Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.
----------------------------------------------

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

BEST VIEWED IN LARGE FONT
Expanded GUIDE TO SITE PURPOSE AND LAYOUT is in the lower blue section at the bottom of every home page.

A skeptics’ Wikipedia is born, and Web AIDS discussions bloom

Esmay, Bennett, Bialy star on desk screens

The Wikipedia for skeptics, SkepticWiki, the Encyclopedia of Science and Critical Thinking, has started operation, notes Bob Carroll, author of The Skeptic’s Dictionary.

SkepticWiki is still in an embryonic state, though it already has 335 entries. It is not clear yet how to add a new entry.

Also mentioned is a skeptical bloggers’ scheduled chat, Skeptics Circle, where bloggers at regular intervals chat and blog various topics. See introduction, schedule and archives at here.

Carroll confides his reservations about the accuracy of Wikipedias, which suffer from the same problems of credibility as any other posts on the current free-for-all that is the Web:


The 21st meeting of the Skeptic’s Circle is now up and in dialogue form for your reading pleasure.

SkepticWiki, the Encyclopedia of Science and Critical Thinking, is also up and running.

Both of these resources offer an opportunity for skeptics to share their writing. I will admit, however, that I have some reservations about the Wiki movement and its anonymous authors. One of the key pieces of information I believe I need to have is the author’s name when determining whether to trust something I read on the Internet. The reader has to already know most of the stuff you read in a Wiki piece to be able to judge whether it’s trustworthy or not. Also, many of the articles are redundant. The opportunity for hoaxing and subterfuge may be too tempting for some miscreants. Do the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks? I don’t know.

The Skeptic’s Circle, on the other hand, gives skeptical bloggers a place to meet, publish, and find out what others are writing.

Such problems will surely be around in the beginning, but perhaps they will ease as the crowd reaches its stable conclusion, since often, according to the principle of James Surowiecki’s Wisdom of Crowds, the crowd achieves wisdom that the individual cannot match.

However, though it surely has great potential, the raw SkepticWiki site is still at square one as far as text goes. Here is a SkepticWiki book review of Almost Like a Whale (Darwin’s Ghost: The Origin of Species Rewritten, in the States). presumably indicating that the site is based in England:


Almost Like a Whale

From SkepticWiki

Author: Steve Jones

ISBN 055299958X

[edit]

Synopsis

The subtitle of Professor Jones’s book is “The Origin of Species Updated”. He has taken it upon himself to rewrite Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species reusing Darwin’s chapter headings, subheadings, and even synopses of chapters, but having the advantage of another century and a half of biological data to refer to. His book, then, is like Darwin’s: “one long argument” in favour of evolution and the theory of evolution, replete with biological facts. By following so precisely the intellectual framework laid out by Darwin, it also demonstrates clearly that although the theory of evolution has been refined over the years, it has required no substantial alterations and that Darwin’s insights into evolution are still essential to our understanding of biology.

[edit]

Memorable Quotes

“Soon after the discovery of Unenlagia, a turkey-sized, carnivorous (and emphatically flightless) dinosaur with short arms was found. It had unmistakeable feathers, barbs and all, fanning from its tail. In the absence of wings, they could not be used for flight and may have been courtship displays or even insulation for the animal’s rear end … Birds can no longer claim sole ownership even of feathers, let alone of an identity that sprang fully formed into the fossil record.”

[edit]

Reviews

An excellent read for anyone interested in biology, and also an excellent source of facts for the confusion of creationists.

Room for expansion, obviously, but a solid start to what could become an excellent resource node. Notification came via Caroll’s email listserv, in Skeptic’s Dictionary Newsletter 62 (see below – click to expand – at the end of this post).

The problem with most Web “skeptics”

Unfortunately the stream of skeptic contributions to the SkepticWiki seems likely to suffer from the widespread flaw that limits the value of most skepticism of this kind, on the Web. That is, the tendency of the ordinary skeptic to stand within the circle of conventional wisdom facing outwards, rather that outside facing in both directions ie in and out.

Like the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, most ordinary skepticism currently blogged and argued in threads seems to be of this defensive, reflex kind, rather than the more productive, Bertrand Russell brand whereby the independent thinker questions established doctrine as freely and independently as he or she tries to demolish challenges to it.

In the case of the Skeptical Inquirer, otherwise generally a well written and useful contribution to rationality in an increasingly supertitious society, it is disappointing that both contributors and editors seem largely unaware of the enduring truth that science moves on frequently by replacing paradigms, rather than simply enlarging them.

Where the magazine could be doing a useful service in examining current scientific and medical beliefs and reporting where they may be less certain and evidence-based than represented in the media by their proponents, on the whole it prefers to attack the easy targets of scientific and medical quackery. Predictably the magazine has proved unequal to the task of evaluating the sense and nonsense of the HIV-AIDS debate in its one major attempt to treat the subject.

In general the current range of skeptic blogs are merely more pedestrian examples of the same problem. This is particularly unfortunate in a curently hotly debated AIDS case, the death of dissident Chistine Maggiore’s child from allergic reaction to amoxicillin, where bloggers seem to serve largely as cheerleaders for the HIV=AIDS orthodoxy. In this cause they have extensively rationalized the accusation that Maggiore endangered the wellbeing of her child and caused its death with her conviction that the paradigm was illfounded.

For example, Medicspoint, a page of ad hominem discussion of “Why Did “AIDS Baby” Eliza Jane Really Die?” on the large eight forum Medicspoint discussion site, useful because it shows the risk of being more civil than the adolescents ragging on you (in this case, the victim is the Engish-born, gentlemanly HIV?AIDS apologist Nick “Cheers” Bennett, see below in this post).

(show)

Go Back Medics Point > sci.med

Reload this Page Why Did “Aids Baby” Eliza Jane Really Die?

Search Forums

Advanced Search

Reply

Page 22 of 24 « First

View First Unread View First Unread

Old 12-10-2005, 11:59 PM

Mark Probert

Guest

Posts: n/a

Default Re: Why Did “Aids Baby” Eliza Jane Really Die?

njb35@cantab.net wrote:

> LOL Cathy.

I do not think that it was Cathy. CathyB comes from Australia and is

well aware of the nature of your degrees.

> Hello there. I am the Nick Bennett you are talking about. I am a long

> time regular, or rather ex-regular to misc.health.aids. I have posted

> here since the summer of 1998. Right now I’m working full-time in

> medicine and my ability to track down and respond to dissident articles

> is severly curtailed. I simply don’t have the time…

>

> However, I was so riled up by Al-Bayati’s report that I had to respond

> somehow. I can reveal that there is a second version of the report

> which I wrote last night while on call when I discovered that the LA

> coroners report was available, and I could directly compare what

> Al-Bayati CLAIMED was in the report to what was really in the report.

> As far as I can tell this second version is going to be hosted on

> Monday or thereabouts.

Wonderful. Look for me.

>

> If you’re having trouble searching for me, you’re not searching very

> well…

>

> You’re better off searching for “nick bennett aids”. Or “nick bennett

> duesberg” or “nick bennett perth group” or any other combination of my

> name and AIDS dissidents.

>

> I have an anti-dissident website at aidsmyth.blogspot.com

>

> I contributed for around a year to the BMJ debate, directly addressing

> and debating with the Perth Group and other dissidents. I have

> archives of all my posts there if you would like to see them. They are

> still available in the BMJ archives.

>

> I was hounded off of Dean’s World blog while trying to debate with

> Harvey Bialy.

>

> If you simply go to

> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.aids?lnk=li and search for

> “Bennett” you will find several thousand articles either written by or

> referring to me. I was a very, very prolific writer from 1998 to 2000

> but slowed down during the PhD years a bit.

>

> In answer to your specific question about why I don’t use the MD, it’s

> because I technically don’t have an MD degree. I have bits of paper

> that say I have an MB and BChir, which as others have pointed out are

> the same as the American MD. As a matter of fact, I had to pass the US

> medical exams as well as the UK exams, so I could kind of claim that I

> have a US MD as well. Where I work they certainly put “MD” after my

> name everywhere, no matter how hard I try to tell them otherwise… In

> England, the MD refers to a medical research degree, roughly equivalent

> to the PhD.

>

> I can readily assure you that I have never recieved any kind of

> financial recompense for my “work” in arguing against the AIDS

> dissidents. I started as an irate medical student and now I’m a

> practising physician with a PhD in HIV (a slightly more practical way

> yo contribute to HIV and AIDS science). My funding has come from

> medical schools, charities or the State over the years. The closest I

> have come to getting anything from Big Pharma is that, on paper, my

> sponsor for the PhD was AstraZeneca (who paid the clinical school, who

> allocated the money at random among the students).

>

> Some website links to help in finding out more about me. Be warned,

> the BMJ link is huge and is likely to crash internet exploder (I use

> firefox).

>

> http://aidsmyth,blogspot.com

> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7387/495

> http://groups.google.com/group/misc…nnett&start=90&

>

> I’ve heard everything you’ve accussed me of before. *shrugs* I only

> find it amusing that you really did have trouble finding out about me

> in the AIDS dissident arena. I seem to have pissed off enough people

> through the years… )

>

> Cheers

>

> Bennett

>

Reply With Quote

Mark Probert

#212

Old Yesterday, 12:30 AM

cathyb

Guest

Posts: n/a

Default Re: Why Did “Aids Baby” Eliza Jane Really Die?

njb35@cantab.net wrote:

> LOL Cathy.

>

> Hello there. I am the Nick Bennett you are talking about. I am a long

> time regular, or rather ex-regular to misc.health.aids. I have posted

> here since the summer of 1998. Right now I’m working full-time in

> medicine and my ability to track down and respond to dissident articles

> is severly curtailed. I simply don’t have the time…

>

> However, I was so riled up by Al-Bayati’s report that I had to respond

> somehow. I can reveal that there is a second version of the report

> which I wrote last night while on call when I discovered that the LA

> coroners report was available, and I could directly compare what

> Al-Bayati CLAIMED was in the report to what was really in the report.

> As far as I can tell this second version is going to be hosted on

> Monday or thereabouts.

>

> If you’re having trouble searching for me, you’re not searching very

> well…

Sorry, you’ve made a bit of a mistake.

I was actually quoting from another poster, JanD, who insists that

al-Bayati is, because she wants him to be right, competent to have

produced the report he did and unaffected by his relationship with

Christine Maggiore’s group, Alive and Well.

I was laughing at her venturing to comment on other’s qualifications

while being completely unaware of what an MB is.

I had snipped most of her drivel, and simply quoted her; I can see it’s

not terribly clear, now you mention it.

> You’re better off searching for “nick bennett aids”. Or “nick bennett

> duesberg” or “nick bennett perth group” or any other combination of my

> name and AIDS dissidents.

>

> I have an anti-dissident website at aidsmyth.blogspot.com

>

> I contributed for around a year to the BMJ debate, directly addressing

> and debating with the Perth Group and other dissidents. I have

> archives of all my posts there if you would like to see them. They are

> still available in the BMJ archives.

>

> I was hounded off of Dean’s World blog while trying to debate with

> Harvey Bialy.

>

> If you simply go to

> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.aids?lnk=li and search for

> “Bennett” you will find several thousand articles either written by or

> referring to me. I was a very, very prolific writer from 1998 to 2000

> but slowed down during the PhD years a bit.

>

> In answer to your specific question about why I don’t use the MD, it’s

> because I technically don’t have an MD degree. I have bits of paper

> that say I have an MB and BChir, which as others have pointed out are

> the same as the American MD. As a matter of fact, I had to pass the US

> medical exams as well as the UK exams, so I could kind of claim that I

> have a US MD as well. Where I work they certainly put “MD” after my

> name everywhere, no matter how hard I try to tell them otherwise… In

> England, the MD refers to a medical research degree, roughly equivalent

> to the PhD.

>

> I can readily assure you that I have never recieved any kind of

> financial recompense for my “work” in arguing against the AIDS

> dissidents. I started as an irate medical student and now I’m a

> practising physician with a PhD in HIV (a slightly more practical way

> yo contribute to HIV and AIDS science). My funding has come from

> medical schools, charities or the State over the years. The closest I

> have come to getting anything from Big Pharma is that, on paper, my

> sponsor for the PhD was AstraZeneca (who paid the clinical school, who

> allocated the money at random among the students).

>

> Some website links to help in finding out more about me. Be warned,

> the BMJ link is huge and is likely to crash internet exploder (I use

> firefox).

>

> http://aidsmyth,blogspot.com

> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7387/495

> http://groups.google.com/group/misc…nnett&start=90&

>

> I’ve heard everything you’ve accussed me of before. *shrugs* I only

> find it amusing that you really did have trouble finding out about me

> in the AIDS dissident arena. I seem to have pissed off enough people

> through the years… )

>

> Cheers

>

> Bennett

I’m looking forward to reading the updated report.

Cheers,

Cathy

Reply With Quote

cathyb

#213

Old Yesterday, 01:10 AM

njb35@cantab.net

Guest

Posts: n/a

Default Re: Why Did “Aids Baby” Eliza Jane Really Die?

S’alright, I’ve replied to the other post you made about this.

Bloody Google doesn’t make quotes always that obvious. At least,

that’s my story and I’m sticking with it. Upon-re-reading the thread

it is clearer now I know who I should be reading!

I’ll try to keep tabs on all the groups but I mostly monitor

misc.health.aids.

Cheers

Bennett

Reply With Quote

njb35@cantab.net

#214

Old Yesterday, 01:48 AM

JanD

Guest

Posts: n/a

Default Re: Why Did “Aids Baby” Eliza Jane Really Die?

wrote in message

news:1134263439.944183.95180@g49g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com…

> S’alright, I’ve replied to the other post you made about this.

>

> Bloody Google doesn’t make quotes always that obvious. At least,

> that’s my story and I’m sticking with it.

Uh huh.

Seems like you are rather good at making up stories.

Like:

Hello there. I am the Nick Bennett you are talking about. I am a long

time regular, or rather ex-regular to misc.health.aids. I have posted

here since the summer of 1998. Right now I’m working full-time in

medicine and my ability to track down and respond to dissident articles

is severly curtailed. I simply don’t have the time…

I see you have time to waste and quite an EGO.

I also note you seem to use the same posting host as Ted Nidiffer.

Road Runner

OrgID: RRNY

Address: 13241 Woodland Park Road

City: Herndon

StateProv: VA

PostalCode: 20171

Country: US

Quite amazing.

Then when you speak of the UK, you seem to switch to NY.

SUNY Health and Science Center

OrgID: SHSC-1

Address: 750 East Adams Street

City: Syracuse

StateProv: NY

PostalCode: 13210

Country: US

As for wasting time and making up stories, and your EGO problems:

Newsgroups: misc.health.aids

From: “PaulKing” – Find messages by this

author

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:30:51 -0500

Local: Mon, Mar 21 2005 1:30 am

Subject: Bennett shoots himself in the foot…big time!

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original

| Report Abuse

P.S. It what you say was correct than you would have to admit that saying

condoms were protection against most stds would be a total lie.

You have just shot yourself in the foot….big time.

15. Bennett

Mar 21, 10:16 pm show options

Newsgroups: misc.health.aids

From: “Bennett” – Find messages by this author

Date: 21 Mar 2005 19:16:33 -0800

Local: Mon, Mar 21 2005 10:16 pm

Subject: Re: Bennett shoots himself in the foot…big time!

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show

original | Report Abuse

My definition of protection is “reduces risk of transmission”. Yours

seems to be “0% transmission”, which just highlights your ignorance –

or your willingness to re-write science to suit your own ends.

We already know you are prepared to re-write everything else.

Cheers

Bennett

16. PaulKing

Apr 11, 4:14 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.health.aids

From: “PaulKing” – Find messages by

this author

Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:14:23 -0400

Local: Mon, Apr 11 2005 4:14 am

Subject: Re: Bennett shoots himself in the foot…big time!

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show

original | Report Abuse

New US government website attacked for comments on sexuality and

effectiveness of condoms (telling partly the truth -ed)

The wording of information about condoms on the site is also

potentially

misleading (they mean factual). US abstinence education programmes

usually

only mention condoms when referring to their potential for failure.

The 4parents.com site suggests that condoms offer only “moderate”

protection against HIV and gonorrhoea, “less” protection against

Chlamidya, herpes and human papilloma virus, and that the ability of

condoms to protect against syphilis “has not been well studied.”

Although

these claims are backed by reference to studies looking at the

effectiveness of condoms, they do not acknowledge that the studies

were,

almost exclusively, conducted in populations with a high prevalence,

or

risk of sexually transmitted infections.

____

The rest of the article (attacking the new semi honest official

statements

on condoms) is a pathetic attempt to defend condoms citing the one and

only study (if you can call it that) conducted over twelve years ago

that

claimed that condoms reduced ‘AIDS’ in the 132 couples studied. As

usual

the ‘conclusions’ section of that report which said ‘in real world use

condoms failed up to 32% of the time’ was ignored.

This study has been contradicted by ALL the 400 subsequent studies

almost

without exception.

===

My boss has some funky data which shows a hell of a difference if used in

combo

with something else.

Your boss, huh

Hmmmm.

========

Ok, for shits and giggles I’m interested in this one

==

Upon-re-reading the thread

> it is clearer now I know who I should be reading!

>

> I’ll try to keep tabs on all the groups but I mostly monitor

> misc.health.aids.

>

> Cheers

>

> Bennett

>

Attached Images

Reply With Quote

JanD

#215

Old Yesterday, 02:04 AM

HCN

Guest

Posts: n/a

Default Re: Why Did “Aids Baby” Eliza Jane Really Die?

wrote in message

news:1134263439.944183.95180@g49g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com…

> S’alright, I’ve replied to the other post you made about this.

>

> Bloody Google doesn’t make quotes always that obvious. At least,

> that’s my story and I’m sticking with it. Upon-re-reading the thread

> it is clearer now I know who I should be reading!

>

> I’ll try to keep tabs on all the groups but I mostly monitor

> misc.health.aids.

>

> Cheers

>

> Bennett

>

Hi,

I linked over to your report from Oracknows. I thought it was very

interesting. (and I did find some of your posts on the google archive of

misc.health.aids )

I did a check on www.amazon.com for Maggiore’s book… and noticed that SHE

has posted a review refuting the posts that claim her beliefs killed her

daughter. She claims they were getting an “independent” review of the

report. I am amused at what is considered “independent” from the “Alive and

Well” group…. like members of its advisory board.

Reply With Quote

HCN

#216

Old Yesterday, 02:33 AM

njb35@cantab.net

Guest

Posts: n/a

Default Re: Why Did “Aids Baby” Eliza Jane Really Die?

JanD wrote:

> Uh huh.

>

> Seems like you are rather good at making up stories.

>

> Like:

>

> Hello there. I am the Nick Bennett you are talking about. I am a long

> time regular, or rather ex-regular to misc.health.aids. I have posted

> here since the summer of 1998. Right now I’m working full-time in

> medicine and my ability to track down and respond to dissident articles

> is severly curtailed. I simply don’t have the time…

>

> I see you have time to waste and quite an EGO.

>

> I also note you seem to use the same posting host as Ted Nidiffer.

>

> Road Runner

> OrgID: RRNY

> Address: 13241 Woodland Park Road

> City: Herndon

> StateProv: VA

> PostalCode: 20171

> Country: US

>

> Quite amazing.

>

> Then when you speak of the UK, you seem to switch to NY.

>

> SUNY Health and Science Center

> OrgID: SHSC-1

> Address: 750 East Adams Street

> City: Syracuse

> StateProv: NY

> PostalCode: 13210

> Country: US

>

My posting host? You mean RoadRunner from Time Warner Cable. Cripes.

I wonder how many thousands of people are using that one…

Did you bother to read anything I gave you?

Born in the UK, I studied medicine at Cambridge and got my BA, MB/BChir

and PhD from there. I moved to upstate NY in March 2004, and started

work as a clinical research associate in August 2004 while I sat the

USMLE exams. I started my residency a few months back in pediatrics.

Do you need to be spoonfed from the archives?

http://tinyurl.com/bzv89

http://tinyurl.com/afflg

http://tinyurl.com/cq26v

http://tinyurl.com/8qp8a

Do you even care…? Probably not I think.

Do I have time to waste? Sure! It’s a Saturday. I’m post-call so I

get a guaranteed 24hrs off from work!

If you research science as well as you research people it’s no wonder

you believe the things you do.

Oh yeah, why quote from an post I wrote about ribavarin?

As amusing as all this repartee is, you don’t seem much more than a

troll right now. Having fun?

Cheers

Bennett

(cross-posting to MHA to avoid contamination – will cut other groups

next time)

Reply With Quote

njb35@cantab.net

#217

Old Yesterday, 03:36 AM

JanD

Guest

Posts: n/a

Default Re: Why Did “Aids Baby” Eliza Jane Really Die?

wrote in message

news:1134268398.500433.232160@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com…

>

> JanD wrote:

>> Uh huh.

>>

>> Seems like you are rather good at making up stories.

>>

>> Like:

>>

>> Hello there. I am the Nick Bennett you are talking about. I am a long

>> time regular, or rather ex-regular to misc.health.aids. I have posted

>> here since the summer of 1998. Right now I’m working full-time in

>> medicine and my ability to track down and respond to dissident articles

>> is severly curtailed. I simply don’t have the time…

>>

>> I see you have time to waste and quite an EGO.

>>

>> I also note you seem to use the same posting host as Ted Nidiffer.

>>

>> Road Runner

>> OrgID: RRNY

>> Address: 13241 Woodland Park Road

>> City: Herndon

>> StateProv: VA

>> PostalCode: 20171

>> Country: US

>>

>> Quite amazing.

>>

>> Then when you speak of the UK, you seem to switch to NY.

>>

>> SUNY Health and Science Center

>> OrgID: SHSC-1

>> Address: 750 East Adams Street

>> City: Syracuse

>> StateProv: NY

>> PostalCode: 13210

>> Country: US

>>

>

> My posting host? You mean RoadRunner from Time Warner Cable. Cripes.

> I wonder how many thousands of people are using that one…

From

Herndon

StateProv: VA

NOT that many.

>

> Did you bother to read anything I gave you?

No, actually I didn’t, I am not going to search through thousands of

archives back to 1998.

What I saw in 2005 was quite enough for me.

>

> Born in the UK, I studied medicine at Cambridge and got my BA, MB/BChir

> and PhD from there. I moved to upstate NY in March 2004, and started

> work as a clinical research associate in August 2004 while I sat the

> USMLE exams. I started my residency a few months back in pediatrics.

>

> Do you need to be spoonfed from the archives?

NO.

I have spoonfed more than you will ever know, sonny boy.

>

> http://tinyurl.com/bzv89

> http://tinyurl.com/afflg

> http://tinyurl.com/cq26v

> http://tinyurl.com/8qp8a

>

> Do you even care…? Probably not I think.

You are not sure of what you think?

Interesting.

>

> Do I have time to waste? Sure! It’s a Saturday. I’m post-call so I

> get a guaranteed 24hrs off from work!

I am afraid that doesn’t fly, you seemed to have time to waste as I proved

with your other posts.

>

> If you research science as well as you research people it’s no wonder

> you believe the things you do.

LOL!!!

I can see you pretty much fit right into the *GANG*.

Guess what Nicky, ole boy, this is NOT about *me*.

>

> Oh yeah, why quote from an post I wrote about ribavarin?

>

> As amusing as all this repartee is, you don’t seem much more than a

> troll right now. Having fun?

Newsflash.

Trolls don’t stick around. I have been here since 1999.

I am good at spotting *organized medicine* brainwashed mumbo jumbo, and

those who get paid to do so.

Along with those who are EGO driven.

>

> Cheers

>

> Bennett

>

> (cross-posting to MHA to avoid contamination – will cut other groups

> next time)

Oh deara, you won’t have time to post until next Saturday, so no need to

worry. *;*.

Run a long now sonny. See if others will fall for your jargon.

Toot A Lu,

Jan

Reply With Quote

JanD

#218

Old Yesterday, 03:45 AM

JanD

Guest

Posts: n/a

Default Re: Why Did “Aids Baby” Eliza Jane Really Die?

“HCN” wrote in message

news:zaudnVSr6JJaFAbenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com. ..

>

> wrote in message

> news:1134263439.944183.95180@g49g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com…

>> S’alright, I’ve replied to the other post you made about this.

>>

>> Bloody Google doesn’t make quotes always that obvious. At least,

>> that’s my story and I’m sticking with it. Upon-re-reading the thread

>> it is clearer now I know who I should be reading!

>>

>> I’ll try to keep tabs on all the groups but I mostly monitor

>> misc.health.aids.

>>

>> Cheers

>>

>> Bennett

>>

>

> Hi,

>

> I linked over to your report from Oracknows.

Poor, poor HCN.

Orac has been proven a BLATANT LIAR, right here on this newsgroups.

And, I KNOW HCN saw it.

Mark Probert posted it!!!

Newsgroups: sci.med, misc.health.alternative, uk.people.health,

talk.politics.medicine

From: Mark Probert – Find messages by

this author

Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:51:29 -0500

Local: Sat, Dec 10 2005 6:51 pm

Subject: Re: WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to

Maintain Their Monopolies

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show

original | Report Abuse

– Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

JanD wrote:

> “Mark Probert” wrote in message

> news:%ahmf.5353$O05.2972@fe09.lga…

>>JanD wrote:

>>>>The onus of proof is on those who claim that her program works.

>>>>Remember,

>>>>last year Hulda’s Henchmen agreed that they could not prove her claims.

>>>I see Mark is repeating this LIE.

>>>He can NOT show where they did any such thing.

>>>Because he made up this LIE.

>>>http://tinyurl.com/cxbh5

ORAC’S LIES ARE ALL THERE FOR ALL TO SEE.

THAT’S ONLY ONE EXAMPLE!

>>Actually, Janny, that link takes you to this link:

>>http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0223…stip0223051.pdf

>>which is the *stipulation*.

> The word stipulation does nothing to prove your case or clear your lie.

It proves that they agreed that they could not prove her claims. After

they agreed to that, they also agreed to pay back the money and never

sell her junk with those claims ever again.

That is good enough for me.

> It’s no wonder, you were disbarred.

>>stip·u·late 1 (stpy-lt) KEY

>>VERB:

>>stip·u·lat·ed , stip·u·lat·ing , stip·u·lates

>>VERB: tr.

>>To lay down as a condition of an agreement; require by contract.

>>To specify or arrange in an agreement: stipulate a date of payment and a

>>price.

>>To guarantee or promise (something) in an agreement.

>>VERB:

>>intr.

>>To make an express demand or provision in an agreement.

>>To form an agreement.

>>Note the word “agreement”.

>>Sorry, Janny, but you are still wrong.

> NO, I am NOT wrong, YOU LIED.

No, you did not understand.

> The word *quackery* is NOT used.

So what? I used it. What they agreed to was that they were making claims

that they could not substantiate, and that is quackery when it is in

medicine.

> LIE #1.

> In the US. is NOT listed.

> LIE #2.

> There was NO agreement that anyone could not prove any claim

Yes, there was. They were given the opportunity to prove the claims, and

when they could not, they agreed to stop making them, and give back the

money they took. While the precise words are not there, they did agree

that they could not prove their claims, BECAUSE IF THEY COULD, there was

NO reason to enter into the stipulation. They would have fully defended

the action brought by the FTC. When they didn’t, they agreed.

> LIE #3.

> Furthermore.

> That URL proved your buddy Orac LIED.

> ORAC IS A LIAR.

> TED Nidiffer LIED.

> TED NIDIFFER IS A LIAR

> Coleah joined in.

> COLEAH IS A LIAR

> THEY ALL DIVERTED.

> THEY ARE ALL DESPICABLE LIARS, LIKE YOU

> THE ONLY TWO HONEST PEOPLE IN THE THREAD WERE IIENA AND MYSELF.

I thought it was very

> interesting. (and I did find some of your posts on the google archive of

> misc.health.aids )

>

> I did a check on www.amazon.com for Maggiore’s book… and noticed that

> SHE

> has posted a review refuting the posts that claim her beliefs killed her

> daughter. She claims they were getting an “independent” review of the

> report. I am amused at what is considered “independent” from the “Alive

> and

> Well” group…. like members of its advisory board.

>

>

>

Reply With Quote

JanD

#219

Old Yesterday, 04:34 AM

nospam@aol.com

Guest

Posts: n/a

Default Re: Why Did “Aids Baby” Eliza Jane Really Die?

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:33:16 -0500, Mark Probert

wrote:

>nospam@aol.com wrote:

>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:55:49 -0500, Mark Probert

>> wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>>>>>>>Another problem I find with the *basics* of child development is

>>>>>>>al-Bayati’s claim:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>”Eliza Jane’s weight measured prior to autopsy was 29 pounds which is at

>>>>>>>the 10th percentile rank.”

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Using weight of 29 lbs. age 3y6m, but not her height and head

>>>>>>>circumference (which are always reported in the actual autopsy) and

>>>>>>>applying this limited information to:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/usef…percentiles.htm

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>we get:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>At 36 months: your child is 29 pounds, and that is

>>>>>>>at the 33th percentile for weight.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>al-Bayati is off by a large margin.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>I wonder why he did not include Eliza’s height and head circumference in

>>>>>>>this report?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>Page 18 of the pdf document containing the autopsy report also shows 10th

>>>>percentile. I wonder what criteria they are using.

>>>

>>>Ora

>>

>>

>>>Exactly, I used a caclulator I found on the web. One is clearly wrong,

>>>the other is clearly right.

>>>

>>

>> The autopsy report stated 10th percentile. Al-Bayati’s report stated 10th

>> percentile. Bennett’s stated below 5th percentile. Your source shows 33rd

>> percentile.

>

>My ‘source’ is from a calculator I found on About.com. They usually

>offer some decent tools.

>

>I found another one that only goes to 36 months. At that age:

>

>Sex = girl

>Age = 36 Months

>Weight = 29.0 pounds

>

>

>Based on the data you submitted, your child falls into the following

>percentiles:

>

>Weight = between 25th and 50th percentile

>

>Still quite off of the “experts”.

See the chart at http://z.about.com/d/pediatrics/1/0…rlstwoyears.gif and

look at the little numbers on the right side of the page to the left of the kg.

column.

Ora

Reply With Quote

nospam@aol.com

#220

Unread Yesterday, 06:01 AM

Eric Bohlman

Guest

Posts: n/a

Default Re: Why Did “Aids Baby” Eliza Jane Really Die?

[I’m limiting followups to misc.health.alternative]

njb35@cantab.net wrote in news:1134268398.500433.232160

@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>

> JanD wrote:

>> I also note you seem to use the same posting host as Ted Nidiffer.

>>

>> Road Runner

>> OrgID: RRNY

>> Address: 13241 Woodland Park Road

>> City: Herndon

>> StateProv: VA

>> PostalCode: 20171

>> Country: US

>>

>> Quite amazing.

>>

>> Then when you speak of the UK, you seem to switch to NY.

>>

>> SUNY Health and Science Center

>> OrgID: SHSC-1

>> Address: 750 East Adams Street

>> City: Syracuse

>> StateProv: NY

>> PostalCode: 13210

>> Country: US

>>

>

> My posting host? You mean RoadRunner from Time Warner Cable. Cripes.

> I wonder how many thousands of people are using that one…

Jan refuses to understand that when large national ISPs register their

various points of presence (which are often unattended machines co-

located in telephone company facilities) they use the address for their

corporate headquarters rather than the address of the POP itself (since

nobody is collecting postal mail at the POP locations). Since both

RoadRunner and AOL are headquartered in Herndon, she automatically

assumes that anyone posting from either of their POPs must be an alias

for Ted Nidiffer. Another time she accused one poster of being another

based on the fact that they were both SBC users; again, SBC registers all

its locations with the corporate address. This has been pointed out to

her several times, yet she keeps doing it.

Reply With Quote

Eric Bohlman

Reply

Page 22 of 24 « First

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9

Copyright ©2000 – 2005, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Dean Esmay fires up a mighty HIV?AIDS Web discussion

A remarkable exception to this one-sided myopia of web blogs on HIV?AIDS is the Dean Esmay blog, which early this year distinguished itself by starting what has become the central live discussion of the HIV=AIDS paradigm in the blogosphere. The first post last February was followed by many others, some extending hundreds of pages with comment discussion, and now the Dean Esmay site contains the most dynamic, thorough, continuing public exploration of the problem on the Web, and probably anywhere.

As a result of those extensive threads, computer network techie Esmay, who was long skeptical of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis as a result of reading Peter Duesberg’s book Inventing the AIDS Virus, found himself finally personally persuaded of the failure of the paradigm and repudiated it on his site.


I also believe–and I lay it out here for everyone to see, for anyone who wants to mock me and deride me–I believe that the retrovirus known as “HIV” simply does not cause AIDS.

I don’t even say it to “make a point” or to be “thought provoking.” I’m telling you flat-out: I may be wrong, I may be an idiot, I may be fucking insane. But I don’t care: HIV does not cause AIDS.

The penalty has been that he has suffered a swarm of derisive ad hominem attacks by other bloggers who are convinced that he has taken leave of his senses, but has nevertheless conducted the best live public discussion of the issue so far.

The long DeanEsmay threads in February and March form an unprecedented major Web discussion of the basic HIV causes/does-not-cause AIDS issue in which both sides throw every explosive they can find at each other, including some comically insane antics by Harvey Bialy, the Nature Biotechnology science editor who wrote the remarkable “Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS: The Life and Scientific Times of Peter Duesberg (North Atlantic, 2004) the best current guide to the science of the review debate and its repression by editors, scientists and bureaucrats.

Apparently Bialy prefers to sharpen his wit by imaginative sallies into the realm of the Goon Show, a British radio show of the fifties with Peter Sellers and Harry Secombe, by imitating “Eccles”, a character from the show, than to blunt his keen intelligence on obtuse discussants who raise points already dealt with. Unfortunately this renders some of the exchanges unintelligible to onlookers trying to follow the thread.

Lately the issue of Maggiore’s tragedy and its attraction for HIV=AIDS fanatics has led to a new round of debate, especially on the Dean Esmay site, in which blogging has exercised its one great advantage over conventional media – the capacity to unearth copious information on all aspects of a discussion at light speed compared to any newspaper or magazine, let alone a television station.

Unfortunately, the information gathered tends to be too often a mass of red herring detail which ultimately has little bearing on the judgement of the essential facts and broader issues at stake. In the case of AIDS it is almost certain not to unearth much relevant new information since the peer review of Duesberg’s published arguments against the HIV?AIDS paradigm has been unusually intense and severe, for political as well as scientific reasons.

However for those who are not expert scientists close to the field these discussion often throw up corrections, and answers to points made by either side, especially in medicine.

HIV/AIDS defender Nick Bennett tackles Duesberg

Some examples of this kind of challenging discussion include

Did a Vaccine cause AIDS? on Google’s misc.kids.health, an exchange from 1999 which features an early appearance by the inimitable Nick “Cheers” Bennett, an Englishman who is one of the few practicing (a resident pediatrician in SUNY Health and Science Center in Syracuse) clinicians who is willing to defend the HIV?AIDS paradigm in public. (By his own account in a public post he is “born in the UK, I studied medicine at Cambridge and got my BA, B/BChir and PhD from there. I moved to upstate NY in March 2004, and started work as a clinical research associate in August 2004 while I sat the USMLE exams. I started my residency a few months back in pediatrics.”)

Bennett’s site where he has blogged since August last year is Correcting The AIDS Lies and offers the best publicly argued case against the dissidents that we know of, though marred by an excessive and thus compromising faith in the accuracy of claims in peer reviewed mainstream articles (which would be justified if their results were not often inconsistent with the tenets of the paradigm, as in the case of the articles showing that heterosexual transmission is effectively nil.)

At one point (see (see Tuesday, February 8, 2005 on this page) in the discussion on Dean Esmay’s blog site, Bennett was persuaded to put his objections to Duesberg, and this resulted in the following reply from Duesberg:


In recent days, a very thoughtful, very interesting physician named Nick Bennett has tried to make the case to me (Dean Esmay wrote) that HIV causes AIDS. He has been a fairly frequent commenter here on Dean’s World, and I recently challenged him: I asked him that if he thought Peter Duesberg were so full of crap, why he didn’t just challenge Duesberg directly?

So Dr. Nick wrote to Dr. Duesberg, and asked him to answer for some things. Then Nick posted to the comments here on Dean’s World saying that he’d written Dr. Duesberg and that Duesberg hadn’t really responded to him. But I then wrote to Duesberg and asked him what he had to say. And then National Academy of Sciences member Peter Duesberg forwarded me this response:

Dear Bennett,

You seem to move in small steps in our correspondence. In your first letter you asked me, “Why do you think that antibody responses [to HIV] should result in an inactive infection?” My answer was that according to the HIV-AIDS literature, even the New Engl. J. Medicine, “HIV is rapidly and effectively limited by antibody” and that “titers [of HIV] fell precipitously by day 27, and the decline coincided with an increase in the levels of antiviral antibodies” (Clark et al 1991; Daar et al 1991). Thus HIV, like all other conventional viruses, is neutralized by naturally acquired antibody or by vaccination. But your next letter did not acknowledge acceptance my answer to your question.

Following my call for clarification you now concede in your third letter of Feb. 3 that “HIV maybe limited by the immune response”. But what does that “maybe” mean? Don’t you trust HIV-AIDS authorities publishing in the prestigious New Engl. J. Med? Or do you have better data of your own showing that we were all misled by Ho and Daar et al. and by Shaw, Hahn and Clark et al publishing in the New Engl. J. Med for all these years? Please send any such publication from your lab, if it exists. Or do you insist in your hypothesis, “antibodies don’t necessarily mean control of an infection [by HIV]” – despite the facts.

Again you question my ability to interpret HIV-AIDS science correctly, “You simplified a rather complex situation in a dogmatic statement. ‘HIV induces antibodies and is brought under immune control, and is therefore non-pathogenic’. No such logical conclusion can be drawn!”

Really? As an example for your superior logic you assert that the very low rate of T cell infection by HIV after it is neutralized by antibody, described in numerous papers (“papers in [your] previous mail”), “is hardly a sign of an inactive virus”.

Lets have another look at your assertion based on the “facts”. Anthony Fauci has published in Science that only 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 T cells are ever infected in antibody-positive people with and without AIDS (Schnittman et al 1989). A British group, Simmonds et al., reports even lower rates of infection, namely 1 in 500 to 1 in 3000. Even more importantly regarding the “activity” of HIV under these conditions, they report that only 1 in 10,000 to 100,000 cells express some HIV RNA (Simmonds et al 1990).

But this creates a new paradox for the very HIV-AIDS hypothesis you are trying to defend: How would HIV-infected people lose their T-cells, except for the 1 in 100 to 1000 that are infected? According to conventional logic something other than HIV must kill the 99% to 99.9% uninfected T-cells of HIV-infected people. How do you explain T-cell “pathogenicity” by a virus that is making RNA in only 1 out of 10,000 to 100,000 cells? If this were possible, it would be the functional equivalent of claiming that you can shoot 10,000 to 100,000 soldiers with one single bullet.

It is the hallmark of a flawed hypothesis that it generates paradoxes. In the short correspondence we had you have already generated two such paradoxes: 1) Non-neutralizing anti-viral antibodies (despite the facts to the contrary) and 2) the clinically defining loss of T-cells in AIDS patients from a virus that infects less than 1% to 0.1% of their T-cells.

According to the scientific method the time has now come for you to look at alternative AIDS theories. Let me know, if you need suggestions.

Regards,

Peter D.

References

Clark S J, Saag, M S, Decker, W D, Campbell-Hill, S, Roberson, J L, Veldkamp, P J, Kappes, J C, Hahn, B H and Shaw, G M 1991 High titers of cytopathic virus in plasma of patients with symptomatic primary HIV-infection; N. Engl. J. Med. 324, 954-960 Daar E S, Moudgil, T, Meyer, R D and Ho, D D 1991 Transient high levels of viremia in patients with primary human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection; N. Engl. J. Med. 324, 961-964 Schnittman S M, Psallidopoulos, M C, Lane, H C, Thompson, L, Baseler, M, Massari, F, Fox, C H, Salzman, N P and Fauci, A 1989 The reservoir for HIV-1 in human peripheral blood is a T cell that maintains expression of CD4; Science 245, 305-308 Simmonds P, Balfe, P, Peutherer, J F, Ludlam, C A, Bishop, J O and Leigh-Brown, A J 1990 Human immunodeficiency virus-infected individuals contain provirus in small numbers of peripheral mononuclear cells and at low copy numbers; J. Virol. 64, 864-872

Bennett has also contributed to paradigm defense in the Rapid Responses section of the British Medical Journal, a Web area where unreviewed comments on articles are allowed, where extensive exchanges on HIV?AIDS have taken place. For example, in November 2004 he posted frequently regarding a news report that Ranbaxy withdraws all its AIDS drugs from WHO list (click “show” to see the full text here). The full discussion reproduced here is interesting for its exchange on reasons to doubt HIV exists at all:

(show)

Re: Withdrawal of Generic (Antiretroviral Drugs) ARVs by Ranbaxy 21 November 2004

Next Rapid Response Top

Musa Garbati,

Consultant Physician

University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital, P.M.B. 1414, Maiduguri, Nigeria

Send response to journal:

Re: Re: Withdrawal of Generic (Antiretroviral Drugs) ARVs by Ranbaxy

I read the disturbing development on the above subject matter which I find very disturbing indeed. This is happening barely five months after the withdrawal of two other generic (Acquired immune Deficiency Syndrome)AIDS drugs in June this year, for the same reason.1 This brings the list of withdrawn ARVs to eight since June 2004. The generic antiretroviral agents in question have been said not to have the desired bioequivalence although the drugs have been the most widely used ARVs in most developing countries. Practitioners in many third world countries can attest to this. Before the introduction of generics to these countries management of HIV/AIDS and related conditions have been limited to just treatment of opportunistic infections (OIs). The other available ARVs in at least the Nigerian markets were either difficult to come by or out of reach of the poor.

For the HIV infected (and affected) in the developing world like Nigeria, with an average seroprevalence rate of 5.8%,2 the coming of generic ARVs was seen as the best thing that has ever happened to persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWAs) towards the alleviation of their sufferings. Generics produced by Ranbaxy and Cipla are the most popular ARVs in many Nigeria markets (and other developing countries). The introduction of one of the products, Triomune, a three in one pill combining lamivudine, stavudine, and nevirapine, has been of particular relief to a lot of our patients due to improved compliance.

For a pandemic that is spreading around the world, infecting more than 14,000 individuals per day,3 this move by WHO if not followed by the provision of alternative ARVs is likely to be the disaster of the year. Alternatives should not just be made available but affordable to those that need it most.

These drugs are withdrawn not because they are unsafe or of poor quality, but because they may not be as effective as they should be. Since the problem now is of bioequivalence I would like a situation where by WHO and its sister agencies to as a matter of urgency make alternative arrangements to making branded ARVs available to the developing world. If not the current success that we are beginning to record as far as the management of HIV/AIDS is concerned will be just be a thing of the past, in a matter of months.

From the words of Peter Graaff from WHO’s AIDS medicines and diagnostics service,1 that WHO was just advising countries to suspend the use of these drugs but for those that do not have alternatives, continued use should be weighed against the risks of interrupting treatment.

References 1. Fiona Fleck. WHO pulls three more AIDS drugs from list. BMJ 2004; 329: 368. 2.Gwarzo S, Eloike T, Ekanem EE, Elong O, Gboun F. The 2001 National HIV/Syphilis Sentinel Survey among pregnant women attending ANC in Nigeria. FMOH, Nigeria. 2001. 1:51 3. Schenker II, Nyirenda JM. Preventing HIV in schools. Educational and practices series. 2002; 9:6

Dr Musa A. Garbati Consultant Physician University of Maiduguri teaching Hospital, Maiduguri, Nigeria E-Mail: musagarbati@yahoo.com

Competing interests: None declared

Do cheap Antibiotics halve AIDS deaths? 23 November 2004

Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top

Alexander H Russell,

Writer/artist/philosopher

WC1N 1PE

Send response to journal:

Re: Do cheap Antibiotics halve AIDS deaths?

Dr Musa A. Garbati alarmingly stated: “For a pandemic that is spreading around the world, infecting more than 14,000 individuals per day,3 this move by WHO if not followed by the provision of alternative ARVs is likely to be the disaster of the year. Alternatives should not just be made available but affordable to those that need it most.”

What evidence does Dr. Garbati have for these fictitious figures of “14,000 individuals per day” being ‘infected’ with ‘HIV’? Even the ‘AIDS’ establishment admit – and are agreed – that ‘HIV’ is very difficult to ‘transmit’. These wildly inflated figures are abstract and arbitrary and are all based on ‘guesstimates’ which in the past have invariably been wrong. How many of these alleged “14,000” individuals have had a ‘positive’ ELISA ‘HIV’ test, confirmed by Western Blotting, and further confirmed by the recovery of a significant quantity of viable infectious ‘HIV’ particles from said patient? The answer may surprise Dr. Garbati: zero. What studies have ever been carried out to recover ‘HIV’ particles from the blood of these individuals? The answer is none.

If “14,000 individuals” are being ‘infected’ by ‘HIV’ daily then where is the ‘HIV’ epidemic in the West? Where are all the 100,000s of Western heterosexuals with ‘HIV’ or ‘AIDS’? There is no heterosexual ‘HIV’ epidemic in the West (or anywhere else in the world for that matter). Does Dr Garbati realise that TB, malaria and disease conditions relating to poverty in the developing world make these non-standardised and non- specific arbitrary ‘HIV’ tests run ‘positive’? What we are wrongly calling ‘HIV’ is merely an endogenous marker for ‘risk-behaviour’ in the West and disease-conditions relating to poverty and malnutrition in the developing world. So-called ‘anti-retroviral’ drugs cannot cure ‘AIDS’ related conditions such as TB and malaria.

All ‘anti-retroviral’ drugs can do is interfere with the bodies natural metabolism and make matters worse. There is no such thing as an ‘anti- retroviral’ drug anyway because ‘HIV’ is really an endogenous epiphenomenon. What poor Africans really need is clean water, sanitation, nourishing food and not over priced and highly toxic ‘antiretrovirals’. All endemic diseases of Africa are made infinitely worse by malnutrition: their bodies do not have the basis resources to fight disease. The last things poor Africans need is expensive and lethal ‘anti-retroviral’ drugs.

We now see Septrin is being touted as the great, low-cost saviour antibiotic for ‘AIDS’ related illnesses in African children, halving the death rates previously attributed to the hypothetical ‘HIV’ infection. We are told that co-trimoxazole has the advantage of being cheap and readily available, whereas ‘anti-retroviral’ drugs are much more expensive. Co- trimoxazole costs less than ten cents per person a day.

It is well known that antibiotics are powerless against viruses – including ‘retroviruses’ – so if the patients are recovering when put on Septrin this must be because Septrin is active against bacterial infections. However, if it is claimed that ‘X’ million children a year die of malaria with or without ‘HIV’ then the malaria is obviously the main problem and ‘HIV’ is irrelevant. If Septrin is halving ‘AIDS’ deaths then obviously their ‘HIV’ status is irrelevant; antibiotics have no effect on viruses, retro or otherwise. What the Septrin is killing is the mycoplasmas which are the true cause of cell death. This was shown to be the case by Luc Montagnier himself in a series of experiments. Montagnier showed when ‘HIV’ infected cell cultures were dying, adding doxycyclin to those cultures, the cells no longer died and continued to replicate ‘HIV’ with no apparent damage. Apparently the antibiotic he used destroyed a highly hypoxic mycoplasma which he called mycoplasma neoformans or mycoplasma incognitus.

We can only eradicate ‘AIDS’ in the developing world by removing ‘HIV’ from the equation and abolishing lethal ‘anti-retroviral’ drugs. We have been ‘informed by WHO that there are 12 million (so-called) ‘AIDS’ orphans in Africa – and a million have ‘HIV’. Such white Western fantasies can fuel racist attitudes and images about Africans being ‘sexual savages’ spreading ‘AIDS’ like wild fire.

We need to stop using the racist slogan ‘AIDS’ and start to treat people for the actual (rather than virtual) disease-conditions that they may have. I ask Dr. Garbati to consider my points with an open mind.

References: ‘Antibiotic halves HIV/Aids deaths’, BBC News UK Edition: Friday, 19 November 2004.

Competing interests: None declared

Re: Do cheap Antibiotics halve AIDS deaths? 24 November 2004

Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top

Nicholas Bennett,

Infectious Disease Postdoc/Clinician

Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital, Syracuse NY

Send response to journal:

Re: Re: Do cheap Antibiotics halve AIDS deaths?

Dear Editor,

The mycoplasma story is a classic among those claiming that HIV is harmless. A very little research shows that the cell line in question (CEM) was a mixed lineage line, containing CD4+ and CD4- cells. In the prescence of HIV all the CD4+ cells died, but the CD4- cells grew to replace them [1]. When co-infected with the mycoplasma, CD4+ and CD4- cells died non-selectively.

The use of antibiotics in this case, coupled with proper analysis of the cell line, actually proves that HIV neatly kills CD4+ cells in vitro.

This story also highlights the dangers of reading the literature without knowing enough about the field.

On a more practical note, the use of antibiotics in preventing AIDS deaths is rather obvious: since HIV doesn’t kill people, but the secondary infections due to the immune suppression of AIDS will kill. This is why in serious infections the antivirals may be temporarily stopped to prevent poly-pharmacy side effects, and why prophylactic antibiotics are regularly administered to people with progressive HIV infection: and heart valves, cystic fibrosis, antibody deficiencies, neutropenia…

If HIV is a harmless endogenous phenomenon and the drugs are toxic, can Mr Russell explain the fact that HIV seropositivity (i.e. infection) produces disruption of lymph node architecture [2], that is restored, along with CD4 T cells, once antiretrovirals are administered [3]? Can he explain why withdrawal of the drugs results in the reappearance of lymph node damage and a drop in CD4 T helper cells? [4]

Nick Bennett njb35@cantab.net

ref:

1. Yelle et al Arch Virol 1994;139(1-2):155-72 “Analysis of long- term viral expression in CEM cells persistently infected with non syncytium-inducing HIV-1 strains.”

2. Zhang et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999, 96:5169±5172. “Reversibility of the pathological changes in the follicular dendritic cell network with treatment of HIV-1 infection.

3. Orenstein JM et al. AIDS 1999, 13:2219±2229. “Lymph node architecture preceding and following 6 months of potent antiviral therapy: follicular hyperplasia persists in parallel with p24 antigen. Restoration after involution and CD4 cell depletion in an AIDS patient.

4. Orenstein et al AIDS. 2000 Aug 18;14(12):1709-15. “Rapid activation of lymph nodes and mononuclear cell HIV expression upon interrupting highly active antiretroviral therapy in patients after prolonged viral suppression.”

Competing interests: None declared

Re: Do cheap Antibiotics halve AIDS deaths? 24 November 2004

Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top

Trevor G Marshall,

Director

Autoimmunity Research Foundation, California 91360

Send response to journal:

Re: Re: Do cheap Antibiotics halve AIDS deaths?

Dr Russell said “Montagnier showed when ‘HIV’ infected cell cultures were dying, adding doxycyclin to those cultures, the cells no longer died and continued to replicate ‘HIV’ with no apparent damage”

Has this work of Montagnier been published? I did find “Mycoplasmas as cofactors in infection due to the human immunodeficiency virus” (PMID: 8399934) but that doesn’t seem to cover this Doxycycline experiment. Is a citation available that describes this study in more detail?

Competing interests: None declared

Reply to Nicholas Bennett: ‘HIV’ & lymph nodes 25 November 2004

Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top

Alexander H Russell,

Writer/artist/philosopher

WC1N 1PE

Send response to journal:

Re: Reply to Nicholas Bennett: ‘HIV’ & lymph nodes

Nicholas Bennett stated: If HIV is a harmless endogenous phenomenon and the drugs are toxic, can Mr Russell explain the fact that HIV seropositivity (i.e. infection) produces disruption of lymph node architecture.”

How do we know that the particles are ‘HIV and how do we know it is ‘HIV’ that is disrupting the lymph nodes? What else is in there? If ‘HIV’ is sequestered in the lymph nodes, as claimed, how can it be actively damaging the immune system?

There are cases recorded in the literature of people who have never tested ‘HIV’ positive who nevertheless have swollen lymph nodes. On examination, the nodes are shown to contain particles morphologically identical to ‘HIV’. However there is no evidence that these particles are destroying the lymph nodes, merely that they are being sequestered there.

On examination the tissues were shown to contain morphologically identical particles to ‘HIV’.

Hoe does Mr. Bennett explain that morphologically identical particles to ‘HIV’ can be found in virtually all placental tissue examined under electronmicroscopy?

What is “HIV seropositivity (i.e. infection”? There is still no evidence that ‘HIV’ is an ‘infectious’ agent; it is only assumed to be.

Competing interests: None declared

Re: Do cheap Antibiotics halve AIDS deaths? 26 November 2004

Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top

John P Heptonstall,

Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic

Leeds LS27 8EG

Send response to journal:

Re: Re: Do cheap Antibiotics halve AIDS deaths?

Sir

Although I agree with the thrust of Alexander Russell’s arguments I would point out that Septrin was effectively ‘banned’ in the UK some years ago – other than for infections other drugs could not affect – after having been cited as unsafe, especially for children. It was also suggested that trimethoprim (part of the trimethprim/ sulphonamide mix which is co-trimoxazole or Septrin) was equally as effective as Septrin at dealing with infections -the Sulphonamide almost irrelevant. Jornalist Brian Deer wrote an excellent (and perhaps controversial) article at that time in the Sunday Times about the problems of the drug as a kind of expose, and of it’s producer Wellcome.

One wonders what problems so-called HIV+ve African kids are having from Septrin that go unannounced? Doxycycline, although not without potential ADRs, might be the better option.

Regards

John H.

Competing interests: None declared

Re: Reply to Nicholas Bennett: ‘HIV’ & lymph nodes 26 November 2004

Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top

Nicholas Bennett,

Infectious Disease Postdoc/Clinician

Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital, Syracuse NY

Send response to journal:

Re: Re: Reply to Nicholas Bennett: ‘HIV’ & lymph nodes

Mr Russell poses some concrete questions that I’m only too happy to answer, since I hope that by doing so he might appreciate more of where I’m coming from.

“What else is in there?” is a very good question, since of course we’re largely limited to observing what we know to look for (especially as regards the molecular techniques).

We know the particles are HIV because, by the standards of distinguishing any other pathogen, they appear to be HIV. They have the morphology, genetic material and protein content of HIV. Mr Russell refers to several reports (previously quoted here) of EM photographs showing virus-like particles in some lymph node specimens. I have to say that I have yet to see a report where the particles are obviously indistiguishable from those of HIV – unless you ignore data in the paper. Either the morphology is _not_ the same as HIV, or molecular techniques show that the particles do not contain HIV genetic material and protein. The giveaway is that the HIV-type material is only seen in cases isolated from HIV+ patients. This strongly suggests that the material is from an infection with the same agent that caused the serology to change. To most scientists and clinicians, the strength of the immune response and molecular techniques makes this a QED.

The placental story is absolutely fascinating! An endogenous retrovirus called HERV-W is activated and expresses some of its retroviral genes. [1] The envelope gene is called Syncytin, and was initially discovered to be crucial to forming the syncitiotrophoblast later of the placenta. It was only later shown to be from an endogenous retrovirus. Additionally, the immunosuppressive effects of this virus (all retroviruses are immunosuppressive to a certain degree, via their envelope protein) may protect the foetus from rejection by the mother. After all, the foetus is nothing if not a non-tissue matched organ graft!

The intriguing part is considering that a retrovirus infected some animal millions of years ago and is now directly involved in the formation of a key part of the mamallian placenta – would there be mammals without this retrovirus…? Is it only a homonid phenomenon?

Needless to say, Syncytin and HERV-W have been sequenced and don’t have homology to HIV. Hence the placental particles aren’t HIV. It may be however why pregnancy is a small risk for a false-positive HIV test: antibodies to endogenous RVs are made, albeit at low levels. Maybe there is a cross-reaction going on. I think this is only for the ELISA though, not for the confirmatory tests.

Mr Russell also asks: “If ‘HIV’ is sequestered in the lymph nodes, as claimed, how can it be actively damaging the immune system? “

This is the best place to damage the immune system! 60-80% of lymphocytes are in the lymph nodes. Only 10-20% will be in the peripheral bloodstream, and most of the activated cells (those preferentially infected by HIV) will traffic to the lymph nodes. The initial CD4 “recovery” seen in the first week or two of antiviral therapy is in fact due to redistribution of cells rather than a true recovery. The cells were there, just not in the bloodstream to be measured. Lymph node cultures can culture HIV even if viral load in the blood is “undetectable”, but only if you’re HIV+.

The other particles do indeed just seem to be sitting there: only those identifiable as HIV seem to be related to lymph node damage and CD4 T cell loss. The mechanism is likely to be a mixture of cell death, chronic inflammation and over-stimulation and a disrupted cytokine environment. All of these occur and are reversable with treatment, but it’s not clear yet which is _most_ important. B cells in particular lose their normal maturation sites in the nodes, but then overproduce ineffective antibodies. The lymph nodes are also home to cell types that bind HIV and present its antigens without themselves being vunerable to being killed off (the follicular dendritic cells). It is these cells that collect HIV from the mucosal surfaces and drag it into the body, straight into the sites best suited for its replication.

I would say that there is plenty of evidence that HIV is an infectious agent. The sero-epidemiology looks like an infectious agent, the agent is transmissible in the lab and in experimental animal models, and just genetically it looks like an infectious agent (i.e. a retrovirus with intact, functional genes). Other infectious agents show weaker correlations than HIV between serology, PCR and culture: so in my eyes HIV surpasses the criteria for making the assumption it is an infectious agent.

Are there other RVs and HERVs? Quite possibly. I’ve seen some data implicating retrovirus-like proteins and gene sequences in disease from multiple sclerosis to prostate cancer. It’s possible that a recombination event between one of these and an SIV strain led to HIV. Mice, after all, are almost 100% infected with exogenous viruses like the Friend agent referred to elsewhere, and have at least 70 known endogenous retroviruses as well. I see no reason why we shouldn’t have our own collection of harmless retroviral parasites. But HIV is not one of them.

Nick Bennett njb35@cantab.net

1. Mi et al Nature. 2000 Feb 17;403(6771):785-9. “Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis.”

Competing interests: None declared

Reply to Nicholas Bennett: what does ‘HIV’ look like? 27 November 2004

Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top

Alexander H Russell,

Writer/artist/philosopher

WC1N 1PE

Send response to journal:

Re: Reply to Nicholas Bennett: what does ‘HIV’ look like?

Mr. Bennett stated that: “We know the particles are HIV because, by the standards of distinguishing any other pathogen, they appear to be HIV.”

This is a ridiculous, circular argument – we don’t even know what ‘HIV’ looks like because it has never been isolated. How does Mr. Bennett know what ‘HIV’ looks like? We have not yet established what ‘HIV’ looks like. No one has ever seen ‘HIV’ – not even Mr. Bennett. Why has Mr. Bennett still not provided an EM (electronmicrograph) reference of isolated/purified ‘HIV’? How does Mr. Bennett know the ‘particle’ he is looking at is a virus? Mr. Bennett cannot escape the fact that Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier did not isolate a virus. There is still no evidence that ‘HIV’ is a virus.

Mr. Bennett stated: “I would say that there is plenty of evidence that HIV is an infectious agent.”

Where is this evidence? ‘HIV’ is presumed to be an infectious agent based purely upon rather shaky epidemiological evidence. However, no one has described in scrupulous detail how ‘HIV’ is transmitted from one individual to another. For instance what is the precise mechanism by which the receptive partner (heterosexual female or homosexual male) infects the insertive partner. Why is it that ‘HIV’ appears to be unidirectional? For a pathogen to survive in nature and spread in an epidemic form it has to be bi-directional in its transmission. This does not appear to be the case with ‘HIV’. It is seldom or never found in peripheral blood of infectees so therefore how is ‘HIV’ transmitted from one individual to another. Certainly there is no evidence that animal retroviruses are transmitted sexually so why do we make the assumption that ‘HIV’ is transmitted this way? Traditionally retroviruses are alleged to be transmitted from female to offspring either in the womb or during breast-feeding but there is no suggestion that animal retroviruses are transmitted in semen.

Nobody knows what ‘HIV’ looks like. Can Mr. Bennett provide an EM of isolated ‘HIV’?

Competing interests: None declared

Re: Reply to Nicholas Bennett: what does ‘HIV’ look like? 28 November 2004

Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top

Nicholas Bennett,

Infectious Disease Postdoc/Clinician

Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital, Syracuse NY

Send response to journal:

Re: Re: Reply to Nicholas Bennett: what does ‘HIV’ look like?

The problem with Mr Russell’s argument, is that you do not have to isolate something to know what it looks like.

One early paper (from 1988) shows several EM micrographs of HIV showing the characteristic “truncated cone” core that is not seen in normal retroviruses. [1] One has to ask why these pictures must be ignored. This was just the first paper I pulled up with a 5 minute PubMed search, and incidentally also demonstrates how relative levels of reverse transcriptase can be used to attribute source (viral or cellular).

Also, how is the epidemiology shaky? It is clear that bidirectional transmission DOES occur, since seroconversion to and from male and female partners has been well documented. To say otherwise is to ignore the evidence. The transmission HAS been described in scrupulous detail: HIV in semen or vaginal fluids, or blood, is transfered to the mucosal surface of the other partner. Dendritic cells transport the HIV to the lymph nodes. HIV infected CD4+ macrophages and T cells, and the resulting immune stimulation recruits yet more CD4+ T cells to be infected. This is all in the literature (and in the previously maligned Field’s Virology!). HIV is found in 100% of infectees, as I have repeatedly demonstrated here, unless one chooses to ignore the findings of PCR and culture – generally considered Gold Standards for detection of a pathogen…

There is plenty of evidence that animal retroviruses are transmitted sexually (e.g. [2] which shows an EM of wild mouse ecotropic virus within a semen sample): and besides, how could a pathogen that has a 5% per annum mortality, in the West, survive through solely vertical transmission? (and more importantly, not be noticed before? Death rates in some African HIV+ cohorts are over 30% by year 1, compared to 5% in uninfected children). If retroviruses are not transmitted horizontally, perhaps people should stop vaccinating their cats against Feline Leukaemia Virus, which is also a retrovirus. Paper [2] incidentally clearly demonstrates preferential male-to-female transmission, again at odds with what is expected of HIV.

The words used by Mr Russell sounds strikingly like those of Duesberg in his original criticism of HIV’s pathogenic role, but I hope that this evidence will help persuade Mr Russell that these statements were, in fact, entirely wrong. Additionally they should show that HIV, far from breaking any rules of virology, is in fact merely toeing the party line and behaving perfectly normally.

Thirdly I hope that Mr Russell realises that some of what he believes to be true about retroviruses, and virology in general, is in fact not. I appreciate that he has the right to make informed decisions on a topic, even as an outsider, but experts are experts not just by token of working in a field, but through picking up the knowledge associated with it.

Some other HIV EM’s, to make the point that we really do know what it looks like. [4-6] Note that these papers used normal HIV EM as a _control_, since the field has moved on beyond trying to describe what HIV looks like. It’s so much easier to simply state “HIV has no EM’s” than to actually check out the facts.

I wouldn’t be surprised however if Mr Russell were not already aware of much of these images anyway, and therefore doesn’t accept them. If that is the case, I would be interested in what _specific_ criticisms he has of their methodology – criticisms that cannot be applied to other areas of virology.

Nick Bennett njb35@cantab.net

1. Gendelman et al J Exp Med. 1988 Apr 1;167(4):1428-41. “Efficient isolation and propagation of human immunodeficiency virus on recombinant colony-stimulating factor 1-treated monocytes.”

2. Portis et al. J Virol. 1987 Apr;61(4):1037-44. “Horizontal transmission of murine retroviruses.”

3. He et al. Science. 1984 Oct 26;226(4673):451-3. “HTLV-III in the semen and blood of a healthy homosexual man.”

4. Welker et al. J Virol. 2000 Feb;74(3):1168-77. “Biochemical and structural analysis of isolated mature cores of human immunodeficiency virus type 1.”

5. Ohagen et al J Virol. 2000 Dec;74(23):11055-66. “Role of Vif in stability of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 core.”

6. Shehu-Xhilaga et al J Virol. 2002 May;76(9):4331-40. “The conformation of the mature dimeric human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA genome requires packaging of pol protein.”

Competing interests: None declared

Reply to Bennett: True isolation of ‘HIV’ from a fresh blood sample has never been achieved. 3 December 2004

Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top

Alexander H Russell,

Writer/artist/philosopher

WC1N 1PE

Send response to journal:

Re: Reply to Bennett: True isolation of ‘HIV’ from a fresh blood sample has never been achieved.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett stated: “The problem with Mr Russell’s argument, is that you do not have to isolate something to know what it looks like.”

Mr. Bennett’s statement is ludicrous and an oxymoron and merely typifies the kind of sloppy science surrounding ‘HIV’ research. His statement is absolute nonsense: if the hypothetical ‘HIV’ has not been isolated how do we know what it looks like? I must remind Mr. Bennett that isolation means separating the target virus from all other contaminants. You have to establish which are viral proteins and which are contaminant proteins. No one has ever published EM images of isolated/purified ‘HIV’ recovered from a fresh blood sample or any other bodily fluid.

Sloppy thinking and sheer laziness allowed scientists to get way with stating that material banding 1.16 in a sucrose density gradient represented ‘pure retrovirus’. However, when this banded material was finally photographed under electronmicroscopy in 1997 it was revealed that practically all the banded material consisted of contaminants – microvescicles, cellular debris, etc., with just a few ambiguous dots which may or may not have represented the sought after hypothetical ‘retrovirus’. It would be impossible from that mix when broken down into its constituent proteins to distinguish actual viral proteins from debris proteins.

As for the point of knowing what something looks like, morphologically identical particles to those purporting to be ‘HIV’ can be found in the majority of placentas examined as well as in lymph node tissues biopsied from people with swollen lymph glands but with no indication of so-called ‘HIV infection’. Luc Montagnier himself described the tissue cultures used in ‘HIV’ research as a “retroviral soup”. When certain cell-lines are used it is possible using stimulants to activate previously latent endogenous retroviruses – yet another danger when making judgements based purely upon results obtained from cell culture.

Mr. Bennett continues: “One early paper (from 1988) shows several EM micrographs of HIV showing the characteristic “truncated cone” core that is not seen in normal retroviruses.”

Please note: Mr. Bennett forgets to add that these particles are only ever observed in cell culture (in vitro)and have never been seen in this degree of clarity in any fresh blood or in any other bodily fluid. Laboratory conjuring tricks produce laboratory artefacts which should not be used for purposes of extrapolation. In a typical viral disease sufficient virus to cause the disease should be observable in the relevant tissues: this has never been the case for ‘HIV’. Merely to say that the ‘virus’ is doing its lethal work from the comparative safety of the lymph nodes is a total cop out.

Competing interests: None declared

Re: Reply to Bennett: True isolation of ‘HIV’ from a fresh blood sample has never been achieved. 4 December 2004

Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top

Nicholas Bennett,

Infectious Disease Postdoc/Clinician

Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital, Syracuse, NY

Send response to journal:

Re: Re: Reply to Bennett: True isolation of ‘HIV’ from a fresh blood sample has never been achieved.

As an idea, I wonder if Mr Russell has considered the point that it’s supremely easy to distinguish if the proteins in a soup are cellular of not.

Look for them in the uninfected cells.

Oddly enough, those alleged to be HIV are absent in uninfected cells by protein-based and (more importantly) genetic methods.

There is really only one other conclusion: that they are viral. The concept can be taken to its limits by techniques such as subtractive hybridisation to detect upregulated or tissue-specific genes (pool x subtracted from pool y leaves only those genes or proteins unique to pool y).

It’s surprisingly easy to do – and needless to say has been done for HIV. Unless Mr Russell has some information from the human genome project that I am unaware of – i.e. that HIV genes have been detected, despite years of experiments showing the contrary.

It is not so much laziness as using superior techniques (faster, cheaper, more accurate) which render others redundant: but I accept that it means that EM of peripherally isolated HIV will likely never be done – because it doesn’t need to be done. This is NOT a unique situation to HIV science, contary to Mr Russell’s assertations. If he looked elsewhere he would find it elsewhere.

I’m still awaiting his acceptance that animal retroviruses can be horizontally transmitted, through sexual activity, and can additionally show preferential male-to-female transmission over female-to-male [1]. HIV (and the science behind it) is far from exceptional.

Nick Bennett njb35@cantab.net

1. Portis et al. J Virol. 1987 Apr;61(4):1037-44. “Horizontal transmission of murine retroviruses.”

Competing interests: None declared

Reply to Bennett: EM is essential to confirm that ‘HIV’ exists 7 December 2004

Previous Rapid Response Top

Alexander H Russell,

Writer/artist/philosopher

WC1N 1PE

Send response to journal:

Re: Reply to Bennett: EM is essential to confirm that ‘HIV’ exists

Regarding the impossibility of isolating ‘HIV’, Mr. Bennett unwittingly has completely given the game away:

“It is not so much laziness as using superior techniques (faster, cheaper, more accurate) which render others redundant: but I accept that it means that EM of peripherally isolated HIV will likely never be done – because it doesn’t need to be done.”

It most certainly does need to be done – but Mr. Bennett is right in stating it never will be done, but not for the reason he states. The fact is that the current crop of virtual virologists DARE not use the earlier, tried and trusted methods of viral isolation to find HIV in peripheral blood – because they know they would not find any particles at all. By affecting to disdain to use ultra centrifugation, peletting down etc. they can perpetuate the myth of HIV proliferation and pathogenicity by using indirect markers, as introduced by Robert Gallo, David Ho and others.

In his book ‘Virus Hunting – AIDS, Cancer & the Human Retrovirus: A Story of Scientific Discovery’, Gallo readily admits that when he was working on HTLV1, a novel human retrovirus he suspected was the cause of adult T cell leukaemia, he was puzzled when he could never find any virus in the infected tissues of the elderly patients. It was he who suggested the use of surrogate markers as an acceptable alternative to actually finding and recovering virus using the traditional methods. Thus virtual virology was born -virologists were no longer required to demonstrate, with visual confirmation, the presence of virus in a patient’s blood. They could just assume it was there by using antibody evidence, reverse transcription assays etc. Goodbye empirical observation, hello viral theology!

‘HIV’ research is not based upon hard science but is a matter of belief akin to religious faith: you cannot see the Holy Ghost but you are required to believe in it in order to belong to the club. However, as Peter Duesberg observed in his seminal paper published in Cancer Research (March 1st, 1987) viruses and other pathogens, typically when they cause a disease can be found at high titre, sufficient to cause cell destruction or intoxication at a faster rate than the body can replace them. The result is a disease condition. This just did not seem to be the case with HIV, which a) appeared to infect very few cells, and b) appeared to be restricted to latency by the antibody response.

The apparent inactivity of ‘HIV’ worried those who sought to blame a retrovirus for ‘AIDS’, and that is what led David Ho and others to the theory behind ‘viral load’ testing. This purported to show that far from being an indolent virus restricted to latency by the immune system, HIV was hyperactive, creating billions of new particles daily, whilst the body simultaneously created billions of new cells to counter the viral proliferation. Ho was not bothered that such huge HIV titres had never been observed, nor the fact that the hallmark of HIV infection, if the experts were correct, should be the disappearance of cells, not a massive increase.

Once again, it was left to Peter Duesberg to debunk a ridiculous, but still widely believed hypothesis, in a fully referenced letter he wrote with his colleague Harvey Bialy to Nature, which was grudgingly published in a much edited form. (“HIV an illusion” Nature 375: 197, 18 May 1995.) In their letter they point out that the methodology used by Ho et al and Wei et al, in two papers published in the same edition of Nature, grossly overestimated the numbers of viral particles claimed to be in a ml of plasma. “Here we would point out only that the central claim of the Ho et al and Wei et al papers-that 105 HIV virions per ml plasma can be detected in AIDS patients with various nucleic-acid amplification assays is misleading. The senior author of the Wei et al. paper has previously claimed that the PCR method they used overestimates by at least 60,000 times the real titer of infectious HIV: 100,000/60,000 is 1.7 infectious HIVs per ml, hardly the “virological mayhem” alluded to by Wain-Hobson.

Further, Ho and a different group of collaborators have just shown that more than 10,000 “plasma virions,” detected by the branched-DNA amplification assay used in their Nature paper, correspond to less than one (!) infectious virus per ml. And infectious units, after all, are the only clinically relevant criteria for a viral pathogen.” (My emphasis)

Eminent electronmicroscopist Prof. Etienne de Harven*, in criticising the loss of precision due to the abandonment of EM in identifying and quantifying viruses, pointed out that the pretext they used for their abandonment (like Mr. Bennett) was that EMs were unnecessary, time consuming and too costly: de Harven stated:

“Dangerously enough, EM was progressively dismissed in retrovirus research after 1970. Molecular biologists started to rely exclusively on various ‘markers’, and what was sedimenting in sucrose gradient at density 1.16 gm/ml was regarded as ‘pure virus’. It is only in 1997, after fifteen years of intensive HIV research, that elementary EM controls were performed, with disastrous results.”

These “disastrous results” published in Virology (Gluschankof et al. and Bess et al.) did not show purified/isolated ‘HIV’ but a mass of cellular debris and microvesicles with three ambiguous dots which were arbitrarily identified as ‘HIV’.

De Harven concludes: “In conclusion, and after extensive reviewing of the current AIDS research literature, the following statement appears inescapable: neither electron microscopy nor molecular markers have so far permitted a scientifically sound demonstration of retrovirus isolation directly from AIDS patients.” (REMARKS ON METHODS FOR RETROVIRAL ISOLATION by Etienne de Harven, Continuum, Spring 1998.)

If the methods of viral detection using indirect ‘markers’ Mr. Bennett trusts really work, then it is axiomatic that using the earlier methodology will only confirm their findings. It is time to clear up this point before ‘HIV’ research becomes even more irrational and ludicrous. Surely it would be worth while to spend a mere three or four days with basic EM equipment to confirm visually the results obtained by using Mr. Bennett’s “superior techniques”?

Hence, Mr. Bennett’s statement is absurd and pure madness: “I accept that it means that EM of peripherally isolated HIV will likely never be done – because it doesn’t need to be done.” It does need to be done and urgently: can Mr. Bennett do it – and prove that ‘HIV’ exists?

*Etienne de Harven worked in electron microscopy (EM) primarily on the ultra-structure of retroviruses throughout his professional career of 25 years at the Sloan Kettering Institute in New York and 13 years at the University of Toronto. In 1959 he was the first to report on the EM of the Friend virus in murine (mouse) leukaemia, and in 1960 to coin the word “budding” to describe steps of virus assembly on cell surfaces.

Competing interests: None declared

Here’s the full text of a page of the HIV Dissidents: The Continuing Saga section of Catallarchy, a blog by Trent McBride, a pathology resident.: (Click show)

(show)

Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

« Older Messages 26 – 50 of 59 in topic – view as tree Newer »

Bennett

Nov 22 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: “Bennett” – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/22

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

David Wright wrote in message …

>It’s been seen before, many times. I’m curious about whether all the

>people who signed it in 1991 still believe it. (With some of them,

>like Kary Mullis, who cares? He’s a chemist. Or good old Philip

>Johnson. He’s a lawyer. He doesn’t believe in evolution, either.)

>And, as for the number of signatures, well, “if a million people say a

>foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.”

I know at least one who doesn’t – Udo Schuklenk – who recanted when Mellors

posted his evidence that HIV steady state viral load predicted time to AIDS.

He reviewed a short article I wrote on the dangers of reading the dissident

views on the Internet for people with HIV and AIDS.

Cheers

Bennett

bajabum

Nov 23 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: baja…@my-deja.com – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/23

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article ,

wri…@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:

> In article ,

wrote:

> >In article ,

> Bajabum, you certainly believe everything you read — if it’s

> sufficiently alarmist. I don’t think you really understand it, or can

> evaluate it, but you believe it anyway.

> The idea that the AIDS tests are highly unreliable is a myth. Nobody

> is diagnosed HIV+ on the basis of just one test. Not these days.

Rarely, if ever, has a single diagnostic test had such an enormous

impact on the lives of the millions of people who rely on it. Since

1985, the U.S. government and various civilian institutions have

performed more than 20 million HIV tests every year. Responses to

positive tests have been melodramatic. People have been known to commit

suicide or murder, lapse into depression, have abortions, become

divorced, and take toxic medications. (2) Tragically, these dramatic

actions were triggered by a test that is far from foolproof.

In 1993, a group of Australian researchers published what would be the

first substantial critique of the HIV antibody test. The article,

entitled “Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection?” was

published in the journal Bio/Technology, a respected scientific

publication affiliated with the British magazine Nature. The Australian

researchers stated that the HIV test is seriously flawed on several

counts: it is not standardized, so different labs will interpret the

same results differently; it is not reproducible (the test fails when

tested against itself); it cross-reacts with other, non-HIV proteins;

and it lacks a true “gold standard.” Every diagnostic test must have a

gold standard, which in this case would be HIV itself, but the authors

argue this is impossible since the HIV virus has never been isolated in

pure form. (3)

The scientists scrutinized the two most widely used HIV antibody tests –

– the “ELISA,” which is used to screen blood, and the “Western Blot”

(WB), which is used to confirm a positive result on the ELISA. The

problems apply to both tests.

The ELISA test, first developed in 1985, is highly sensitive and also

extremely nonspecific, which means it gives a positive result even when

there is no HIV present. As many as four out of five ELISA tests cannot

be confirmed by Western Blot, (4) and yet it remains the most widely

used test in the Third World, most notably Africa, where HIV is said to

be rampant.

Citing the data from a mass HIV testing program undertaken by the U.S.

military, the Australian researchers revealed some startling findings.

There were, for instance, 4,000 people who had two positive ELISAs

followed by a negative WB. Perhaps worse, there were 80 cases of people

who had two positive ELISAs, a positive WB, followed by a negative

follow-up WB.

In other words, those 80 people, outside the context of this study,

would have gone home believing they were HIV positive, since a single

positive WB qualifies a person as positive. But in fact they were

negative.

Another problem with the test is that it is nonspecific. The test looks

for patterns of proteins thought to be specific to HIV. One protein in

particular, p24, is “currently believed to be synonymous with HIV

isolation and viremia,” the study says. But the Australian researchers

detected p24 antibodies in a number of people who were completely free

of HIV, including one out of every 150 healthy people, about 13 percent

of all people with generalized warts, and more than 40 percent of those

with multiple sclerosis. On the other hand, they point out, p24 is not

found in all AIDS patients.

But perhaps most troubling, the tests tend to cross-react with other

microbes. The Bio/Technology articles describes a tribe of Amazonian

Indians who have never had contact outside their tribe and who have no

AIDS. And yet, 3.3 to 13.3 percent were HIV- positive by Western

Blot. “The above data,” they speculated in their final report, means

either that HIV is not in fact causing AIDS, “or, that the HIV antibody

tests are non-specific.”

The test’s greatest failing in the eyes of those who’ve had to rely on

it, however, is that it is not standardized. In the Australian study,

one particular blood sample was sent 89 times to three different labs.

It was reported to be positive 64 times, indeterminate 23 times, and

negative once. There is such a broad, gray, “indeterminate” zone, in

fact, that it’s often merely chance whether a given lab reads the

result as positive or negative.

By Celia Farber

Mothering Sept./Oct. 1998

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

bajabum

Nov 23 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: baja…@my-deja.com – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/23

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article ,

“Roger Schlafly” wrote:

> Lon Morgan wrote in message

> news:wdYwOHztShhUyRlZTzXTeHPcCrur@4ax.com…

> This point is addressed in the book and in the review.

> “Most batches of CHAT were grown on tissue taken from monkeys. But

the links

> between vaccine workers and a chimpanzee-research station in the

Belgian

> Congo are close enough for it to have been at least a possibility that

> chimpanzee kidneys were used as well. There is no documentary

evidence that

> chimpanzee kidneys were used. But the written records of which primate

> species were used for which vaccine batches are far from perfect, as

are the

> memories of those who took part in the experiments.”

THE FAUCI FILES: “The River” — An Affirmative Review in the journal

Science (Nov 12, 1999)

Science, November 12, 1999; Volume 286, Number 5443, pp. 1305 – 1306

HISTORY OF MEDICINE:

Is AIDS Man-Made?

A review by Robin A. Weiss*

Were chimpanzee kidneys used in the production of oral polio vaccines?

This is the nub of Hooper’s case. He points to the Wistar Institute or

to Belgian laboratories using Wistar strains. Numerous chimps and

bonobos (pygmy chimps) were kept at Camp Lindi, outside Stanleyville

(Belgian Congo). Some were used there for testing the safety of

vaccines, but what happened to the majority of the animals? Although

Hooper reveals that some chimp kidneys were sent to Philadelphia for

tissue culture, there is no record of vaccine production in them. If

chimpanzee kidneys were used, however, it seems odd that the one pool

of OPV (CHAT 10A-11) that, according to Hooper, might have been

contaminated found its way back to the Congo–and not to Sweden,

Poland, or the United States, where other Koprowski trials took place.

Hooper wonders if Ghislain Courtois, the director at Lindi, might have

amplified the pools of CHAT vaccine in Stanleyville. The author reveals

that the veterinarian Alexandre Jezierski independently grew attenuated

poliovirus in chimpanzee kidney cultures in the Congo. Because the

Pasteur Institute’s Pierre Lepine used local baboon kidneys, could the

French also have used chimp cells? In addition, Hooper suspects that

French and Portuguese activities led to the West African origin of HIV-

2 from sooty mangabeys. To me, the possible use of small batches of

experimental OPV made locally seems a more plausible source of

contamination than the Wistar preparations. As one of the investigators

of that time, Abel Prinzie, told Hooper: “We were acting in full

innocence, not understanding what sort of Pandora’s box we were

opening.”

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

Bennett

Nov 23 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: “Bennett” – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/23

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

baja…@my-deja.com wrote in message …

>In article ,

>THE FAUCI FILES: “The River” — An Affirmative Review in the journal

>Science (Nov 12, 1999)

Oh dear, reposting tripe from Fred Shaw does even less to your credibility

than your other posts. If you really want to argue the issue, crosspost to

misc.health.aids and I and others will happily tear it to shreds :o)

Cheers

Bennett

Lon Morgan

Nov 23 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: Lon Morgan – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/23

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:16:19 GMT, baja…@my-deja.com wrote:

Lmorgan wrote:

>> Nonetheless the combination of

>> ELISA, with Western Blot and RT-PCR followup makes for a very

>> sensitive and specific testing process.

>Whether you are an HIV believer or an HIV skeptic, you can’t possibly

>argue that the HIV antibody test is not wracked with problems.

Ah, but I can argue, especially in light of the fact that you remain

incapable of getting past the ‘Scudamore Mediocrity’ level of

‘references.’ And it is questionable whether you would comprehend

it anyhow. But just in case, here’s current *legitimate evidence* on

AIDS/HIV testing:

“Accurate determination of plasma human immunodeficiency virus type 1

(HIV-1) RNA levels is critical for the effective management of HIV-1

disease. ..We describe here the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test, version

1.5, … version of the 1.5 test yielded equivalent quantification of

HIV-1 RNA regardless of the subtype. ” (1)

“A new immunochromatographic rapid test, Determine HIV-1/2, for the

detection of antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)

and HIV-2 in human whole blood, serum, and plasma was evaluated.

..This evaluation demonstrated the excellent performance of this

immunochromatographic test with EDTA-anticoagulated whole-blood,

serum, and plasma samples. We conclude that this test is suitable for

use in emerging countries and is an excellent alternative to HIV

antibody testing at remote sites, as well as in traditional

laboratories. ” (2)

“In order to reduce the window phase between time of human

immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and laboratory diagnosis, new

fourth generation screening assays which permit a simultaneous

detection of HIV antigen and antibody have been developed. ..The

specificity for unselected blood donors was 99.6%. The Enzymun-Test

HIV Combi permits an earlier diagnosis of HIV infection than third

generation assays through the detection of p24 antigen, which may be

present in serum samples from individuals with recent HIV infection

prior to seroconversion and it shows an excellent sensitivity for

antibodies to all known HIV-1 subtypes and HIV-2. The specificity in

blood donors and hospitalized patients is comparable to that of other

assays. ” (3)

-MANY- more references are available.

Reality can be a bummer for the alarmist mentality.

==============================================

1. Development of calibrated viral load standards for group M

subtypes of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 and performance of an

improved AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test with isolates of diverse

subtypes. Michael NL; J Clin Microbiol, 1999 Aug, 37:8, 2557-63

2. Evaluation of a rapid immunochromatographic test for detection of

antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus.

Arai H; J Clin Microbiol, 1999 Feb, 37:2, 367-70

3. Reduction of the diagnostic window with a new combined p24 antigen

and human immunodeficiency virus antibody screening assay.

Gürtler L. J Virol Methods, 1998 Nov, 75:1, 27-38

“Issues in Immunization: the Evidence”

http://fp1.cyberhighway.net/~lmorgan/

Lon Morgan

email: lmorgan AT cyberhighway DOT net

Quantum mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.

Lon Morgan

Nov 23 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: Lon Morgan – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/23

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 06:18:32 GMT, baja…@my-deja.com wrote:

Prior post:

>> Bajabum, you certainly believe everything you read — if it’s

>> sufficiently alarmist. I don’t think you really understand it, or can

>> evaluate it, but you believe it anyway.

>Rarely, if ever, has a single diagnostic test had such an enormous

>impact on the lives of the millions of people who rely on it…

Hmmm, so your ‘reference’ is now Mothering magazine.

My my Baja, at least it’s not a girlie magazine, so I suppose that’s

an improvement. 😐

Just can’t clue into the necessity of actually consulting the current

scientific literature, can you?!

The diagnosis of AIDS is certainly traumatic, as is a dx of cancer,

but not nearly as melodramatic as you would claim. Magic Johnson and

a few zillion other HIV positive individuals continue to lead

productive lives – in spite of your alarmist and unfounded ‘moronismus

on parade’ attempts to tell them otherwise.

And having a postive HIV test leading to a later AIDS diagnosis does

not seem to affect survival time:

“OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of the time period from first

positive HIV test to AIDS diagnosis and other variables on survival

after AIDS diagnosis…

CONCLUSION: No association was found between survival time and the

time interval between first positive HIV test and AIDS diagnosis. “

(1)

==========================================

1. Knowledge of HIV-positivity had no impact on AIDS survival time

among Danish AIDS patients 1980-95.

Jensen L Scand J Infect Dis, 1998, 30:3, 231-6

“Issues in Immunization: the Evidence”

http://fp1.cyberhighway.net/~lmorgan/

Lon Morgan

email: lmorgan AT cyberhighway DOT net

Quantum mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.

D. C. & M. V. Sessions

Nov 24 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: “D. C. & M. V. Sessions” – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/24

Subject: Re: Does HIV cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

Andrew Sanders wrote:

> Here’s an article disputing the official line on HIV / AIDS with a number

> of references:

> http://homepages.go.com/~frann55/hiv.html

> What you don’t seem to realise is that it is nigh on impossible to

> publish or receive funding to openly address the issues surrounding HIV-

> AIDS. All the money is directed at HIV, HIV, and more HIV. That’s why

> there are thousands of articles published on HIV that wouldn’t dare doubt

> its involvement in this disease (not that they usually even consider this

> minor matter) – if they did their funding and careers would disappear

> overnight. And that explains why you and many others are so defensive on

> this matter.

It is nigh on impossible to publish or receive funding to openly address

the issues surrounding the Flat Earth Hypothesis, too.

| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |

| e-mail address. Of course, there isn’t REALLY a lumber cartel. |

| There isn’t really a tooth fairy, but whois toothfairy.com works. |

+———– D. C. & M. V. Sessions ———-+

bajabum

Nov 25 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: baja…@my-deja.com – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/25

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article ,

“Roger Schlafly” wrote:

> This theory might sound farfetched, but most of the competing theories

> about the origin of AIDS have been shot down.

Hilary Koprowski was the first scientist in the world to successfully

test a live, attenuated vaccine in a human being. He trialled his

vaccines first on mentally retarded children in New York State, then on

an experimental group in Northern Ireland – where the vaccine

encountered difficulties – and subsequently on almost a third of a

million children and adults in the cities and rural areas of the

Belgian Congo between 1957-59.

In March 1959, Sabin reported in the British Medical Journal that he

had found an unknown virus contaminating a sample of Koprowski’s

vaccine – a claim Koprowski vehemently challenged.

The nature of any virus contaminating the Congo vaccine has never been

determined. The only official inquiry ever held into the issue

concluded that on every scientific ground, it was possible for a monkey

immunodeficiency virus (or SIV) to grow in culture, be administered to

humans in a vaccine and to cause infection — though it rated the

chances of this as low.

Pascal’s theory that AIDS might accidentally have started as an

iatrogenic disease was shunned by the international medical research

community. Though carefully researched and documented, his attempts to

publish it in the world scientific press met with rejection.

But Pascal was not the only one with suspicions about how humans came

to catch AIDS. In South Africa, virologists Professor Mike Lecatsas

(left) and Professor Jennifer Alexander, published a warning in the

South African Medical Journal. They had found at least one monkey which

tested positive for HIV-like antigens. Such animals could,

unknowingly, have been used for making vaccine on many occasions in the

past, they pointed out.

The South Africans were condemned by other scientists for daring to

propose such a thing. “We were vilified in the extreme,” Alexander

said. “No reasoned consideration was given to our points. Instead we,

and not our ideas, were attacked.”

After reading Pascal’s theory, one of the world’s most distinguished

evolutionary biologists, Professor William Hamilton of Oxford

University, concluded that it deserved the most serious scientific

attention. Hamilton promptly wrote to the leading journals, Science

and Nature, urging that the theory be subjected to scientific

scrutiny. If AIDS was shown to have been transmitted in this way,

other plagues could enter humans by similar means and millions more

human lives would be placed at risk, he argued.

Both journals rejected his letters.

Opinion in the research community was sharply divided. US AIDS

researcher, Dr Robert Gallo, who had originally told journalist Tom

Curtis a contaminated vaccine was theoretically possible, came out with

a blunt assertion that the theory was false.

Eminent polio researcher Professor Joseph Melnick, on the other hand,

stated in a court affidavit: “I find this theory plausible, and one of

several possible explanations for the still-unsolved mystery of how the

modern AIDS epidemic originated.”

His views have since been echoed by Dr David Ho, regarded by many as

America’s premier AIDS researcher and 1997 TIME Magazine Man of the

Year. Dr Ho stated “I found the hypothesis to be an intriguing,

scientifically plausible theory” and went on to express concern that

the mere exposition of a scientific hypothesis should become the

subject of litigation.

At least one new monkey virus has been discovered since the first

animal organ transplants began, and it is now considered by some

scientists that the stealth viruses associated with chronic fatigue

syndrome also entered humans from monkeys in polio vaccine.

What nobody knows is how many such agents remain to be discovered – or

how lethal to humans they may prove.

After a US AIDS patient was implanted with baboon marrow, a leading

epidemiologist with the US Centers for Disease Control, Dr Louise

Chapman, told the media, “You can’t dismiss out of hand that using

animal tissues may be a very effective way to introduce another

equivalent infection.” Yet experiments in the transfer of animal

tissues continue.

(Julian Cribb is a science writer and author of “The White Death”, a

book on the origins of HIV, published by HarperCollins (Australia)

under their Angus & Robertson imprint.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/1671/origin.htm

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

Andrew Sanders

Nov 25 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: Andrew Sanders – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/25

Subject: Re: Does HIV cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article ,

“D. C. & M. V. Sessions” wrote:

– Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

> Andrew Sanders wrote:

> > Here’s an article disputing the official line on HIV / AIDS with a number

> > of references:

> > http://homepages.go.com/~frann55/hiv.html

> > What you don’t seem to realise is that it is nigh on impossible to

> > publish or receive funding to openly address the issues surrounding HIV-

> > AIDS. All the money is directed at HIV, HIV, and more HIV. That’s why

> > there are thousands of articles published on HIV that wouldn’t dare doubt

> > its involvement in this disease (not that they usually even consider this

> > minor matter) – if they did their funding and careers would disappear

> > overnight. And that explains why you and many others are so defensive on

> > this matter.

> It is nigh on impossible to publish or receive funding to openly address

> the issues surrounding the Flat Earth Hypothesis, too.

You’ve all got it the wrong way around here. For centuries everyone

believed the earth was flat, in spite of plenty of commonsense evidence

to the contrary (planets appearing round, ships masts being visible at a

distance before the hull, etc) until someone was ‘stupid’ enough to put

it to the ultimate test. The analogy here can only be that conventional

HIV-AIDS thinking is, in fact, the flat earth hypothesis.

Andrew.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

bajabum

Nov 25 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: baja…@my-deja.com – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/25

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article ,

“Roger Schlafly” wrote:

> This theory might sound farfetched, but most of the competing theories

> about the origin of AIDS have been shot down.

THE MARBURG MONKEY VIRUS

In mid-August 1967, six years after the SV40 problem came to light, a

mysterious, dangerous, infectious disease broke out simultaneously in

German and Yugoslavian research institutes. Thirty-one people,

including technicians making polio vaccines, suddenly became ill – and

seven died. All those infected had direct contact with monkeys or their

blood, organs or tissue cultures. Other people later got the disease,

too, including hospital personnel who had contact with these patients.

In one case, a woman contracted the disease from the semen of her

husband, who had been infected three months earlier. Though millions of

monkeys had been used as experimental animals and as raw material to

provide kidneys to make vaccines, no such disease had ever been seen

before. Eventually the “Marburg virus” was isolated, and its source was

traced to monkeys shipped from Uganda.

THE CONGO VACCINE

As it happens, equatorial Africa was the site of the world’s first mass

trials of an oral polio vaccine – a vaccine cultured in monkey kidneys

but different in at least one important respect from the Sabin vaccine

ultimately adopted worldwide. This footnote in medical history took

place from 1957 to 1960 right in the middle of what was then the

Belgian Congo, Rwanda and Burundi – the epicenter of the future African

AIDS epidemic. It was developed by a naturalized American polio

researcher named Hilary Koprowski – the same Dr. Koprowski who four

years later would warn congressmen of the dangers of an almost infinite

number of monkey viruses contaminating polio vaccines.

Almost immediately, Koprowski arranged to have his weakened polio

viruses tested in a colony of 150 chimpanzees in Camp Lindi at

Stanleyville, in the Belgian Congo (now Kisangani, Zaire). To protect

the animals’ caretakers, these humans, too, were fed the weakened

virus. The successful immunization of the keepers then became the

justification for mass vaccination trials in the Congo itself- the

first mass trials in the history of an oral polio vaccine.

In 1957, when the Congo trials began, most researchers were using

rhesus macaques from India. It would be another four years before

scientists fully appreciated the danger that macaques, the natural

hosts for SV40, were passing along the virus to humans. Once that

troubling discovery was made, in 1961, vaccine producers shifted to

kidneys from African green monkeys, which in the wild were free of SV40.

Unfortunately, green monkeys were infected with something else. More

than two decades later, in 1982 and 1983, veterinarians at the

California Primate Research Center and at Harvard’s New England Primate

Center observed that large numbers of their macaques were dying

periodically of AIDS-like illnesses. These disorders had been killing

animals since 1969, but suddenly, the researchers were struck by the

similarity to the new disease afflicting American homosexual men. The

monkeys’ illnesses, the researchers discovered, were triggered by a

previously unrecognized retrovirus called simian immunodeficiency virus

(SIV).

Among the natural hosts for this virus were none other than African

green monkeys, but in that species, typically, SIV didn’t cause serious

disease. SIV turned out to be related to HIV, though it was only about

forty percent similar in genetic structure to the chief AIDS-causing

human retrovirus, known as HIV-1. Robert Gallo says some versions of

this monkey virus are virtually indistinguishable from some human

variants of HIV-2, the second virus that causes AIDS in human beings

and mainly afflicts western Africa.

No one who was involved with Koprowski’s Congo project and is alive

today remembers what kind of monkey kidneys were used in 1957-60.

Koprowski is still vigorous and remains at the Wistar Institute, in

Philadelphia – now as an institute professor and until 1991 as the

director of the facility, which is housed in a stolid Victorian

structure on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania.

Koprowski insists that his associates used kidneys from African green

monkeys to make the Congo vaccines. When I express surprise and mention

that Salk and Sabin were using rhesus monkeys at that point, he agrees

to check. When we speak next, he admits he can’t find a single paper

describing which species was used to make his vaccine. “But I have a

suspicion the virus was grown in the rhesus monkey at the original

beginning,” he tells me in his thick Polish accent. “Now when we

switched to green monkeys, I have no idea.” Thomas Norton, his

associate who grew the virus for the vaccine, is now dead, Koprowski

says – as are those who worked with Norton to prepare the vaccine.

Significantly, the large lots of the vaccine used in the Congo

apparently were prepared at the laboratories of the Wistar Institute,

he says. Wyeth Laboratories made subsequent preparations, including

those used in Poland.

According to no less an authority than Albert Sabin himself, at least

one other virus did contaminate Koprowski’s vaccine used in the Congo.

In 1959, Sabin reported in the British Medical Journal that a special

test he had devised revealed the presence of an “unidentified” cell-

killing virus in “Koprowski’s type 1 ‘Chat’ vaccine used in the Belgian

Congo trials.” More than three decades later, Sabin says he never

figured out exactly what the virus was.

Writing in the British Medical Journal on July 26th, 1958, Koprowski

and his colleagues offered a preliminary report on their mass

vaccination campaign. They included in the paper a detailed map showing

where nearly a quarter million inoculations had taken place in the

northeastern part of the Belgian Congo. The area outlined corresponds

roughly to another map in a report published thirty years later in the

Reviews of Infectious Diseases – this one identifying the regions of

highest HIV infection in equatorial Africa.

Of course, many of the viruses contaminating the monkey kidneys went

unrecognized in the Fifties and early Sixties. Koprowski and his

colleagues in the mass-vaccine campaigns found some monkey viruses and

eliminated them from their preparations. But many others weren’t known,

and no test to identify their presence had been developed. “That’s the

problem,” Koprowski says. “The viruses which you know, there’s a test –

there’s no problem; the viruses which lurk, for which there is no test,

obviously you can’t do anything about.”

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/Curtis92.h

tml

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

David Wright

Nov 27 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: wri…@nospam.clam (David Wright) – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/27

Subject: Re: Does HIV cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article ,

Andrew Sanders wrote:

>In article ,

> “D. C. & M. V. Sessions” wrote:

>> It is nigh on impossible to publish or receive funding to openly address

>> the issues surrounding the Flat Earth Hypothesis, too.

>You’ve all got it the wrong way around here. For centuries everyone

>believed the earth was flat, in spite of plenty of commonsense evidence

>to the contrary (planets appearing round, ships masts being visible at a

>distance before the hull, etc) until someone was ‘stupid’ enough to put

>it to the ultimate test. The analogy here can only be that conventional

>HIV-AIDS thinking is, in fact, the flat earth hypothesis.

It’s nice to see that you’re as ignorant about history as you are

about medicine. Any educated person in Europe over the last 2000

years or so knew the earth was spherical. The ancient Greeks knew

it, for pity’s sake! They even computed how large it was (and

pretty accurately, too).

The reason people laughed at Columbus, dillweed, was that he was

using a bogus figure for the size of the earth and they figured he’d

never make it to Asia. He wouldn’t have, either. Finding the

Americas was a lucky accident.

— David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone

These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct.

“What would Brian Boitano do?” — Kyle, Stan, and Cartman

bajabum

Nov 28 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: baja…@my-deja.com – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/28

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article ,

Lon Morgan wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:06:07 -0800, “Roger Schlafly”

> wrote:

> Outside of being hopelessly antiquated this theory has already been

> tested – endlessly. Most obvious: polio vaccines were produced

> initially using rhesus monkeys – NOT chimpanzees. The process was

> later switched to African green monkeys, again NOT chimpanzees.

> Chimpanzees have NEVER been used in the manufacture of polio vaccines.

> The only thing sillier is the notion of a ‘gay hep b vaccine’ causing

> AIDS!

A NEW THEORY ON THE IATROGENIC ORIGIN OF AIDS

by Leonard G Horowitz, DMD; Walter Kyle, JD; and Alan R Cantwell, Jr.,

MD

We propose a new theory regarding the origin of human immunodeficiency

virus (HIV-1). The simian immunodeficiency virus from the chimpanzee

(SIVcpz) is generally considered the closest nonhuman primate virus

related to HIV-1. We believe this virus, or a closely related simian

virus, most likely contaminated the experimental hepatitis B vaccines

that were administered to gay men in New York City and to blacks in

Central Africa during the 1970s. The introduction of a monkey virus

into the human species via contaminated vaccine programs could have

given rise to a new and unprecedented human immunodeficiency disease,

now commonly known as AIDS.

Robert Gallo, the foremost authority on AIDS, has theorized

that HIV-1 evolved from a virus in African green monkeys that “jumped

species” to infect the black African population. Based on our extensive

review of the scientific literature, we conclude that HIV-1 most likely

evolved and jumped species due to iatrogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.

In the late 1970s the simultaneous emergence of the earliest

cases of AIDS in Central Africa and in New York City closely followed

a period of major scientific advances in molecular recombinant biology

and retrovirology. By the early 1970s researchers had already isolated

RNA-dependent DNA polymerase. Synthetic RNA and cat leukemia retrovirus

templates were added to human type-C viruses associated with lymphatic

cancer. Experimental infection with these genetically engineered hybrid

viruses were reported to cause leukemia, lymphoma and sarcoma.

By the mid 1970s the role of T-lymphocytes in immunosuppression

was clarified. Specific enzymes and other biochemical processes needed

to induce immune system collapse were also identified. In 1971 Fujioka

and Gallo designed experiments in which tumor specific cell tRNA was

added directly to “normal” human white blood cells. To achieve this,

simian monkey virus 40 (SV-40) and mouse parotid tumor (polyoma) virus

were routinely employed to deliver foreign cancer-causing tRNA into

these “normal” human white blood cells. In other experiments the DNA in

SV-40 was commonly replaced with RNA from various animals, including

RNA associated with cat leukemia and chicken sarcoma. Gallo and other

researchers commonly modified monkey viruses enabling these viruses to

induce AIDS-like immunosuppression, cancer, and wasting and death in

primates and lower animals.

It is widely believed that HIV-2 (which purportedly preceded

the evolution of HIV-1) and HIV-1 both share a common viral ancestor,

the so-called simian immunodeficiency virus from the African green

monkey (SIVagm). In addition, SIVmac, a macaque monkey virus

laboratory contaminant, has also been found to be identical to HIV-2.

Because HIV-2 has never been found in macaques in the wild, humans who

are now infected with HIV-2 were most likely infected via contaminated

vaccines.

Narayan et al. have produced an experimental AIDS-like illness

in monkeys by using a hybrid of HIV-1 which contains a core of the

monkey virus and an outer coat of the human AIDS virus. Primate cancer

virus researchers used a similar process (albeit in reverse) to develop

AIDS-like viruses that could infect human cells. (See Fig.1). Recent

research suggests that some HIV-positive individuals may maintain the

envelop of the AIDS virus in their cells as a “normal” gene. A gene

like this could have recombined with one of more vaccine-induced simian

virus particles to produce an iatrogenic monkey/human hybrid virus like

HIV-2. Or evolved further into HIV-1.

The experimental hepatitis B vaccines and polio vaccines have

been implicated by some investigators as possible sources of HIV virus

contamination and intercontinental transmission. Although one report

exonerated the experimental hepatitis B vaccine used in gay men in 1980

in Denver and San Francisco, no analysis was performed on possibly

contaminated hepatitis B vaccines that were administered in New York

City and in Africa, as early as 1972.

Between 1972 and 1974 hepatitis B vaccine producers, under

contract with the U.S. Army and the National Cancer Institute (where

Gallo worked), used chimpanzees to grow hepatitis B virus that could

not be grown in human or monkey cell cultures. This MS-2 strain of the

hepatitis B virus was subsequently used to develop four subtypes of

experimental hepatitis B vaccine that were used in different parts of

the world. Some vaccine researchers have expressed concern that “more

than 70%” of their experimental animals had been cross-contaminated

with hepatitis B and other viruses.

Up to the present time the U.S. government and pharmaceutical

industry disregard simian virus contaminants below 100 particles per

dose. Thus, contamination of live polio and other vaccines by SV-40,

simian foamy retroviruses, and SIVagm, can occur. Due to their highly

unstable nature, simian foamy viruses contaminants can give rise to

viral recombinants and cross the species barrier. We hypothesize that

the use of live viral vaccines in New York and Africa during the 1970s

could have generated AIDS-virus progenitors, such as HIV-2 and SIVcpz.

In addition, the possibility that HIV-1 evolved iatrogenically

in human subjects (specifically Willowbrook State School mentally

retarded children and/or gay volunteers for the hepatitis B vaccine

experiments) as a result of polio vaccination in the late 1950s or

early 1960s cannot be ruled out. One experimental hepatitis B vaccine

manufactured in the mid-1970s was made from the blood serum of gay men.

Some of these young men likely received polio vaccines as children,

which could have been contaminated with SV-40, SIVagm, simian foamy

virus, or other HIV-1 progenitor viruses. Since certain hepatitis B

vaccine experiments took place simultaneously in Africa and New York

City in the late 1970s, this could explain the initial AIDS outbreak on

both continents in the early 1980s.

To prevent possible conflict of interests, PCR (polymerase

chain reaction) genetic analysis of these suspected vaccines should be

undertaken by independent laboratories. The original vaccines are

allegedly in safe keeping at the FDA. However, our inquiries to the

FDA’s Bureau of Biologics have failed to elicit a response because

details of these vaccines and their manufacture remain “classified” for

reasons of national security. Independent epidemiologic studies to

ascertain the actual number of deaths from AIDS in groups exposed to

these early experimental hepatitis B vaccines should also be

undertaken.

As part of the hepatitis B vaccine experiments undertaken in

the 1970s, the Bureau, along with the CDC, the NIAID, Merck

pharmaceutical company, and other industry contractors, developed

certain “pools of hepatitis B virus of known infectivity” from the

blood of gay men that also contained “subtypes of HBsAg,” (i.e.

hepatitis B surface antigen). This product was also adminstered to

chimpanzees in hepatitis B experiments.

Most people believe AIDS originated as a quirk of nature in

which a monkey virus “jumped species” to infect the African population.

In our view, the widely-accepted green monkey theory is weak in

comparison with our research which supports a man-made, vaccine-

induced origin of AIDS.

HIV and its progenitors more likely evolved from simian (i.e.

monkey) viruses altered by the deliberate or inadvertant insertion of

cancer-causing viral particles from other animal species. We

hypothesize these man-made mutants crossed over to infect the human

population via contaminated vaccine experiments and vaccine programs.

Such experiments and outcomes were commonplace in cancer virus research

laboratories during the 1970s, at a time when collaborative vaccine

developmental programs were ongoing, and before the initial outbreak

of AIDS.

The transmission of hybrid viruses from contaminated animals

and laboratories involved in vaccine production might also best explain

the simultaneous outbreak of the first cases of AIDS in Africa and in

New York in the late 1970s, as well as the peculiar epidemiology of

AIDS which initially affected white homosexual men in the U.S. and

black heterosexual Africans. Additional confirmatory studies are

required to provide the scientific and health professional communities,

as well as the general public, with all the facts.

ftp://ftp.win.net/winnet/tetra/pub/Origin_of_AIDS.txt

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

David Wright

Nov 28 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: wri…@nospam.clam (David Wright) – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/28

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article , wrote:

>In article ,

> wri…@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:

>> In article ,

>wrote:

>> >In article ,

>> Bajabum, you certainly believe everything you read — if it’s

>> sufficiently alarmist. I don’t think you really understand it, or can

>> evaluate it, but you believe it anyway.

>> The idea that the AIDS tests are highly unreliable is a myth. Nobody

>> is diagnosed HIV+ on the basis of just one test. Not these days.

long quoted article snipped. bajabum, you also have the bad habit of

posting stuff in a way that makes it look as though you wrote it, at

least until the very end. Even the odious Scudamore just posts

URLs to the tripe he believes. You should do likewise, since you also

snip out the references, assuming there are any.

In any case, your dopey, out-of-date, unrefereed article has already

been soundly thrashed by other posters. It looks terribly ominous,

but it’s not, for several reasons. One, nobody gets a positive

diagnosis of HIV+ on the basis of a single WB test, and in fact, the

WB is seldom the first test. ELISA is, because it’s more accurate and

cheaper. Your article is a blatant misuse of statistics; actually,

it doesn’t really even contain any useful statistics, but you have to

look at it carefully to realize that.

The “Perth Group” is the only group that thinks it’s on to anything.

Nobody else takes them seriously.

— David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone

These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct.

“What would Brian Boitano do?” — Kyle, Stan, and Cartman

David Wright

Nov 28 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: wri…@nospam.clam (David Wright) – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/28

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

– Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

In article , wrote:

>In article ,

> Lon Morgan wrote:

>> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:06:07 -0800, “Roger Schlafly”

>> wrote:

>> Outside of being hopelessly antiquated this theory has already been

>> tested – endlessly. Most obvious: polio vaccines were produced

>> initially using rhesus monkeys – NOT chimpanzees. The process was

>> later switched to African green monkeys, again NOT chimpanzees.

>> Chimpanzees have NEVER been used in the manufacture of polio vaccines.

>> The only thing sillier is the notion of a ‘gay hep b vaccine’ causing

>> AIDS!

>A NEW THEORY ON THE IATROGENIC ORIGIN OF AIDS

>by Leonard G Horowitz, DMD; Walter Kyle, JD; and Alan R Cantwell, Jr.,

>MD

The main trouble with this dopey “theory” is that it ignores some

inconvenient problems, like the earliest known human serum sample that

is HIV+ dates from 1959. There are plenty of others from the early

1970s.

— David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone

These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct.

“What would Brian Boitano do?” — Kyle, Stan, and Cartman

Bennett

Nov 28 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: “Bennett” – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/28

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

David Wright wrote in message …

>In any case, your dopey, out-of-date, unrefereed article has already

>been soundly thrashed by other posters. It looks terribly ominous,

>but it’s not, for several reasons. One, nobody gets a positive

>diagnosis of HIV+ on the basis of a single WB test, and in fact, the

>WB is seldom the first test. ELISA is, because it’s more accurate and

>cheaper.

ELISA in fact is probably not as “accurate” in the strict sense, simply

because it can give too many false positives. However, WB is about the

opposite, sorting out the true negatives that “passed” the ELISA screen.

It’s for this reason that ELISA is the first screening test, often used

twice in series, and then followed up with a WB or “LINE assay” (based on

the same principle) to confirm and type the infection (HIV-1/HIV-2).

Your article is a blatant misuse of statistics; actually,

>it doesn’t really even contain any useful statistics, but you have to

>look at it carefully to realize that.

>The “Perth Group” is the only group that thinks it’s on to anything.

>Nobody else takes them seriously.

The Perth group write, and get published, some dangerously incorrect

statements. For example, I showed very simply that their article arguing

that ‘AZT was useless’, was in fact showing just the opposite, but that by

making an assumption (and possibly ignoring published work) they were able

to make their case. I spoke publically to one of the authors on that paper,

and he tried to argue his case to me using a paper that contradicted their

work in the _abstract_. I despaired.

http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=479750643

http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=481930246

http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=483394966

I suspect (but have yet to formally show) that their assertations on the

validity of the WB are equally unfounded, but based on their track record I

hold their views in very low regard.

Cheers

Bennett

Lon Morgan

Nov 28 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: Lon Morgan – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/28

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:31:35 GMT, baja…@my-deja.com wrote:

>A NEW THEORY ON THE IATROGENIC ORIGIN OF AIDS

>by Leonard G Horowitz, DMD

>We propose a new theory …experimental hepatitis B vaccines

>that were administered to gay men in New York City

Ah yes, Baja contines the confused, conflicted ‘Scudamorish’

befuddlement.

Is AIDS from:

a – a ‘contaminated polio vaccine’, or is it

b – a ‘gay hep b vaccine’, or is it

c – AIDS is really just syphilis and HIV is irrelevant, or maybe

d – Moon-Rays!

Baja can’t seem to decide which conspiracy theory to go with either.

Baja further cannot comprehend that the theories are so mutually

exclusive: if one of them is ‘true’, then the others couldn’t

possibly be. But this kind of rudimentary common sense is irrelevant.

As long as there’s a venue of conspiratorial theories to pick from

Baja ( and John) will just alternate each day between them. And

neither one of them can commit to whether HIV is bad or not.

Horowitz is a dentist. Fine. He’s not a virologist. He has ZERO

training or research experience in virology.

Horowitz claims to have written over 80 publications, but a medline

search does not produce even one. Apparently his material is so

mediocre it can’t get by peer review anywhere. Which is undoubtedly

just one more chapter in his conspiracy delusions. Instead of doing

an accountable reassessment of his crackpot ideas, he just keeps

selling books to the paranoid and gullible.

Sad.

In 1993, the same year Horowitz produced his comic-book, an excellent

title by the same name -“Emerging Viruses” -, edited by Stephen S.

Morse, (Oxford Press) was published. Contributions were made by well

over 40 experts in virology from all over the country. Those addicted

to endless rounds of paranoia will be disappointed by the outcome.

What Morse makes clear is that in addition to HIV and Ebola numerous

other viruses have emerged, including: Junin, Hantaan, Oropouche,

Omsk, Kyasanur Forest, Crimean-Congo, Lassa, Rift Vally, Nile Valley,

to name only a few.

One other recent publication noted the emergence of over 50 new

viruses in the past 10 years. The emergence of these viruses has much

to do with human activity: changes in agriculture, increased

populations, dams, irrigation, sexual activity, etc.

No shred of a ‘vaccine connection’ in any of them.

As Winston Churchill noted:

“The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may

resent it; ignorance my deride it; malice

may distort it; but there it is.”

The possibility exists that one or more of these viruses will take on

increased importance as a threat to human health. If/when that

happens I wonder which vaccine the anti-vac-wacs will blame?

Chicken pox, no doubt!

“Issues in Immunization: the Evidence”

http://fp1.cyberhighway.net/~lmorgan/

Lon Morgan

email: lmorgan AT cyberhighway DOT net

“The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may

resent it; ignorance my deride it; malice

may distort it; but there it is.”

– Winston Churchill –

bajabum

Nov 29 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: baja…@my-deja.com – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/29

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article ,

Lon Morgan wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:31:35 GMT, baja…@my-deja.com wrote:

> >A NEW THEORY ON THE IATROGENIC ORIGIN OF AIDS

> >by Leonard G Horowitz, DMD

> >We propose a new theory …experimental hepatitis B vaccines

> >that were administered to gay men in New York City

> Horowitz is a dentist. Fine. He’s not a virologist. He has ZERO

> training or research experience in virology.

> Horowitz claims to have written over 80 publications, but a medline

> search does not produce even one. Apparently his material is so

> mediocre it can’t get by peer review anywhere. Which is undoubtedly

> just one more chapter in his conspiracy delusions. Instead of doing

> an accountable reassessment of his crackpot ideas, he just keeps

> selling books to the paranoid and gullible.

Congress Explores Vaccine and Biological Weapons Links:

Leading Expert Submits Stunning Suppressed NCI Reports

Date Mailed: Oct. 12, 1999

Contact: Jackie Lindenbach

Sandpoint, ID
in Washington, D.C. to discuss contractual links between vaccine

makers, defense contractors, and the biological weapons industry, the

nation’s leading authority on the subject will not be there. He simply

wasn’t invited. Dr. Leonard Horowitz, leading a massive grassroots

crusade to expose certain vaccine makers’ links to biological weapons

producers, defense department (DoD) contractors, and a plethora of

emerging diseases affecting millions of Americans, was merely asked to

submit his documentation for future consideration by the U.S.

Government Reforms Committee (GRC) that is chaired by Congressman Dan

Burton (R-IN). The doctor¹s submission includes stunning National

Cancer Institute (NCI) reports tying several cancer epidemics and

autoimmune diseases to contaminated vaccines and possible biological

weapons experiments.

These documents, he believes, will unlikely make it to the floor for

discussion. According to Beth Clay, a GRC staff member in Dan Burton’s

office, the committee is unaware of “The Special Virus Cancer Program

(SVCP)” that Dr. Horowitz’s materials document. The SVCP was a largely

funded, mostly secret, NCI sponsored program. During the 1960s and

early 1970s, contractors engineered numerous genetically altered

viruses and disease triggers, some descriptively and functionally

identical to even the AIDS virus (HIV) and Ebola. After they were

developed, isolated, and cultured, they were tested according to

contract reports. This was done illegally under the guise of “cancer

research” according to Dr. Horowitz.

Included in his submission is the SVCP pharmaceutical company contract

under which a 1974 experimental hepatitis B vaccine was prepared in

chimpanzees for human use, then given to gay men in New York City and

Blacks in Central Africa. This, according to Dr. Horowitz, and even

some scientists connected to the study, most likely triggered the

international AIDS pandemic. “In my estimation, Dr. Horowitz has

unearthed a covert operation, run amok, that is bigger than any secret

operation in U.S. history,” reported retired Colonel Jack Kingston,

Chairman of the National Security Advisory Board in Washington.

Previously on the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon, Mr. Kingston

called Dr. Horowitz’s revelations “more momentous in it’s implications

to humanity than the atomic weapons OManhattan Project’ of World War

II.” His letter accompanied a proposal submitted to HBO by National

Geographic film producer Ron Quarachi. Mr. Quarachi has contracted for

the film rights to Dr. Horowitz’s work. A documentary based on Dr.

Horowitz¹s bestselling book, “Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola Accident

of Intentional?” (Tetrahedron Press, 1997;1-888-508-4787;

http://www.tetrahedron.org), wherein several potentially explosive NCI

reports are reprinted, is currently in production by Nashville

independent film producer Brent Leung.

“It’s unfortunate that legislators won’t see these documents early in

their investigation.” Dr. Horowitz said. “The longer the connections

between certain military­medical­industrialists, biological weapons

makers, and vaccine manufacturers is withheld, the greater the rising

tide of cancer, autoimmune diseases, and emerging infections will be.

Without getting into conspiracy theories, it’s synchronous and ironic

that Dan Burton’s committee won’t hear these critical truths at the

exact time the media is advising people regarding their risk of

immanent’ biological weapons attacks, and need to reduce world

populations.”

http://www.tetrahedron.org/Press_Releases/pr02.htm

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

David Wright

Nov 29 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: wri…@nospam.clam (David Wright) – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/29

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

– Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

In article , wrote:

>In article ,

> Lon Morgan wrote:

>> On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:31:35 GMT, baja…@my-deja.com wrote:

>> >A NEW THEORY ON THE IATROGENIC ORIGIN OF AIDS

>> >by Leonard G Horowitz, DMD

>> >We propose a new theory …experimental hepatitis B vaccines

>> >that were administered to gay men in New York City

>> Horowitz is a dentist. Fine. He’s not a virologist. He has ZERO

>> training or research experience in virology.

>> Horowitz claims to have written over 80 publications, but a medline

>> search does not produce even one. Apparently his material is so

>> mediocre it can’t get by peer review anywhere. Which is undoubtedly

>> just one more chapter in his conspiracy delusions. Instead of doing

>> an accountable reassessment of his crackpot ideas, he just keeps

>> selling books to the paranoid and gullible.

>Congress Explores Vaccine and Biological Weapons Links:

>Leading Expert Submits Stunning Suppressed NCI Reports

>Date Mailed: Oct. 12, 1999

>Contact: Jackie Lindenbach

>Sandpoint, ID
>in Washington, D.C. to discuss contractual links between vaccine

>makers, defense contractors, and the biological weapons industry, the

>nation’s leading authority on the subject will not be there. He simply

>wasn’t invited. Dr. Leonard Horowitz,

Who says he’s “the leading authority?” The article?

Anyway, the biggest question I’ve got about this so-called “Special

Virus Cancer Program” is: where’s the time machine they used to

infect serum samples taken before the program was started?

— David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone

These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct.

“What would Brian Boitano do?” — Kyle, Stan, and Cartman

Roger Schlafly

Nov 29 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: “Roger Schlafly” – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/29

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

David Wright wrote in message

news:81rn2a$ifr$1@autumn.news.rcn.net…

> The main trouble with this dopey “theory” is that it ignores some

> inconvenient problems, like the earliest known human serum sample that

> is HIV+ dates from 1959. There are plenty of others from the early

> 1970s.

That 1959 case was from the Congo, a few miles from where

an experimental polio vaccine program was started in 1957.

A article in today’s NYTimes discusses the book and the

hypothesis that the polio vaccine is the origin of AIDS.

It treats the idea as a plausible scientific hypothesis that

should be taken seriously.

“With 16 million people dead and 33 million more infected, AIDS is among the

worst epidemics in history. A seriously researched theory about something so

devastating deserves a full scientific investigation even if the theory is

unlikely and chances of proving or disproving it are slim. ..

Yet many scientists say privately that publicizing Hooper’s theory would

risk tarnishing public confidence in the safety of vaccines.”

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/113099hth-aids…

s.html

(registration required, but it is free)

bajabum

Nov 30 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: baja…@my-deja.com – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/30

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article ,

wri…@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:

> In article ,

wrote:

> >In article ,

> > Lon Morgan wrote:

> >> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:06:07 -0800, “Roger Schlafly”

> >> wrote:

> The main trouble with this dopey “theory” is that it ignores some

> inconvenient problems, like the earliest known human serum sample

that

> is HIV+ dates from 1959. There are plenty of others from the early

> 1970s.

Letter to the Editor:

Response to Zhu et al. 1959 Origin of AIDS

By

Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D.,M.A.,M.P.H.

Introduction

The politically correct analysis applied to Zhu et al.’s speculative

findings published in “An African HIV-1 sequence from 1959 and

implications for the origin of the epidemic,” was unbecoming of Nature

(February 5, 1998). The authors concluded that four genetic fragments

isolated from the blood of an African man in 1959, “authenticate this

case as the oldest known HIV-1 infection.” They added that the genetic

sequences suggested that “all major [HIV] group viruses, may have

evolved from a single introduction into the African population not long

before 1959.(1)

Another objectionable conclusion was spun by the Zhu et al. team leader

David Ho in the study’s heralding article in The New York Times (3).

His group’s findings, Ho claimed, put an end to the theory that the

AIDS virus was engineered in American biological warfare laboratories

by Pentagon contractors–a theory initially advanced by a British

medical scholar, John Seale, though Ho falsely accused Russian spin

doctors for the alleged hoax.(4)

Questionable Background and Methods

Historically, this “case” and blood sample had raised

questions. Nahmias et al. allegedly found HIV-1 in this one of 1,213

Leopoldville blood samples.(6) These samples had been available for

more than a quarter century, that is, from the 1950s when large scale

polio vaccine trials were also underway in Leopoldville. Following

publication of their study, however, the sample was said to have been

lost.(7) Thus, confirmatory studies could not be undertaken.

For Zhu et al. this sample fortuitously reappeared. From it

they extracted viral RNA. “As it turned out,” wrote Wain-Hobson, “the

HIV genomic RNA was substantially degraded, meaning that, after much

labour, the authors could obtain only a few 300-nucleotide fragments of

DNA.” Then “multiple primers [additional RNA sequences] were used

[i.e., mixed in with the original isolated fragments] in a single RT

[reverse transcriptase initiated] reaction, and all synthesized

complementary DNAs were amplified by PCR [polymerase chain reaction]

using primers designed to amplify HIV-1 sequences from all known

subtypes. . . . This mixture was heated to 70 degrees C for 10 minutes

and used to synthesize HIV-1 cDNA . . . Each PCR product was then

purified, cloned and sequenced.

The “synthesized” sequences of HIV, the authors stated,

allowed “ample [genetic] comparisons” and the construction of family

trees reflecting the evolution of the virus and its relatives.

Certainly such methods and materials should bare scrutiny.

Common sense begs to know how HIV-1, composed of several genes

including the LTR, gag, pol, nef, and env portions, and a few smaller

ones sprinkled in, could be honestly “synthesized” from four degraded

fragments of just two of these, the pol and env, genes? The four

fragments were manipulated, the authors described, then labeled ZR59a,

b,c, and d. They said these compared very closely with the GenBank data

base. There was only a “0-3% divergence. . . . [and] maximum sequence

identity scores of 92% (ZR59a), 96% (ZR59b), and 94% (ZR59c) confirmed

that the ZR59 sequences are indeed unique and unlikely to be the result

of PCR contamination.”

Vaccine Contamination: A Politically Incorrect Perspective

A curious association advanced by the authors was that “[f]or most

regions of the HIV-1 genome, subtypes B and D are more closely

associated with each other than are any other subtypes with the major

group.” Of the six major AIDS virus subtypes, the B subtype is most

common to North America. The D subtype is most common to Uganda, and

the F subtype is most common in Zaire.(9) The authors’ analysis showed

an “unusual B/D/F clustering found in [their] phylogenetic analyses.”

Given the administration of contaminated monkey kidney tissue derived

polio vaccines in these areas from the mid 1950s through the 1960s; and

later, the testing of contaminated hepatitis B (HB) vaccines in these

specific areas during the late 1960s through mid-1970s, the B, D and F

subtypes may have closely evolved in experimental subjects, or in the

vaccines given them. Critically relevant is the fact that these early

experimental hepatitis B vaccines were tested in these areas of the

world, and in the populations most plagued by AIDS.(10) These four

subtype HB vaccines were partially processed in live contaminated

chimpanzees housed in New York City where biohazard and containment

problems were reported.(11) After growth in contaminated chimpanzees,

live HB viruses were inoculated into human subjects whose blood serum

was then taken to develop 200,000 doses including four subtypes of the

HB vaccine administered by 1974.(10) The close link between HIV-1 and

chimpanzee SIV is well established, and might be best explained in this

manner.(12)

Read the complete letter here:

ftp://ftp.win.net/winnet/tetra/pub/David_Ho_Paper_Nature_Rebuttal.txt

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

Andrew Sanders

Nov 30 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: Andrew Sanders – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/30

Subject: Re: Does HIV cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article ,

wri…@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:

– Hide quoted text –

– Show quoted text –

> In article ,

> Andrew Sanders wrote:

> >In article ,

> > “D. C. & M. V. Sessions” wrote:

> >> It is nigh on impossible to publish or receive funding to openly address

> >> the issues surrounding the Flat Earth Hypothesis, too.

> >You’ve all got it the wrong way around here. For centuries everyone

> >believed the earth was flat, in spite of plenty of commonsense evidence

> >to the contrary (planets appearing round, ships masts being visible at a

> >distance before the hull, etc) until someone was ‘stupid’ enough to put

> >it to the ultimate test. The analogy here can only be that conventional

> >HIV-AIDS thinking is, in fact, the flat earth hypothesis.

> It’s nice to see that you’re as ignorant about history as you are

> about medicine. Any educated person in Europe over the last 2000

> years or so knew the earth was spherical. The ancient Greeks knew

> it, for pity’s sake! They even computed how large it was (and

> pretty accurately, too).

> The reason people laughed at Columbus, dillweed, was that he was

> using a bogus figure for the size of the earth and they figured he’d

> never make it to Asia. He wouldn’t have, either. Finding the

> Americas was a lucky accident.

Isn’t it uncanny that all of you HIV-AIDS hypothesis fundamentalists are

so unbelievably rude and condescending. And you wonder why people don’t

autmatically believe what you say is the gospel truth? I’m no historian,

but the point I was making is that people believed the earth was flat

first, before going on to learn the truth; the parallel here is that

people have universally believed the HIV-AIDS hypothesis first with some

dissenting voices being rasied later on – thus making the ‘flat earth’

analogy relevant to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis rather than to those who

doubt it.

Please don’t bother to reply again, unless you can force yourself to be

civil.

Andrew.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

Bennett

Nov 30 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: “Bennett” – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/30

Subject: Re: Does HIV cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

Andrew Sanders wrote in message …

>Isn’t it uncanny that all of you HIV-AIDS hypothesis fundamentalists are

>so unbelievably rude and condescending. And you wonder why people don’t

>autmatically believe what you say is the gospel truth? I’m no historian,

>but the point I was making is that people believed the earth was flat

>first, before going on to learn the truth; the parallel here is that

>people have universally believed the HIV-AIDS hypothesis first with some

>dissenting voices being rasied later on – thus making the ‘flat earth’

>analogy relevant to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis rather than to those who

>doubt it.

Actually, all of the dissident views were considered as possible reasons for

AIDS, it’s just that while most people accepted evidence that showed them to

be untenable, a few marched on regardless. Yes, believe it or not studies

have actually been done “for” dissident science, it’s just that it wasn’t

dissident at the time. Duesberg’s arguments “against” HIV are easily

refuted (done it myself) and his arguments “for” drug abuse/AZT have been

tested in studies.

The analogy is _continuing_ to believe the Earth is flat, when evidence

exists to disprove that. Believing in it in the first place isn’t a crime

when you know no better. The condescention creeps in from trying to argue

against people who _ought_ to know better 😉

Cheers

Bennett

bajabum

Nov 30 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: baja…@my-deja.com – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/30

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article ,

“Roger Schlafly” wrote:

> “With 16 million people dead and 33 million more infected, AIDS is

among the

> worst epidemics in history. A seriously researched theory about

something so

> devastating deserves a full scientific investigation even if the

theory is

> unlikely and chances of proving or disproving it are slim. ..

> Yet many scientists say privately that publicizing Hooper’s theory

would

> risk tarnishing public confidence in the safety of vaccines.”

Maintaining public confidence in the system is the key element

necessary for voluntary compliance. The general public will blindly co-

operate as long as they perceive the benifits to outweigh the risks.

As far as a full investigation goes the spin doctors parrot “Actually,

all of the dissident views were considered as possible reasons for

AIDS, it’s just that while most people accepted evidence that showed

them to be untenable, a few marched on regardless. Yes, believe it or

not studies have actually been done “for” dissident science”, there by

placing anyone who continues to question orthodoxy as belonging to

the “flat earth society”.

The science behind all this is insignificant compared to the mind

control and propaganda involved in maintaining the belief systems for

control and manipulation of the masses. In fact science has become

nothing more than a side show designed to distract and confuse the

public mind, creating a ruling class of experts who know all and are

beyond reproach.

Those who profit from the system will defend it to the bitter end, at

any cost. They feed at the public trough and their appetite is never

satisfied. They will eat as much as we are willing to feed them.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

David Wright

Nov 30 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: wri…@nospam.clam (David Wright) – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/30

Subject: Re: Did a vaccine cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article ,

Roger Schlafly wrote:

>David Wright wrote in message

>news:81rn2a$ifr$1@autumn.news.rcn.net…

>> The main trouble with this dopey “theory” is that it ignores some

>> inconvenient problems, like the earliest known human serum sample that

>> is HIV+ dates from 1959. There are plenty of others from the early

>> 1970s.

>That 1959 case was from the Congo, a few miles from where

>an experimental polio vaccine program was started in 1957.

>A article in today’s NYTimes discusses the book and the

>hypothesis that the polio vaccine is the origin of AIDS.

>It treats the idea as a plausible scientific hypothesis that

>should be taken seriously.

The question is which theory we’re talking about. The idea that

HIV was spread via polio vaccines grown on the kidneys of infected

monkeys or chimps is at least possible, I suppose. I was referring

to the idea that a virus supposedly genetically engineered in the

1970s travelled back in time.

I still have a lot of trouble with the genetic engineering idea,

though. Building HIV to order is beyond the state of the art

even today, as far as I can see. And if, in 1975, you had somehow

managed to tinker with some existing viruses to construct HIV, how

would you know what you had created? If you tried it out in lab

animals, it would have appeared to do nothing. It takes so long to

operate that if you tried it out (HOW?) in humans, it wouldn’t seem

to be doing anything either. And even if you somehow knew what you

had, why on earth would you release it into the world? It would be

quite impossible to control and apt to kill just about anyone.

— David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone

These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct.

“What would Brian Boitano do?” — Kyle, Stan, and Cartman

Roger Schlafly

Nov 30 1999, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med

From: “Roger Schlafly” – Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/30

Subject: Re: Does HIV cause AIDS?

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

Andrew Sanders wrote in message

news:820a9m$6mv$1@nnrp1.deja.com…

> Isn’t it uncanny that all of you HIV-AIDS hypothesis fundamentalists are

> so unbelievably rude and condescending.

Not. He properly corrected you on a historical fact.

> And you wonder why people don’t

> autmatically believe what you say is the gospel truth? I’m no historian,

> but the point I was making is that people believed the earth was flat

> first, before going on to learn the truth; the parallel here is that

> people have universally believed the HIV-AIDS hypothesis first with some

> dissenting voices being rasied later on – thus making the ‘flat earth’

> analogy relevant to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis rather than to those who

> doubt it.

Your analogy is completely bogus. You are the one who is

refusing to accept the facts about the flat earth theory.

There are lots of historical examples of scientific controversies,

if you want to make an analogy. But you have to get your facts

right (or at least somewhat similar to the truth) if it is going to

help your case.

« Older Messages 26 – 50 of 59 Newer »

Other general examples of intelligent science/skeptic blogs include

Immunoblogging – Debunking the claims of pseudoscience one quack at a time. JM O’Donnell, New Zealand. (“I’ve now come to the end of my degree and will have a Bsc(Hons) in Microbiology and Immunology (need to walk in the graduation ceremony to make it all official). At the moment I’m just going to look for a job for a small break from study and then think about moving onto a PhD.”) A pro-HIV?AIDS paradigm blogger with anti-Dean Esmay posts.

Science and Politics Red-State Serbian Jewish atheist liberal PhD student with Thesis-writing block and severe blogorrhea trying to understand US politics by making strange connections between science, religion, brain, language and sex. – Bora Zivkovic, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States

Scientific Assessment – A Circle for Assessing Science as it Enters the Realm of Politics

I was motivated to start blogging back in January of this year by a desire to express my outrage at Bush administration policies, relating to science in particular. Alarmed by Bush’s “mandate”, the agressive invasion of science by religion in the form of ID, little progress overturning the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, attacks on the Endangered Species Act, and so on ad nauseum, I was tired of sitting idly by as moderates such as myself were being marginalized by the far right.

Bad Science, the usual debunking and quackbusting, but written by a professional journalist at least, one Dr Ben Goldacre, apparently a medical correspondent for the Guardian, and states he has a BBC documentary coming up, and a book out next September called “Bad Science” from Forth Estate/ Harper Collins. A key attraction on the site – Placebo pills for sale – has unfortunately sold out.

(show)

“Bad Science” Placebo Pills £8.99

Exploit the power of the mind-body connection while your consciousness isn’t looking. These Placebo tablets come in blisterpacks of 12, in their own Bad Science approved Placebo packaging. This medication has been proven effective in more clinical trials than any other. Rebrand the pills and imbue them with cultural meaning to your own nefarious

ends. A limited edition of 100 packets. Placebo: because a doctor gave it to you. This limited edition has, to my complete astonishment, sold out.

This is not to say that the posters are not a cut above the ordinary brain dead mortal, refreshing in their arrogant intelligence and interest in documented reason.

They are, for they typically include many generally bright people. Matt of Pooflingers nicely demonstrates his literary prowess with his introduction to the Twenty-first Meeting of the Skeptics’ Circle:


The Twenty-first Meeting of the Skeptics’ Circle has been posted at Pooflingers Anonymous, and Matt may have come up with the most unusual and creative format yet. Shakespeare, anyone? It begins:

A school of thought, lacking credulity,

In Skeptics’ Circle, where we lay our scene,

From doubting mind springs forth some sanity,

Where decent thought doth wash the B.S. clean.

‘Tis here we place the quacks in fatal throes,

For lies do seem to take on their own life;

And greatly do increase the public’s woes,

Thus do the skeptics ever dwell in strife.

‘Tis this, the thing which doubters most do love:

To purge the crap and bring the truth to light.

They do not ask for answers from above,

But use critical thinking as they might.

If your most patient eyes do wish to read,

The Circle hath such answers as you need.

Go thou forth and be inoculated against the credulous claims that flood the blogosphere!

What’s lacking is all too often the smarts of the person who sees the broader picture. Why generalists outdo those with a better eye for detail we admit we do not really know, but it might be called the Jimmy Carter principle – in science as elsewhere many people cannot see the wood for the trees, and even though they are personally familiar with most of the trees, they cannot find the shortest way out of the forest.

Here is the full copy of the Skeptic’s Dictionary Newsletter 62 which alerted us to the SkepticWiki, showing Carroll’s wide range of skepticism, admirable in itself:

(show)

the Skeptic’s Dictionary Newsletter 62

December 7, 2005

“For every complicated problem there is a solution that is simple, direct, understandable, and wrong.” — H. L. Mencken

PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD! Tell your friends and foes about the FREE Skeptic’s Dictionary Newsletter. Remind them that I don’t give or sell e-mail addresses to anyone.

Previous newsletters are archived at skepdic.com/news/

To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to add@skepdic.com

To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail to sdunsubscribe@skepdic.com

Do not reply to this e-mail.

Send feedback to sdfb@skepdic.com

What’s New in The Skeptic’s Dictionary & Skeptic’s Refuge

Entries have been added on frontier medicine and healing touch. I posted a rant on asbestos and fair play.

A link to an article about a man who has recanted his claims of molestation has been added to the entry on satanic ritual abuse. I updated the intelligent design entry to include news of the latest events in Dover, PA, and Kansas.

A link was added to the Amway entry about that company’s recent activity in China.

I also added a link to the Mary Kay support group on the MLM page.

The Pleiadians page was updated to include some more data on hoaxer Billy Meier.

I revised the selection bias, paraskevidekatriaphobia, and animism entries.

I also posted a few items regarding a Kansas University professor’s battle with intelligent design and its defenders. (See the next section.)

Skeptics and Party Time

“Aren’t skeptics party poopers? Aren’t you the ones who are raining on everybody’s parade?” Like other skeptics that I’ve heard answer this question in an interview, I lied and told my last interviewer that being rational and asking others to be rational was really good for the party. Things are so interesting when understood scientifically rather than magically. Yada, yada, yada. However, I wish I’d said the following:

Yes, skeptics are the destroyers of dreams and beliefs that many people cherish: beliefs about God, the soul, and immortality. Even our criticisms of ESP, EVP, UFOs and other non-religious notions can strike nerves that threaten the core beliefs of people. The ideas we deal with may be considered fringe ideas by us but they are core ideas to the people who hold them. We’re a threat. If we’re right, everything they believe in may collapse. We are party poopers. We do rain on the parade.

Criticizing intelligent design (ID) or supporting evolution, for example, is seen by many religious people as a threat to their core beliefs about the Bible. If evolution is correct, then it would not be right to persecute homosexuals or transgender persons. If the Bible is right, then there are just two sexes and the only normal sex is intercourse between a married man and his wife. If the evolutionists are right, then the variety of sexual identities and attractions found in human and other species is a fact of life, the way it is, and all identities and attractions are natural. To condemn any as ‘unnatural’ would be absurd, if evolution is right. Thus, evolution can’t be right because it would mean the Bible (or at least the way a large number of people read the Bible) is wrong.

When a conservative Christian group like the American Family Association (AFA) calls for a boycott of Ford Motor Co. products because its leaders think Ford has a “homosexual agenda,” it is just protecting its core beliefs. Anything that suggests that homosexuals or transgender persons should be treated as normal human beings with dignity and respect is a threat to the group’s core beliefs. The AFA has also called for a boycott of Walgreen’s drug stores and Kraft foods because of a perceived “homosexual agenda.” Likewise, the Christian group known as Focus on the Family was just protecting its core beliefs when it dumped Wells Fargo as its bank because of its perceived “pro-homosexual agenda.”

So, yes, skeptics are party poopers. When we attack ID and support evolution, when we defend argument and reason over traditional prejudices, or when we challenge an alleged weeping statue of the Virgin Mary and call it a hoax without even investigating it (as Joe Nickell did recently), we are seen by many people as a threat to the beliefs that define their values. A skeptic may find it appalling that grown people believe that a red mark on a statue’s cheek is a miracle, but to the believer it’s a validation of their other religious beliefs. Challenge the alleged miracle and you’re seen as challenging the believer’s faith.

Skeptics are rarely challenging isolated beliefs. The beliefs we challenge are interconnected with many other beliefs and if one of the beliefs is threatened the others are threatened also. Whether “in God we trust” is on our money may not matter much in itself. Whether President Bush sends out cards that say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas might not matter much in itself. But to many people such issues are connected to their core beliefs about God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ. Threaten those and it’s as if you put arsenic in the punch bowl. Just ask Paul Mirecki, the head of the Religious Studies Department at Kansas University, who was hospitalized recently after being attacked by two unidentified men who’d been tailgating him in a large pickup truck. The men, described as white and in their 30s, made reference to Mirecki’s recent Internet rants against conservative Christians, Catholics, and Jews. The men punched Mirecki about the head and shoulders and struck him with a metal object. Who knows what the men might have done had Mirecki ranted against homophobes.

No mas!

Readers continue to ignore the announcement on my feedback page that I’m not accepting feedback on Amway, Landmark Forum, and substance abuse treatments. The Landmark Forum writers are especially annoying. Like the Amway folks, they don’t like criticism. Apparently, they think I’m taking money out of their pockets by steering thousands of potential customers away from them. I even received a single page letter in a large post office envelope from a Landmark lawyer who wants to sit down with me for an hour and “correct” a few things. The last e-mail from a Landmark defender went on for dozens of lines about how perception is subjective and reality isn’t what it appears to be and other mundane things that he considered to be great insights. The substance abuse writers seem to think that the fact that some people quit abusing drugs or alcohol after a treatment that any criticism of the treatment is unjustified.

Anyway, the reason I stopped taking feedback on those topics is because in each case I had received numerous repetitious letters over at least a year-long period. Of course, I am always thankful for corrections of any factual errors I have made.

Homeopathic Overdose?

What are friends for, if not to bring you medicine when you’re sick. The problem with New Age folks, however, is that they think everybody’s sick all of the time and in need of some herb, oil, tea, juice, mineral, or vitamin to restore equilibrium, balance, alignment, harmony, or some such item. Homeopathy is no exception. J. A. writes:

Earlier today a friend of mine, noticing that I was suffering from catarrh, very kindly offered to go to the supermarket and get me something for it. Unfortunately she came back with “a homeopathically prepared biochemic remedy” for catarrh and sinus disorders – a bottle of 450 molded tablets manufactured by New Era, containing: Ferr. Phos 6X Kali Mur 6X Kali Sulph 6X Nat Mur 6X (The above are apparently “combination Q tissue salts”, whatever they may be), and Lactose.

Were it not for the fact that homeopathy is such utter drivel the instructions would be funny:

“You have selected one of 18 New Era Combination Remedies. The tablets are formulated from completely natural ingredients designed to counteract the imbalance in your body that may be causing the ailment.” (Since when has catarrh been caused by an imbalance?)

“Tissue salts are part of homeopathy. Homeopathic treatment does not fight your symptoms, instead it aims to encourage your body to rally its own defenses to fight off the root cause of your symptoms.” (So, even if your catarrh doesn’t improve, it doesn’t mean that the pills aren’t working. By the time your body has rallied its defenses the symptoms will no doubt have run their course anyway. And how can the body fight off an imbalance?)

“The benefits: Natural, active ingredients, homeopathically prepared. No unpleasant side effects from the active ingredients such as drowsiness or addiction. They can be taken by the whole family. There is no risk of overdose. They are non-habit forming.” (In other words you could scoff all 450 tablets with no ill effects BECAUSE THEY ARE A PLACEBO! In fact, this being a homeopathic remedy, surely the fewer tablets you take the more effective they will be. Which makes you wonder why the dose for adults is 4 tablets, that for children 2 tablets…)

“You should tip the tablets into the lid of the tub and then straight into your mouth. Homeopathic preparations are best if not contaminated by handling.” (Yes, I’m sure they were untouched by human hand at all stages of the manufacturing process.)

“If you are allergic to lactose, you should consult your doctor or pharmacist before you start to take New Era Products.” (There is nothing “natural” about human beings eating the milk products of another species. You’d think that New Era would have been able to come up with a suitable alternative.)

.

The tablets cost £4, half the price of a conventional catarrh remedy which I know from previous experience would have worked. New Era must be making a nice living by exploiting the scientific illiteracy so depressingly common nowadays.

I’m reminded of the story James Randi tells of the time he swallowed a box of homeopathic sleeping pills in front of a large audience just before launching into an energetic lecture. I should note, however, that not all homeopathic remedies are placebos.

Billy Meier

A curious reader wanted to know how I would explain the prophetic knowledge allegedly received from ‘Semjase’, a Pleiadian who befriended Billy Meier? The reader thinks Semjase had “highly technical scientific information he [?] received about Venus, Jupiter and its moons etc., years before it was known by our scientists.” I hate to be the one to break it to this person, but Galileo discovered the moons of Jupiter a few hundred years ago. So, if Billy thinks he got a scoop on this point from his alien friend, it just shows Billy’s ignorance.

The reader also thinks that Semjase predicted both Iraq wars and that she allegedly gave a metal alloy to Billy who had it “examined by IBM scientist Marcel Vogel and others which revealed highly unusual properties which they could not explain.”

Billy Meier is a known hoaxer. Semjase is not a Pleiadian. Her picture is a photocopy of a model from an old Sears catalog. The alleged alien metal has mysteriously disappeared. Any alleged prophecies from Billy Meier should be taken with a micro-grain of salt.

George W. Bush preparing for intergalactic war?

Paul Hellyer was Deputy Prime Minister in the cabinet of the late Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Recently, Hellyer announced: “UFOs are as real as the airplanes that fly over your head.”* Hardly newsworthy stuff. But he also accused the Bush administration of preparing for intergalactic war. According to Hellyer, the U.S. has “finally agreed to build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them if they so decide.” Hellyer is confident that “the United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning.”

Throughout his long political career, Hellyer has supported the Space Preservation Treaty, which would ban space weapons. It was nearly forty years ago (on June 3, 1967) that Hellyer officially inaugurated a UFO landing pad in St. Paul, Alberta. The sign beside the pad proclaims that it is “a symbol of our faith that mankind will maintain the outer universe free from national wars and strife.”*

Hellyer believes he has seen a UFO and was moved to his belief in their current presence on earth after watching the Peter Jennings special on UFOs that aired on ABC last February and after reading Philip J. Corso’s book The Day After Roswell. Hellyer is certainly open-minded, but he’s not much of a critical thinker. If you doubt that last comment, read the material on the previous two links.

Hellyer has joined the Toronto Exopolitics Symposium, the U.S.– based Disclosure Project, and the Vancouver-based Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS) in requesting Parliamentary hearings on Exopolitics relations with “ETs.”

May the force be with them, but personally I’m more concerned about the weapons aimed at aliens on this planet than I am about the one’s aimed at those in space.

Religion and Politics

On November 22, 2005, The New York Times ran an editorial about the I.R.S. threatening to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, because of an anti-war speech by the rector.

I.R.S. officials have said about 20 churches are being investigated for activities across the political spectrum that could jeopardize their tax status. The agency is barred by law from revealing which churches, but officials have said these targets were chosen by a team of civil servants, not political appointees, at the Treasury Department. The I.R.S. argues that freedom of religion does not grant freedom from taxes if churches engage in politics.

.

That should mean that the 2004 presidential campaign would be an extremely fertile field. While some churches allowed Democrats to speak from the pulpit, the conservative Christians last year mounted an especially intense – and successful – drive to keep President Bush in office. Some issued voter guides that pointedly showed how their own religion was allied with Mr. Bush’s views. Several Roman Catholic bishops even suggested that a vote for John Kerry would be a mortal sin. Since the election, Republicans have held two openly political nationally televised revival meetings at churches to support Mr. Bush’s judicial nominations.

.

If the IRS is pursuing any of those churches, we certainly have not heard from them about it.

But that was different, since the bully pulpit was used for the forces of good and righteousness. These anti-war ministers are using their pulpits to give comfort to the enemy. What next? Will they be screaming from the pulpit not to revoke Roe v. Wade? or to make Plan B available without a prescription?

Oxygenated vs. Oxidized

In response to my criticism of oxygenated water products, Gary Bakker, an investor in a company called Oculus, wrote to inform us that Oculus “has developed a technology to super-oxygenate water in a stable form which can be used as a disinfectant because it kills bacteria.” You can read all about it in Dermatology Times. I don’t want to be too picky but the article on Oculus talks about super-oxidized saltwater, not oxygenated water. To oxidize water you use electrolysis to kick out of orbit single electrons from oxygen atoms. To oxygenate water you pressurize water with oxygen gas.*

I can’t vouch for the financial wisdom of the investment, but at least it doesn’t look like an investment in quackery!

Environmental Evangelism

Sarlo writes

I have recently learned there is another interesting class of believer who … believe that since God made the world, they should take care of it rather than trash it so that they will be Raptured up faster. Their movement is called Creation Care and is championed by some of the leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals…

Sarlo is right. The group has even issued a statement: an “Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility.” “The environment is a values issue,” said the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals. “There are significant and compelling theological reasons why it should be a banner issue for the Christian right.”

According to the group, it’s every Christian’s duty to care for the planet.

“We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part,” said the statement, which, according to the Washington Post, has been distributed to 50,000 member churches. “Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation.”

Signatories included Haggard, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

As my mother used to say: “Will wonders never cease?”

Skeptic’s Circle and SkepticWiki

The 21st meeting of the Skeptic’s Circle is now up and in dialogue form for your reading pleasure.

SkepticWiki, the Encyclopedia of Science and Critical Thinking, is also up and running.

Both of these resources offer an opportunity for skeptics to share their writing. I will admit, however, that I have some reservations about the Wiki movement and its anonymous authors. One of the key pieces of information I believe I need to have is the author’s name when determining whether to trust something I read on the Internet. The reader has to already know most of the stuff you read in a Wiki piece to be able to judge whether it’s trustworthy or not. Also, many of the articles are redundant. The opportunity for hoaxing and subterfuge may be too tempting for some miscreants. Do the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks? I don’t know.

The Skeptic’s Circle, on the other hand, gives skeptical bloggers a place to meet, publish, and find out what others are writing.

Vlado, Where Are You?

If anyone knows the whereabouts of Vlado Luknar, please let me know. Eight years ago, Vlado contacted me about translating the SD into Slovakian. Four years later we met in San Francisco and got briefly acquainted. The last time I heard from Vlado was two years ago. He was on his way to Greece, but he was living in in Brataslava with his wife and son.

Amazing Meeting 4 (January 26-29, 2006)

I hope to see some of you next month at the Stardust in Las Vegas for the James Randi Educational Foundation’s Amazing Meeting 4.

Holiday Shopping

If you shop online, please consider shopping at Amazon.com by linking there from Skepdic.com. Amazon sells a lot more than just books, DVDs, and CDs. You can purchase your copy of The Skeptic’s Dictionary online from Amazon.com or from your local bookseller. If you are looking for a book for a child between the ages of nine and twelve, consider Nibbling on Einstein’s Brain: The Good, the Bad and the Bogus in Science by Diane Swanson. You can find other suggestions for gifts for the child in your life by clicking here.

As a gift to yourself, why not try Firefox? I’ve been using the Firefox browser for about a year and love it, especially the Tab feature.

***

11 Responses to “A skeptics’ Wikipedia is born, and Web AIDS discussions bloom”

  1. Darin Brown Says:

    >>The penalty has been that he has suffered a swarm of derisive ad hominem attacks by other bloggers who are convinced that he has taken leave of his senses,

    One thing I learned a long time ago — you have to rely on yourself to decide whether you’re sane or not, not anyone else.

  2. Darin Brown Says:

    “Skeptic” all depends on what direction, yes. How many self-proclaimed “skeptics” have I talked to, never to miss an opportunity to yack about homeopathy or acupuncture or horoscopes or New Age books, but the second you raise even a polite question or inconsistency about HIV, it all gets directly the other way. In short, they’re not skeptics at all. A skeptic is someone who is skeptical about ideas they hold near and dear to their heart. A skeptic is someone who questions the basis of their entire career. A skeptic is not someone who only attacks ideas contrary to their own. Chomsky made a similar statement about free speech — “Everyone is in favor of free speech they agree with…ever Stalin and Hitler were in favor of that. Free speech means you are in favor of freedom of speech of ideas you find revolting, disgusting, even criminally wrong. Otherwise, you’re not really in favor of free speech.”

  3. shaffer dunaway Says:

    I like to ask just two qustion to any or all the skeptics? 1) Why don’t you believe in the Bible? And what is it about. That you can’t believe it?

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    Are you referring to the Christian Bible, or the HIV?AIDS Bible?

    Those who are skeptics about the HIV?AIDS Bible (sacrosanct paradigm) are merely scientifically minded, and require scientific claims to be based on good reason and evidence before they are willing to accept them as plausible, and one of those good reasons can never be that most people believe in the claim.

    The religious skeptics are skeptical about the Christian Bible for exactly the same reason: it has neither reason nor evidence to back it, and much that contradicts it.

    Those who have faith in either or both are usually baffled by this demand for logic and evidence, which contradicts everything they feel. Faith in neither God nor HIV requires any science whatsoever, it seems clear.

    What it is all about, then, is apparently a matter of philosophy. Either one is scientifically minded, or one is not. Oil and water.

  5. otecotec155 Says:

    SUPER!!!!!

  6. BredSimpson Says:

    Hello! My friends and I really amused by your work Bred Simpson

    This is a very good site. It assists me find lots of information on one site. Usually when I am surfing I can find nothing of the kind I want, but this site, gives me lots of ideas on whatever I need to know about him.

    (Bred, you may be a bot but you have the right idea, so we award you a green border. – Ed.)

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    Usually when I am surfing I can find nothing of the kind I want, but this site, gives me lots of ideas on whatever I need to know about him.

    We are gratified to hear it, Bred. But what “him” is it exactly that you are finding out about?

  8. Otis Says:

    Hi TS,

    Since you are thinking that BredSimpson is a being and not a robot, maybe you or one of your “distinguished commenters” have a learned opinion on the controversy that is brewing between HIV/AIDS machas Bill Hazeltine and Bob Gallo as written about at some length, with REAL comments from Gallo HERE

  9. BrendaWiks Says:

    http://www.elecster.ee/images/img/christmas

  10. msonyxx Says:

    MESSAGE

  11. msonyxx Says:

    Hello. Afftar zzot!
    [url=http://viagra.alldating.org/viagra.htm]viagra[/url]
    viagra
    Its’not a spam

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 144 access attempts in the last 7 days.