen, you said:
First, today the medicine combos are far less toxic than they were, and the pill burden is much less. My mother in law is on 15 pills a day to treat her heart and blood pressure problems. Most HIV patients take only 2 pills a day.
Second, you talk about AIDS patients "in remission" and wonder why they need to continue drugs forever. A study was specifically designed to look at this - you may have heard of it as it is well known - the SMART study, which looked at whether nearly 6000 patients might safely stop therapy once certain goals had been acheived (and resuming if patients "relapsed" as it were).
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jan2006/niaid-18.htm
The results were unequivocal - Interrupting therapy was BAD NEWS. Patients were twice as likely to progress/develop AIDS illnesses if they stopped treatment. You might want to think about your own situation in the light of this info. Bottom line is clinicians do not recommend stopping therapy, since continuing the "highly toxic death-dealing genocidal HIV drugs" is so much better for patients than stopping them.
Oh, and interestingly for those who persist in claiming that cardiovascular disease and liver deaths are directly the result of the "death-dealing poison" that is HAART, those patients who stopped their treatment developed MORE cardiovascular and liver complications that those who continued.
http://www.aidsmap.org/en/news/E21B3139-974B-48B3-809F-EF5163BFF213.asp
http://www.i-base.info/htb/v8/htb8-8-9/HIV.html
Now would a denialist care to step up to the plate and explain that one away?
A drug that stops certain cancers and MS in its tracks and also infections for AIDS persons and benefits, definitely works. LDN run $22.00 per months verses over $1,200 for antiretrovirals, so do the math. Many who sell drugs want to sell the high dollar, high profit ones. They aren't interested in what is best for the patient.
My reccomendation to hiv rethinkers is to reach out to more open minded intelligent people. Arguing with these deranged morons is pointless. For example at the university of Arizona a big group of rethinkers has started on campus. All this time arguing with these pin heads is pointless.
My reccomendation is if you really want to get the word out show people the film hiv fact or fraud, message all your contacts and random people on facebook, look how big the 9/11 conspiracy movement has gotten through file sharing etc. The evidence is overwhelemingly on the rethinkers side, to the point any intelligent person counldnt deny it.
Look at Darin browns post, its totally solid but these bozos just sneer at everything. Duesberg may not be correct on everything though, some AIDS cases may have an infectious cause as shyh ching lo showed in some cases, as might other many other illnesses. Lo's work.
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/1990/ATN09501.html
Noreen,
If LDN only costs $22.00/month, why do you imagine a clinical trial of LDN would be prohibitively expensive?
The thing you have to explain is how the sensitivity of the techniques can be increased while still maintaining specificity. In the Jackson et al paper they did not detect HIV through viral culture or through PCR in HIV- subjects.
There are many drugs that have been found to be ineffective fur their original purpose.
AZT was found to be ineffective for its original purpose. It was not found to be effective in inhibiting the growth of cancer cells.
In my laboratory I found AZT incapable of inhibiting the growth of Jensen sarcoma cells in vitro at very high concentrations. Thus, AZT showed no activity as a potential anticancer drug at that time.
Asserting that AZT must be good at attacking fast dividing cells because it was designed for that purpose is obviously fallacious.
If Gene could get drug design to work 100% of the time he'd get a Nobel prize.
I stand corrected again. I was wrong. Christine Maggiore claims that Rex Poindexter died because he chose not to treat outstanding medical conditions.
Rex Poindexter's partner disputes this.
My disgust at Maggiore's ad hoc rationalisations is the same. Maggiore blames Rex Poindexter for his own death. Nothing to do with HIV. Rex died because he chose not to treat outstanding medical conditions.
Apparently the fact that this document is authored by the Office of Communications and Public Liaison, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,National Institutes of Health renders the paper and all the references inadmissable. You can't argue with logic like that.
The idea that Duesberg and other Denialists are not convinced because the evidence is lacking is fallacious.
Duesberg made up his mind 20 years ago and no amount of evidence will sway him. This is why he is labelled a Denialist. He denies that the evidence exists.
If Duesberg and Maniotis were actually prepared to look objectively at the evidence then they would at least be able to convince each other as to whether HIV exists.
If fellow Denialists can't convince each other that their interpretation of the evidence is correct then why do they expect anybody else to have any luck?
Apparently, the way the system is, it takes a lot of money to produce these drug trials. It's a catch 22 unless someone steps up to the plate to finance this because studies are all that most of you will look at even though there are many persons with many diesease who are benefiting from LDN, such as myself DT and I can assure you that I am doing just as well as if I were on the antiretrovirals. Many who take this drug can be found at Yahoo on the various LDN support groups for many diseases. Many of us were at the recent LDN conference in Nashville and listened to doctors present their case studies of patients with incurable diseases who are now alive and well thanks to this drug. Those of us who take LDN are happy to do so without all the red tape of studies because we know how well it works and we have our miracle drug here and now!
stand corrected again. I was wrong. Christine Maggiore claims that Rex Poindexter died because he chose not to treat outstanding medical conditions. Rex Poindexter's
partner disputes this.
I guess I'll just have to correct you once more Dr. liar. Rex Poindexter's partner hasn't told us what exactly it is he disputes. Neither has he published any records to back up his or your claims
My disgust at Maggiore's ad hoc rationalisations is the same. Maggiore blames Rex Poindexter for his own death. Nothing to do with HIV. Rex died because he chose not to treat outstanding medical conditions.
On that principle: a car is coming at me, I jump to the left, wrong side I'm dead. Was it my "fault"? I have unrotected sex with all the guys and gals in the local brothel. When I die from AIDS, is it my fault or that of the virus? It is typical of a hateful crusading
smearjobber's way of thinking that there must always be somebody whose fault it is, although he hypocritically pretends otherwise when it suits him. So who do YOU blame for Maggiore's daughter's death, Dr, Noble? The tooth fairy? Who will you blame if Maggiore dies within the next 50 years of anything remotely resembling an AIDS-like condition at a quick glance from the vantage point of your armchair?
The thing you have to explain is how the sensitivity of the techniques can be increased while still maintaining specificity
Specificity as measured against what? Surely not an isolable replication competent viral particle.
So John Boucher is a liar too? You really are disgusting.
So far only you, Dr. Noble, is a liar. I have repeatedly said that's the only thing we can be sure of since John Boucher has not explained himself. Stop judging me by your own standards.
If you are going to accuse me of lying then demonstrate how I have lied.
I have admitted to being wrong on several occasions. This is something that Denialists should try.
The things that are clear is that Rex Poindexter and John Boucher changed their minds about HIV when Rex was diagnosed with Burkitt's lymphoma.
Although, as Maggiore points out, Burkitt's lymphoma occurs in the general population it occurs about 1000 times more often in people with HIV. Amongst people with AIDS it is usually diagnosed in stage IV. The average survival time for people with AIDS related Burkitt's lymphoma is six months.
I find it callous to blame Rex for allegedly failing to seek treatment particularly given the way that Alive and Well encourage HIV positive people to go to homeopaths, acupuncturists, herbal therapists etc rather than real doctors.
The expense of the drug itself is typically a negligible part of the cost of a clinical trial. Much of the cost is for salaries of the medical personnel and technicians who run the trial, as well as for the use of any required hospital facilities.
Darin Brown,
I salute you for your cogent, comprehensive analysis upthread. It appears that in 1984, Dr. Gallo got real close to proving an imperfect correlation between AIDS and his pet virus, Human-T-Cell-Leukemia Virus III.
Of course, correlation is not causation, as any grad student knows.
17 months later in 1986, the IOM simply declared causation --like Astronomers declaring Pluto a non-planet.
Question: Prior to 1986, Did Gallo, Montagnier, Jay Levy or the IOM even attempt to discern whether the virus that formerly caused leukemia, satisfied Koch's Postulates to establish its causal connection to AIDS?
That's seems like a pretty big thing to gloss over.
John Givens
p.s. I would also suggest that you people safely ignore Chris Noble and Trrll. The former is a liar. The latter is a faith-based, defender of the paradigm, but rarely states any facts.
That's amusing. Somebody promised that he would give up posting Denialist crap here and everywhere if Parenzee lost his appeal.
That somebody is still posting here.
John Givens observes that,
correlation is not causation, as any grad student knows.
I congratulate you, Mr. Givens, for recognizing a truth that has eluded Peter Duesberg and all of the other "rethinkers" whose ideas about AIDS etiology rely on correlation, not experimental evidence. Somehow, the money Dr. Duesberg got from his conservative donors has always sufficed for experiments on aneuploidy, but never quite been enough to support any aspect of the "drugs/gay lifestyle" theory of AIDS.
As you will discover if you someday read the HIV papers from 1983-1986, experimental evidence was a large part of most of them.
And if it wasn't, if we could just pretend those sections of the papers didn't exist? Think about the denialist fantasy of what really happened in the 1980s. What if it were true that two or three labs misled the entire world with nothing more than correlations? What if your IOM was premature with its statement? What if?
Answer: everyone involved in the scam would have been sliced to pieces, their careers ruined, mercilessly and within a few years, by hordes of skeptical scientists. And if there was a "gravy train" in play, then doubly. With nothing more than correlation supporting HIV and AIDS, rival scientists would have found a more plausible explanation, double-time, and steered all the money into their own labs.
Instead, the hordes of skeptical scientists, to the disappointment of many of them, could only confirm the HIV link to AIDS again and again. Thousands of experiments later, there still is no alternative explanation for AIDS that holds up in the lab.
If any rethinker reading this has a better explanation for AIDS, don't keep it to yourself. Experiment, support, and publish, and you will become the most famous scientist of our time.
This would be easy to do if scientists were truly interested in finding the cause of AIDS. Question all AIDS patients about their life-style, health habits, drug/alcohol habits, medical history and treatments, test for heavy metals and chemicals and I can assure you that there would be an obvious pattern with them. Not many seem to want to know the real truth because then the funding would stop. Eliminate the viral load (9% accuracy) and the CD4(6% accuracy)and most of the AIDS cases would disappear in this country but so would the gravy train.
That's amusing. Somebody promised that he would give up posting Denialist crap here and everywhere if Parenzee lost his appeal.
In case one played poker against a stacked deck, would the use of the verb "To lose" be appropriate? Parenzee didn't lose, he was treacherously done in.
With nothing more than correlation supporting HIV and AIDS, rival scientists would have found a more plausible explanation, double-time, and steered all the money into their own labs
To the mind of all scientists since Tobacco Mosaic Virus, the viral explanation has always been the a priori most plausible and most sexy. There is not much money, neither many friends to be made from telling people to stay off chemicals.
I mean "nor"
There is noreen, it's called HIV. But why are you even suggesting this? As you've made evident in your posting here time and time again you have no concern for what the rest of the world is doing you base all of your judgments purely off your own experiences. LDN to treat AIDS why? Because it works in YOU apparently. HIV doesn't cause AIDS why? Because apparently YOU have a high viral load count and you feel fine. ARVs don't affect HIV's life cycle, they kill the OI's ones get with AIDS why? Because you have some failed knowledge of how ARVs work.
So I'm confused, does the consensus only matter to you when it agrees with what you already think is true?
If the deck was stacked then why make the claim in the first place? Or is it stacked only because he lost?
Prior to the breakthrough with HIV, chemicals were one of the leading hypotheses regarding HIV. But nobody ever really managed to make any progress with that hypothesis. There are no animal models of AIDS-like immunodeficiency produced by abused drugs, despite extensive animal experimentation with these agents. And there has always been plenty of government-funded support available for studies of the deleterious effects of abused substances. Not to mention the problem of AIDS in populations with limited exposure to such drugs, such as hemophiliacs and non-abusing sexual partners of drug abusers.
oops... that should have been "one of the leading hypotheses regarding AIDS."
Prior to the breakthrough with HIV, chemicals were one of the leading hypotheses regarding HIV. But nobody ever really managed to make any progress with that hypothesis.
What nonsense is that, tttrrrrlll? Nobody??? Everybody, ttrrrrrrrll, everybody. Everybody who thought "Hey, it's the chemicals!" and then quit chemical administration, made fabulous progress.
For instance, chemo therapy, ttrrrrlll, causing immune deficiency. You cut it out, the chemo, ttttrrrlll, you explain the patient what cancer really is (but before you can do that, you need to make some place in your foggy brain and study Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer's New Medicine), and then, some days after you cut out the drugs: hey! no more immune deficiency. And then, some weeks/months later: hey, the cancer is gone!!
jspreen, is there any evidence the people with AIDS had undergone chemo therapy prior to developing symptoms of AIDS? Naming random things that mess up the immune system is easy but do you have any correlation between that and the people that were diagnosed with AIDS?
Besides, I thought that you said bad feelings caused AIDS not chemicals.
OK people I will now throw in the second honey bun. Double Honey Bun Viral Signature Challenge y'all!
cooler BillingBipBip will be happy about my Halloween costume for lab party tonight. I'm going as Ru paul sexy supermodel and Repubican presidential candidate 08!!
Explain to the world why almost all(high ninties) of AIDS cases are in the male population. So much for a viral theory of the cause. If it were due to a virus, then half the AIDS cases would be in the female population plus there would be many thousands of AIDS cases, there is not. So much for it being sexually transmitted to because it is not in the age group, sex, location of the country that has the most.
Apy,
Why LDN works against AIDS has been discussed in this blog previously. It has to do to cytokines manipulation. You can read about this in the links provided.
On non_ HAART treatments for HIV/AIDS, I suggest you to read what Dr. Robert Gallo says in his last patent. Link also has been provided previously.
On the Carter question, despite the fact that he claims that he does not know if HIV is the ethiologic agent for AIDS, he provided a link in his last post, indicating who he is and what he does. He follows a system of treatment develloped by somebody who believes that AIDS is due to HIV. You can also see the links....
"Eliminate the viral load (9% accuracy) and the CD4(6% accuracy)and most of the AIDS cases would disappear in this country"
Noreen, haven't you cited those numbers before (on this thread or another) and gotten thoroughly hammered for it?
Also,
"If it were due to a virus, then half the AIDS cases would be in the female population plus there would be many thousands of AIDS cases, there is not. So much for it being sexually transmitted to because it is not in the age group, sex, location of the country that has the most"
These conclusions would require you to assume that in the beginning, HIV was evenly distributed amongst age, sex and geographical groups. This was not the case so why do you still think these should be the outcome?
I'm talking about scientific progress, not anecdotal claims. The plural of anecdote is not data. Denialists make much of the fact that HIV does not produce similar damage in animals. So where is the animal model of AIDS produced by abused drugs? Drug abuse researchers have been giving abused drugs to animals for years, and have discovered many forms of toxicity and other ill effects--but nothing like AIDS.
I suppose that this might be a rational argument if AIDS were combined to cancer chemotherapy patients rather occurring in homosexual men, hemophiliacs, intravenous drug abusers, and their non-drug abusing sexual partners.
HIV is "high nineties" in males noreen? Was that in 1980 in a group of ten AIDS patients or what.
Dr. Kerndt etal had a presentation at Int AIDS conference in 1993 it was called HIV prevalence and trends at three sentinel hospitals in Los Angeles County, 1988-1992
They had 34,000 blood samples from LA but they didn't know who was who and they tested it all for HIV. There was a significant increase in prevalence 1988 to 1992. HIV was 80% in males 20% in females. High nineties, not. Now it's about 2/3 male in the USA, check out the CDC. Worldwide even less. Some places more in women.
just shutup adele, look in the mirror and see how disgusting a person your are inside and out.
Oh by the way guys, check out Dr. maniotis's interview with DR jonas Moses, its very good, talking about his new book, Like the great scientist he is, he mentions Lo's brillaint work on mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans, the only microbe to kill/sicken every animal injected.
We shall have a moment of silence for Dr. Maniotis and Dr. Lo, two of the top contenders for the nobel prize.
mms://68.251.204.5/video/intimetv/ote010.wmv
Like...duh? If a virus is spread by sexual contact, wouldn't you expect it to spread first to the sexual partners of the person who first introduced it into the country, and then to their sexual partners?
Left as an exercise for the student: what would be expected of the distribution of cases if the virus was first introduced into the US by a gay male?
noreen, how many times have you brought up this claim, with it being shown to be untrue each time?
Brag:
I have only been following this thread off and on, so please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I have seen, the possibility for LDN to be an effective AIDS treatment has mostly been the claims of noreen and her referencing a doctor, and trials have not been completed to validate these claims. While it is possible there may be a some method of action where LDN treats AIDS I know of no proof of this nor any statistical evidence that it has any effect on AIDS patients. I am aware that it it has shown some promise in Chrons as well as MS, although there are still trials going on for that as far as I know and being effective in other diseases is not reason to believe it will work in AIDS.
We shall have a moment of silence for Dr. Maniotis and Dr. Lo, two of the top contenders for the nobel prize.
You make three Stevey your a real genious. Umm, you have a moment of silence when someone dies. Did they die? That would suck bc I like Mani-Otis he is very humorous person.
Dr. Lo can't be that smart, he seems to miss the importance of his own work, if it weren't for cooler we may all still be ignorant of Dr. Lo's genius, including himself.
We have yet to hear an explanation why most of the AIDS cases are in the male population in the states. How does the HIV virus know what sex it is affecting? LDN works better than the antiretrovirals because it does not come with all the nasty side effects that they have.
See my previous comment--the one beginning with "Like...duh? "
noreen, did you read trrll's response to your statement? My guess is no.
Lack of side effects is nice but I'm more interested in if it actually does anything to treat AIDS, it seems like establishing that might be fairly useful don't you think?
Why should it always be chemo or drugs? A lot of things can do the job, apy, a lot of things. Immune deficiency, why, for instance, famine can do the job. It shouldn't be called Aids though. Aids is a mean concept invented by sick people, apy, by people who're out of their head.
There is no real correlation and nobody should be diagnosed with Aids. Aids is just a sick concept, it's a sloppily made up syndrome caused by a hypothetical retrovirus mad scientists called HIV. But they've got it all wrong, apy, all wrong.
Tried to read between the lines again, didn't you? Don't apy, don't. So many things can cause disease, sure do. Chemicals, cyanide, carbon-monoxide. Lack of water, oxygen. Loneliness. Loss. Fear. Anger. You name it. With Aids it's different. Aids is only caused by believing in scientific crap.
I beleive you that LDN has very little in the way of toxicity.
But given your statement that despite LDN you have dropping CD4 counts and sky high viral loads, it seems likely that LDN lacks efficacy as a treatment for AIDS.
I'm talking about scientific progress, not anecdotal claims.
Ha! Ha! Ha! He's talking about scientific progress, the guy is! I write "Everybody who cut out the chemicals made fabulous progress" and this nerd comes up with "I'm not talking about anecdotal claims." 40 000 000 infected, tttttttrrrrlll, 0 cured. I think it's time to start to consider the "anecdotal claims". Ha! Ha! Ha!
"Aids is only caused by believing in scientific crap".
This line is Monty Python-level humor.
"She turned me into a newt!" [Pauses, looks around] "I got better!"
You spent a lot of time typing there jspreen, you could have just said:
Insert mumbo jumbo here.
Death: Trillions dead, 0 cured! When will the madness stop?! You scientists are killing us with your claims of "everybody dies". Indeed, who could live long after being told that they will eventually die no matter what? The thought that, with all of your "scientific" REsearch, you still can't stop something as simple as death. You come up with all sorts of reasons, AIDS, organ failure, gun shot, stabbing, just admit you don't know what causes death, you are as ignorant as a child! Dr Lo, noble prize winner elite group icnogitus knows you should all learn from him. Stop spreading you fear mongering AGING=DEATH cult dogma, open your eyes to life!
Well, I think that LDN does a lot for AIDS because it strengthens the immune system and prevent infections, which infections are at the heart of AIDS. It is the perfect drug. So yes, after almost two years and not even a cold, I do think that it is the perfect drug for AIDS and it doesn't affect the blood or liver enzymes in a negative way. What could be better?
This thread has become, as usual, boring and repetitive. Next thing you know someone will ask for the EM of HIV standing on top of the Empire State Building...
So, someone brought up some interesting news upthread, was D. David Steele really asked to stop producing Barnes World by Yaron and Associates? If not, why did he stop?
Does Bialy really have kidney cancer? (I sure as hell hope not.)
What about it denialists, got any more juicy gossip about yourselves?
THE GREATEST MISTAKE IN THE HISTORY OF MAN
HIV-science began just as cold fusion, with a discovery announced at a press conference by scientists and public officials eager for glory and funding. The difference was that there was no follow-up investigation to discern whether the discovery of "the virus that causes AIDS" was genuine. In retrospect, it is clear that no proof that HIV, then called HTLV-III, is the cause of AIDS was presented either at Dr. Robert Gallo's April, 1984, press conference, or in the four papers his team published a month later in Science. All Gallo claimed was that many, but not all, AIDS patients tested positive for antibodies to the retrovirus Gallo was then calling HTLV-III.
Warning signs that Gallo's virus might not be the cause of AIDS were abundant. Why wasn't the virus itself found in quantity in all of the AIDS patients? How abundant and active was the virus? Mightn't the presence of antibodies imply that the patients had developed immunity to the virus, rather than that the virus was destroying their immune systems? Above all, by what observable mechanism was this retrovirus not only destroying the immune system, but also causing such disparate conditions as Kaposi's sarcoma (hereafter KS) and dementia? The mystery was all the deeper because the virus was supposed to perform its destructive work many years after infection and after being reduced to near non-existence by the very antibodies that provided the evidence of infection.
In a normal scientific atmosphere, all these issues would have been debated for months (at least) in scientific conferences and journals before the profession would seriously consider settling upon HIV as the cause of AIDS. Gallo's logic amounted to this: "we have found antibodies to a previously unknown retrovirus in many of our AIDS patients; therefore this retrovirus causes all the cases of that vaguely defined syndrome we have labelled AIDS." Why didn't the other scientists notice that this reasoning was preposterous?
There can be no excuses for such a massive professional fiasco, but there are circumstances that make it partly understandable. Scientists customarily assume that papers published in leading journals like Science had been subjected to thorough, critical peer review. In fact the papers had obviously been rushed into publication. The haste was partly due to the perceived extent of the public health emergency, and partly due to the need to snatch credit for the discovery from the French, who had first isolated the virus and trustingly sent a sample to Dr. Gallo. Once the discovery was announced, the race was on to find a cure or vaccine, with grant money and glory in prospect.
No grants were offered for efforts to disprove the official theory. If anyone had stopped to investigate whether the virus really was guilty as charged, he would have looked like a fool for wasting valuable time that could be better spent looking for a cure. If such a researcher actually did find reason to doubt the official theory, he could look forward not to glory but to facing the wrath of disappointed colleagues. For cold fusion there was an opposition party of skeptical physicists in place, eager to debunk the pretensions of the chemists who claimed to have made the discovery. AIDS research was a one-party state from the beginning.
The HIV theory was immediately triumphant because it was the kind of solution to the AIDS mystery that all the major players wanted to see. Virologists like Dr. Gallo, who had been unsuccessful in the search for cancer-causing viruses, had found years of guaranteed funding for their very expensive laboratories. Gallo convinced his immediate superior Sam Broder. There was no leadership at NIAIDS at that time, as Thomas Krause was preparing to leave his position as Director of NIAIDS in a month for a new position at a university. Gallo and Broder both easily convinced Tony Fauci that HTLViii was the culprit. Tony Fauci came into office as Director of NIAIDS just four months after Gallo's very questionable "Science" papers. Tony Fauci suddenly had the newly found importance and prestige to demand and dole out immediate funding of millions of dollars solely for HTLV-III. Epidemiologists at the Centers for Disease Control gained new importance and prestige. The virologists at the National Cancer Institute who faced losing their jobs as no "cancer virus" had been found in 10 years, suddenly overnight became highly funded "retrovirologists" at NIAIDS, even though none of them had any knowledge or experience in the subject. Political officials in the Reagan administration, pummelled for their alleged inaction in the face of the "pandemic," could point to a smashing success and predict speedy development of a vaccine. Organizations of AIDS patients had cause to hope for a cure, and they were assured also that, since "everyone is at risk" for what would eventually be called "HIV disease," an unpredictable new virus and not their own conduct was to blame for their condition. Drug companies -- especially the influential Burroughs Wellcome, manufacturer of AZT -- stood to make a fortune. No one had a motive to doubt, and so no one doubted.
No one, that is, until Peter Duesberg surfaced with his famous paper in Cancer Research in 1987. By then it was simply too late for reconsideration. The investment of money was too great, and the investment of the egos of the former cancer virologists were now too deeply entrenched.
I have been associated with Duesberg in the HIV/AIDS controversy for about five years, as a law professor with a particular interest in scientific reasoning.
I first met Duesberg because he came to ask my advice after he was refused renewal of his NIH Outstanding Investigator Grant. From the context, it was apparent that a man who had formerly been a prince of science was now on a blacklist.
This thread has become, as usual, boring and repetitive."
What do you expect when the debate is between people with massive amounts of evidence and people with no evidence. The denialists make a claim and it is refuted with scientific evidence from the literature. When faced with this, the fall back position is "But HIV has never been isolated in pure form antibody tests are unreliable blah blah blah." Then someone comes up with a new "challenge" to the evidence and it devolves to the same old arguments.
"Next thing you know someone will ask for the EM of HIV standing on top of the Empire State Building..."
Even if that were obtained and shown, they would then ask for an EM of HIV summiting Mt. Everest as the gold standard of evidence. The goal post moving never ends.
Hinkley
I just got some pussy last night from a hot girl, totally chiller, afterwards we saw the film hiv fact or fraud, and read project day lily, she was so impressed with my intellect we humped again.
It is remarkable that Phillip Johnson, Esq. stopped by to grace us with his Presbyterian presence tonight...and that he chose to communicate by cutting and pasting from an essay he wrote 13 years ago.
As many of you know, Phillip Johnson is one of the founders of "intelligent design" and one of many religious conservatives who are sympathetic to some of the goals of HIV/AIDS denialism, such as ending government funding for any scientific research programs that may benefit the health of drug addicts, gay people, those who have sex outside of a "one-man, one-woman" relationship, and anyone else whom the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans labels abhorrent.
man, you are really nuts stop stalking me adele, get a life ya big fat pig! Its halloween! Im going out!
Roy Hinkley,
Since you complained about the lack of juicy gossip from denialists, I will let you know that I just received an interesting email. Peter Duesberg has passed along some not too surprising information: Michael Geiger, death-threat dilettante and fighter of sexual repression everywhere (except in the case of those who denigrate Greta Christina) wrote the form letter from "greenapple" found above:
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/10/denialism_they_dont_remember…
Thank you for the information, Dr. Duesberg! We look forward to hearing from you again.
"The difference was that there was no follow-up investigation to discern whether the discovery of "the virus that causes AIDS" was genuine."
Then what do you call the 140,790 papers that follow the Gallo papers?
"All Gallo claimed was that many, but not all, AIDS patients tested positive for antibodies to the retrovirus Gallo was then calling HTLV-III."
Show me the study where a significant number of AIDS patients are HIV-.
"Why wasn't the virus itself found in quantity in all of the AIDS patients? How abundant and active was the virus?"
All of these are questions that describe the life cycle of a newly discovered virus. If the answers didn't fit with the theory that HIV causes AIDS, the theory would have been discarded. However, the answers supported the theory and therefore, the theory still stands.
"Mightn't the presence of antibodies imply that the patients had developed immunity to the virus, rather than that the virus was destroying their immune systems?"
First of all, is "mightn't" even a word? Secondly, the whole antibody=immunity statement is too black and white to fit in the real world. Many viruses cause disease even after the production of antibody, so while antibodies mean resistance to a particular strain, the don't mean absolute immunity (ever had the flu? Probably H1N1, the predominant strain for decades).
"Above all, by what observable mechanism was this retrovirus not only destroying the immune system, but also causing such disparate conditions as Kaposi's sarcoma (hereafter KS) and dementia?"
KS is not "caused" by HIV, but by HHV-8. It is the lack of immune control of HHV-8 infected cells that results in Kaposi's Sarcoma. Dementia is caused by cell death within the brain due to HIV infection. I worked in a lab researching HIV infection of astrocytes, however, I believe the research focus has shifted to microglia cells, but I could be wrong.
"The mystery was all the deeper because the virus was supposed to perform its destructive work many years after infection and after being reduced to near non-existence by the very antibodies that provided the evidence of infection."
This is a mystery only to those who haven't read the literature and are therefore unfamiliar with HIV's capabilities to evade antibody responses.
"In a normal scientific atmosphere, all these issues would have been debated for months (at least) in scientific conferences and journals before the profession would seriously consider settling upon HIV as the cause of AIDS."
There are numerous papers published before Gallo's on the topic of AIDS. Haven't read them as I am not in the field of HIV research, but Gallo's papers weren't the first and the theory that AIDS was caused by an infectious agent wasn't born with Gallo's paper. But I'll give you a pass since, being a law professor and all, you're probaby not that familiar with how a scientific atmosphere usually works.
"Gallo's logic amounted to this: "we have found antibodies to a previously unknown retrovirus in many of our AIDS patients; therefore this retrovirus causes all the cases of that vaguely defined syndrome we have labelled AIDS." Why didn't the other scientists notice that this reasoning was preposterous? "
Guess what. That's how science works. Gallo made an ovbservation that explained a phenomenon. He published this observation and other scientists tested it. They too made the same observation and that is why HIV is researched today as the cause of AIDS.
As for the rest of your post, it displays increbible ignorance of how the scientific establishment works and using nothing more than conspiracy theory BS arguments to make your "point." I thought I would go through and address it point by point but have decided it is not worth it.
By the way, what website did you cut and paste this from? I might take a look if I decide I need a good laugh.
Then what do you call the 140,790 papers that follow the Gallo papers?
Confirmation bias. All but a small handful of papers on HIV, simply assume that it AIDS is caused by a retrovirus.
That's why it's necessary to re-examine the original (shoddy) work from the early 80's.
Cooler,
I was looking for gossip not your masturbatory fantasies.
But, uh... great, congratulations on your conquests.
The "rethinkers" sure do have some curious bed-fellows.
Take this member of the "ever-growing" list of rethinkers.
William Gairdner
Although perhaps Gairdner accidentally signed the wrong petition.
Jim,
"What do you expect when the debate is between..."
Yeah, I guess they kind of suckered me too. When I heard that "the HIV=AIDS paradigm was crumbling and would soon be a laughingstock", I expected to get a little more evidence than a bunch of guys saying:
"The paradigm is gonna be overturned now!
I mean now, no , right now,
no... riiiiiight nnnnow!
shit, no I meant now!
Nnnnnow!
I meant any second,... nnnow!
Don't blink your gonna miss it, now!
I really mean it this time, it can't hold together any longer, right now!
I mean now!
No now!
Riiiight nnn...."
It got kind of dull by about 1996.
Elk Mountain Man,
Geiger must have found an editor, that's very concise for him.
And! He didn't suggest placing his foot in anyone's mouth and ripping them in half through their asshole, as he once so kindly offered to Chris Noble.
Yep, he's definitely found an editor.
Roy, Sir Elkie is plenty crazy as it is. He hasn't been rigth about anything here yet. Now he is claiming Duesberg is his source. Go figger. You're the only one who has entertained the idea even for a second that his latest fascinating tidbit didn't originate from the orifice it seems only a Geiger size foot can plug effectually.
Like...duh? If a virus is spread by sexual contact, wouldn't you expect it to spread first to the sexual partners of the person who first introduced it into the country, and then to their sexual partners?
Left as an exercise for the student: what would be expected of the distribution of cases if the virus was first introduced into the US by a gay male?
Uh Oh I don't know Trrll. Maybe In that hypothetical case I'd first of all expect there to be only one patient zero. Ever! And he'd of course be from Haiti. The virus would stay among Haitian immigrants for about 10 years, then move into male drug users, then African-American women with gay husbands. In another 30 years it's probably gonna hit the white suburban middle class population, whose favourite sport as we all know is to shag the neighbour's wife - that is if it finds a way to solve the problem of those missing receptors. I'd expect it to mutate out of existence before it ever infects you, me or any lecherous congressman who spent his draft dodger years nailing rent boys in public toilets.
And just imagine I came up with that for free as opposed to these post-colonial tax money wasters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2954500820071029?feedType=R…
So when are we gonna nuke those Haitian bio-terrorist ? Amazing to think there are any of them left considering they've all had AIDS for 40 years now. Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it Trrll?
You forgot the most important word, jim. It's not scientific evidence but overwhelming scientific evidence. It's important, jim, people might not recognize the evidence for what it is.
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, HAAAAAAAAAAA !!!
Hinkley,
I think you are suffering from Lo and Maniotis insecurity syndrome, when faced with vastly more intelligent academics you act like a ninny.
please get laid, since you are probably a toad, why dont you give your love to Adele, the ugliest toad ever? You guys would be cute together!
Dear MEC,
Regarding Duesberg's "revelation" about Geiger, I too am skeptical about its accuracy. I'm surprised that Duesberg even knows who Michael Geiger is, unless the denialist community is really so small that the top general dines with the slimiest worm in the boot-treads of his footsoldiers. Most of Duesberg's ideas are not worth the paper they are written on, and I can't put much stock in anything Duesberg says unless I have independent confirmation. The letter does fit Geiger's tactics of trying to silence opponents in any way possible, including threats of physical violence and murder; unfortunately, such behavior is not unique to Geiger in the denialist community.
More interesting than the author's identity is that Duesberg (apparently) felt the urge to expose Michael Geiger. Perhaps Duesberg recognizes, despite his daftness in other areas, that a letter-writing campaign from denialists will have the opposite of Geiger's intended effect. He sees that drawing attention to the ICC and the BBC's apology will earn Moore, Bergman, et al even more accolades, not demerits from university administrators who have made their concern for public health into their careers.
Dear Sir Elkie,
Of course Duesberg knows (of) Michael Geiger, since Michael was there right from the beginning where and when it all happened. He has fought tirelessly and courageously for an alternative to the toxic waste products you pharma guys pulled off the shelves in a manoeuver as predictable as all Bush and Cheney's past and future decisions to invade and kill in order to spread democracy. Post-colonial, military thinking translates into toxic chemical thinking when it coomes to medicine. Or didn't you notice Anthony Fauci just got a Lasker Award for exactly that combination?
The letter does fit Geiger's tactics of trying to silence opponents in any way possible, including threats of physical violence and murder; unfortunately, such behavior is not unique to Geiger in the denialist community.
Threats of violence and murder?? You mean like so:
This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly (John Moore, British gentleman who spell checks even his most passionately phrased threats)
Ah yes, seems it works both ways: reliance on toxic chemicals translates back into a militaristic shock and awe approach to anybody perceived as standing in the way of AIDStruth.
But let me help you, Sir Elkie, since your intelligence gathering agencies seem to be of the sort that would find fantom WMDs and fantom viruses everywhere. Michael Geiger is not "Greenapple". He has, however, circulated stuff similar to Greenapple's on more than one occasion. Maybe what you have seen or heard about is Geiger acting on Greenapple's suggestion. You did notice Greenapple was encouraging people to use his mail as a template for their own complaints didn't you?
How exactly you or your intel officers have arrived at the conclusion that Duesberg or anybody else has "exposed" anything, since this is not exactly a clandestine operation
is beyond me.
Sir Elkie, if you are well-funded, perhaps I could propose you fire all your denialist propaganda analysts and hire me instead. My services are very reasonably priced, and I would likely be able to prevent a couple of over hasty invasions.
"I'm surprised that Duesberg even knows who Michael Geiger is"
Of course you are surprised, you haven't looked into any of the history.
"Most of Duesberg's ideas are not worth the paper they are written on, and I can't put much stock in anything Duesberg says unless I have independent confirmation"
Why? because he is crazy for denying that HIV causes Aids?
Chris Nobel rightfully takes offense at such non sense but somehow that shit flies when it takes off from the U.S.S. "Overwhelming Evidence".
It is sad that Duesberg needs to be defended in Scientific American with this editorial note:
"We respect the opinions of any readers who may criticize our choice to publish Duesberg in this case but hope they will nonetheless evaluate his ideas about cancer on their own merits."
Sheesh pat nobody knows about Michael Geiger except when they read this blog and they live in San Diego. There's more people know his old name lincoln then his real name!
Oh and Stevey Cooler try cuddling after sex most people like that more then reading Project Daylily. Might improve your dating life.
Dear MEC,
Duesberg and Geiger have fought hand in hand, but not for an alternative to toxic waste. Both have fought to expose the filthy gay lifestyle as the true cause of AIDS. If a homosexual man with AIDS claims to have lead a clean lifestyle, they call him a liar. Denialists don't actually look at data, or go gather data on AIDS cases, for example to see if gay HIV-seropositive men who admit to heavy drug abuse progress to AIDS faster than gay HIV-seropositive men who do not use drugs.
Or to compare HIV-seropositive people to HIV-seronegative people, to see who gets AIDS.
Follezou JY, Lan NY, Lien TX, Lafon ME, Tram LT, Hung PV, Aknine X, Lowenstein W, Ngai NV, Theodorou I, Delfraissy JF, Debre P, Fleury HJ, Barre-Sinoussi F, Chi NH.
Clinical and biological characteristics of human immunodeficiency virus-infected and uninfected intravascular drug users in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999 Sep;61(3):420-4.
PMID: 10497983
Smit E, Semba RD, Pilibosian E, Vlahov D, Tun W, Purvis L, Tang AM.
Body habitus in a cohort of HIV-seropositive and HIV-seronegative injection drug users.
AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2005 Jan;19(1):19-30.
PMID: 15665632
You think of yourself as a Science defender. Why do scientists like you need to be reminded of this:
"We respect the opinions of any readers who may criticize our choice to publish Duesberg in this case but hope they will nonetheless evaluate his ideas about cancer on their own merits."
I think it is because there are a lot of science poseurs with raging hormones engulfed with irrational personal hate walking University halls and need constant reminding about the scientific method. You appear to be one of them.
Based on what science is Bergman arguing that maggiore is HIV-negative?
Why do you think that is sad? The denialist camp will often call someone a shill for getting a little bit of pharma money for research even if it had nothing to do with the findings being discussed, so are you surprised that some people may consider all of Duesberg's ideas that of a crank because one is?
Here is a review of that article by Orac. Duesberg seems to be using much the same strategy as he does for AIDS.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/04/peter_duesberg_chromosomal_ch…
Dr. Duke, Apy,
We've been down the ad Duesberg road before. You guys lost, I therefore limit myself to repeating the agreed upon terms of capitulation:
I'll agree with the point I gather you are trying to make that some of the articles on Aidstruth that deal primarily with speculations about Duesberg's personality, motives and possible homophobia are not constructive and are in fact counterproductive If they provide a reason for people like you to avoid dealing with the scientific evidence that is found on the website then they are counterproductive (Chris Noble)
So how about it guys, is there any science to be found on that website?
You speak of the "denialist" camp as though is was a planet with its own species. I don't need to point out how unhinged that is. I have never seen it.
"are you surprised that some people may consider all of Duesberg's ideas that of a crank because one is?"
Yes, very...besides who the fuck is Orac other than a bloggeur.
MEC,
Science is published in peer reviewed journals and other places. The AIDStruth web site is about fighting AIDS denial, not about AIDS itself. I am not speculating about Geiger and Duesberg, they openly state that HIV is harmless and that it is the gay lifestyle that is the cause of AIDS. They deny the existence of mountains of evidence to the contrary.
"I am not speculating about Geiger and Duesberg, they openly state that HIV is harmless and that it is the gay lifestyle that is the cause of AIDS."
Patently false. They argue HIV is harmless and AIDS is a lifestyle disease. SOME gay people DO lead unhealthy lives but it is not their homosexuality that is at the root of it. Has Duesberg ever accused hemopheliacs of leading a closeted gay life? no.
MEClaus Dr. Duke has two science articles there, did you ream em yet? Some one talks about science, you ignore them. Some one talks about science and Duesberg, you listen to the Duesberg part, ignofre the science.
Read those articles and tell us why their wrong and Duesberg's right.
MEC,
If you read my post you would see I was not attacking Duesberg but simply pointing out that people naturally do "guilt by association", which is what the SCIAM editors were trying to keep people from doing.
pat,
Orac is an oncologist as well as molecular biologist. If you read the link I posted you would have seen that as he addresses if he is in a position to review Duesberg's paper in the first paragraph.
Side-note to pat: Scientific American is directed to a lay audience, so that editorial comment was meant for lay readers, not scientists.
Side-note to cooler and Adele: Speaking of raging hormones, if you two keep yelling at each other about your sex lives, people are going to think you're flirting. (Cooler - hope you and your hot girl used condoms. Even if you don't believe in HIV, there are other sexually transmitted diseases. And before jspreen jumps in - at the very least, if you don't want to become a parent right now, condoms are the responsible choice.)
Scientists refer to this as a "working hypothesis." Most research is based upon some such tentative assumption, but that doesn't mean that scientists are not alert to the possibility that it may turn out to be wrong. There are many points at which the HIV hypothesis could have faltered based on subsequent work: if Duesberg's original claims that HIV was not present in many AIDS patients had been confirmed once sensitive PCR tests had become available, if people had been found to mount an effective immune response to HIV as Duesberg claimed, if anti-HIV drugs had not been found to postpone the onset of AIDS in clinical trials and in the practical experience of AIDS doctors, if a plausible mechanism for HIV infection of cells of the immune system had not been found, etc., etc.
Adele, dear, what was your Halloween like? Did you wear your HIV costume while riding a broomstick?
The question was Duesberg's and Geiger's "activism". Dr Duke did indeed throw on some science papers on a different note. But I think I have made sufficiently clear previously that I don't respond to mere study titles thrown at me - especially when they're not even linked as in this case.
jen_m how do you have two side notes when you don't have a main note?
And duh I'm flirting with Steve!! A guy who denies HIV, may be he can deny my fatness and ugly face too!!
"Side-note to pat: Scientific American is directed to a lay audience, so that editorial comment was meant for lay readers, not scientists."
it is directed at an audiences interested in science. But ok, its for lay people...so whats the diference? Why are so many "wannabees" like Adele, Orac and whonot arguing out of their arses with this kind of garbage: "are you surprised that some people may consider all of Duesberg's ideas that of a crank because one is?"...I am very surprised...
"pat,
Orac is an oncologist as well as molecular biologist. If you read the link I posted you would have seen that as he addresses if he is in a position to review Duesberg's paper in the first paragraph."
I know who the fuck Orac is..he is of the same despotic type that argues for the internment of people he disagrees with and the forced breaking up of families based on science as he interprets it. He believes science trumps and dictates all personal freedoms. An armchair despot.
Apy,
You say that Duesberg uses the same strategy for cancer as for AIDS. In the absence of further explanation t distinguish yourself from the company you're in, one must assume you think Duesberg blames all cancer on the
patients' homosexuality.
pat,
Then why did you ask who he was?
MEC,
If you read the post I linked to, Orac goes into detail about where my "same strategy" comment came from.
"pat,
Then why did you ask who he was?"
I didn't ask who he was...I asked: who the fuck is Orac anyway. You no speaky slang?
Apy, it would help if you show you're actually able to formulate the argument, or at least quote a relevant passage. Orac's comparisons of the aneuploidy theory with Duesberg's AIDS arguments are inane. It's your side that's black and white, monocausal.
Pat, you asked why scientists needed to be reminded of something from a Scientific American editorial, and I'm contending that the editors of SA weren't directing that comment at scientists but at their primary audience of science fans.
I can't remember if I've said this before in another thread, but even Dr. Duesberg, when I heard him talk at Berkeley, said that he had parted from mainstream virology considerably before HIV became a topic of contention. (Specifically, his perspective concerning the oncogenic behavior of viruses parted ways from that of most virologists and distance between his views and the mainstream.) He has been more widely perceived as a maverick by the scientific community in the 1990s and recent years, but he was well on his way to this reputation in his own field in the late 1970s.
Side-note to Adele: if it has nothing to do with the main argument going on, I stick it in a side-note so people can skip it without any fear of losing the main thread of the debate. The fact I'm the only one who ever does this does not dissuade me from its worth as an idea.
"I know who the fuck Orac is..he is of the same despotic type that argues for the internment of people he disagrees with and the forced breaking up of families based on science as he interprets it. He believes science trumps and dictates all personal freedoms. An armchair despot."
Obviously, you don't know Orac at all. This is a guy who fights against Holocaust denialists, but also acknowledges their right to free speech. That sounds more like Voltaire than a despot to me. And for the rest of your slander, put up (evidence) or shut up.
jen_m that does make sense thank you.
SIDE NOTE
MEC I had a fun HAlloween thank you but I didn't ride a broomstick but it was fun. My sister took care of the kids trick or treating bc I was out. You know I read in the paper there's a state where they make sex offenders put a sign in their window, NO CANDY and turn out their light so kids don't stop there for candy. Do they do any thing like that where you live? Thats a good idea don't you think.
I can tell you've really read the post.
"Obviously, you don't know Orac at all. This is a guy who fights against Holocaust denialists, but also acknowledges their right to free speech. That sounds more like Voltaire than a despot to me. And for the rest of your slander, put up (evidence) or shut up."
Go read about Starchild and come back and tell me he is not making an argument for removing that kid from his home. Holocaust crusader or not he is a despot for making that argument. I asked him if he would actually do all those things he argues for with his own hands (remove the child himself, strap the kid down himself and treat the child against his own will) and all I got was cowardly silence. I figure it is an admission that indeed he would not have the heart to do any of those things himself but he sure has the courage to hammer away radical interventionist policy from the comfort of his own cubicle.
There is your evidence and of course I won't "shut up", right Bill O'?
BTW, Shiritai
Maybe you want to dodge my question too. Based on what science Does Jeanne Bergman diagnose Maggiore as HIV negative and suffering a despicable case of capitalistic usury?
Apy, I take that as "no you're not capable of formualting the argument and quoting relevant passages".
Adele, I think they should castrate all serious male sex offenders.
They should also force AIDS denialists to turn off their light at all times and put up a sign saying "In Guantanamo until further notice"
Adele, I think they should castrate all serious male sex offenders.
So the ones that think their funny get off free?
shirtai,
just shut your mouth, you are suffering from lo/maniotis/duesberg envy syndrome, I would recommend Prozac for your lunacy and eternal woo.
"Go read about Starchild and come back and tell me he is not making an argument for removing that kid from his home. Holocaust crusader or not he is a despot for making that argument."
So, wanting to prevent medical neglect is the mark of a despot? Come on, even Libertarians wouldn't agree with you there. Well, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. And if you're an anarchist, we'll just have to disagree.
Also, Orac most likely ignored your post because he thought you were just a troll, since Starchild would hardly be the first child to not want to go to the hospital.
I'm not sure why you're asking me about Jeanne Bergman or Maggiore, since I don't know those people. If you want to know the answer, you should probably do some research. Or, if you have some info on them and just want my opinion on it, then I would be happy to do that.
Adele, my idea was to let the Judge and jury decide who's funny or not in this particular case.
Pat wrote:
"I am not speculating about Geiger and Duesberg, they openly state that HIV is harmless and that it is the gay lifestyle that is the cause of AIDS."
Patently false. They argue HIV is harmless and AIDS is a lifestyle disease. SOME gay people DO lead unhealthy lives but it is not their homosexuality that is at the root of it. Has Duesberg ever accused hemopheliacs of leading a closeted gay life? no.
Posted by: pat | November 1, 2007 2:02 PM
Well, Duesberg and Geiger ignore the documented fact that HIV infection, and NOT level of recreational drug use is very very highly correlated with AIDS. HIV-infected people such as Michael Callen and Arthur Ashe who lead very "clean" and healthy lives, died of AIDS. Most 1960s and 1970s rock stars who are not HIV infected are still rocking on despite admitting to decades of recreational drug use. Only the ones such as Freddy Mercury, who became infected with HIV, died from AIDS.
My point was that real scientists go out and gather data which prove that HIV infection, and not "lifestlye" is the cause of AIDS, while denialists simply "rethink" the issue and declare that Michael Callen must have been lying about his healthy lifestyle, and deny that any real data has ever been gathered.
"So, wanting to prevent medical neglect is the mark of a despot? Come on, even Libertarians wouldn't agree with you there. Well, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. And if you're an anarchist, we'll just have to disagree."
Admit to me that you also know nothing about this case. "Medical neglect" is the charge made by Orac (and you...based on 0 knowledge of the case). No one including yourself can demonstrate neglect when it is the kid himself that is refusing chemotherapy because...in his own words...he's been there, done that and he thinks he wont survive another round. It is not a case of medical neglect. If anything, it is a failure of medicine to convince the kid otherwise.
"So, wanting to prevent medical neglect is the mark of a despot? Come on, even Libertarians wouldn't agree with you there. Well, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. And if you're an anarchist, we'll just have to disagree."
Thank you for your vapid response. Two Aidstruthiness editors (Moore and Bergman)seem to disagree on her HIV status and both seem to base their findings on "solid science. ( The only thing the two agree on is that Maggiore is twisting her own medical status to cash in on the Aids scare). I was just wondering how this is possible and what kind of scince this is but you don't know; thats ok, no one seems to know and JP Moore, who was here earlier, decamped.
AIDS is NOT correlated with drug use. See for example:
Di Franco MJ, Sheppard HW, Hunter DJ, Tosteson TD, Ascher MS.
The lack of association of marijuana and other recreational drugs with progression to AIDS in the San Francisco Men's Health Study.
Ann Epidemiol. 1996 Jul;6(4):283-9.
PMID: 8876838
Haverkos HW.
The search for cofactors in AIDS, including an analysis of the association of nitrite inhalant abuse and Kaposi's sarcoma.
Prog Clin Biol Res. 1990;325:93-102. Review.
PMID: 2405412
Ascher MS, Sheppard HW, Winkelstein W Jr, Vittinghoff E.
Does drug use cause AIDS?
Nature. 1993 Mar 11;362(6416):103-4.
PMID: 8095697
I love your speculations, they are quite imaginative:
"And if you're an anarchist, we'll just have to disagree."
Shiritai
"Orac most likely ignored your post because..."
Did you read my post about ...IF my dad had wheels, he'd be a pick-up truck?
"My point was that real scientists go out and gather data which prove that HIV infection, and not "lifestlye" is the cause of AIDS, while denialists simply "rethink" the issue and declare that Michael Callen must have been lying about his healthy lifestyle, and deny that any real data has ever been gathered.
Dr Duke,
If you really have a point to make then please make it without having to resort to patent fabrications about Duesberg saying AIDS is a "homosexual" lifestyle disease. "Homosexual" was inserted in there to underscore the charges that Duesberg is a homophobe. Your point is that AIDS is not a lifestyle disease but a viral one...got that.
Shiritai
There was a problem with the last part of my post . Should read:
"I'm not sure why you're asking me about Jeanne Bergman or Maggiore, since I don't know those people. If you want to know the answer, you should probably do some research. Or, if you have some info on them and just want my opinion on it, then I would be happy to do that."
Thank you for your vapid response. Two Aidstruthiness editors (Moore and Bergman)seem to disagree on her HIV status and both seem to base their findings on "solid science. ( The only thing the two agree on is that Maggiore is twisting her own medical status to cash in on the Aids scare). I was just wondering how this is possible and what kind of scince this is but you don't know; thats ok, no one seems to know and JP Moore, who was here earlier, decamped.
I don't normally respond to questions from AIDS denialists, particularly ones as inane as Postman Pat's, but in the interests of stopping one particularly foolish and incredibly persistent attempt to pervert the truth, I will make a simple clarification of what my good friend Jeanne Bergman and I have variously stated re Ms Maggiore's HIV infection status. What Postman Pat neglects to take into account when alleging there is a difference of opinion between us is the different time at which our statements were made. Jeanne Bergman opined in the NY Press article that Ms Maggiore was probably HIV-negative, based on Ms Maggiore's own public statements on the issue over the years, in which she had variously said she was -positive, -negative or indeterminate. That NY Press article was published BEFORE the LA Coroner's report into the death of Ms Maggiore's daughter became publicly available. That report proves that MS Maggiore is HIV-infected because it shows that her daughter died of AIDS, with p24 antigens detected in her brain tissues (I think it is safe to discount the incredibly unlikely possibility that the daughter acquired her HIV infection from any source other than her mother). Once the LA Coroner's report became available, it therefore provided solid medical evidence on the HIV infection status of Ms Maggiore, evidence that outweighs Ms Maggiore's own, and conflicting public statements on the issue. Nicoli Nattrass's and my Op-Ed article in the New York Times was, of course, written AFTER the LA Coroner's report was made available on the internet. Jeanne Bergman's earlier comments in the NY Press are therefore out of date, nothing more, nothing less. But as usual, AIDS denialists like Postman Pat dwell in a time warp, focussing on alleged minor inconsistencies and nit-picking the minutia of the HIV/AIDS field, while overlooking what really matters: the rock-solid scientific evidence that HIV infection causes AIDS.
Postman Pat should not expect me to respond to any further comments he (or conceivably she) cares to make on this (or any other issue), on this Blog. He or she is advised instead to consult the AIDS Truth website for some interestting new material that will be posted there in the coming weeks.
It's insane, the behaviour of the "Scientific Community" apologists. They're like the men during the cold rush, you know, the feverish gold diggers. The guys who, if they didn't find something here, they'd start to dig over there. "C'mon Jim, get your butt over here and help me to prove we know how to search 'em nuggets." Well, after all they were searching for gold so I guess it's not too weird they wouldn't let go with all that fever and all.
But the HIV=Aids apologist, what the heck are they looking for, really? What is it they're after so feverishly? Proof by all means that a mean motherfucker of a virus causes a deadly disease which can only be tackled with the help of about the most toxic chemical compounds ever developed? That's not something comparable to gold. It's just shit, man, they're digging for shit! And if people tell them to stop digging there, that they will never strike on anything better than the bad smells of what they've already found, man, they just can't let go! "Shut up asshole, we'll show you we know what we're doing. C'mon Bob, don't stop diggin', we'll proof 'em fuckers we were right from the beginning".
Sometimes the weird idea strikes me that somehow there must be heaps of gold behind all their shit but I can't figure how. I can't, really.
Thank you for at least trying to answer Mr. Moore. You can go on ignoring me.
We now know that Maggiore has been diagnosed in reverse through the tragic loss of her daughter. Before that, no one could know for sure what status she had, including Maggiore herself. We now know that Bergman was making wild speculations about another persons health and very certainly about her motivations in a cruel, crude and immature manner. Jeann Bergman's comments are a lot more than simply out of date; you have now shown them to be libelous.
Yeah, I guess it's safe for you, Mr Moore. Nobody will go after you with a knife or a shotgun or something, just because you discount incredibly unlikely possibilities. Who cares about the details once one disposes of overwhelming evidence? Well, what the heck. I think it is safe to take into account the incredibly likely possibility that you acquired your disgusting behaviour during the shit rush referred to above.
"the rock-solid scientific evidence that HIV infection causes AIDS."
The day you have observed it I will let you can call it rock solid. Until then the "fact" that HIV causes AIDS remains a theory.
Pat,
If you think children know what's best for them, then there's really nothing more for me to talk about. Also, if you want me to read certain posts made by you, or certain articles, you'll have to link them. I can't read your mind.
"Thank you for your vapid response."
Are you sure you meant to say "vapid"? It doesn't really fit.
Pat,
Also, I'm certain you don't know what "theory" means in science.