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.

Ask Mama – clever Bialy initiative


Simple way to emphasize why low risk people may be positive: test mothers too

No, John, you didn’t necessarily have unguarded sex with a stranger, and nor did your mother

The Cuernavaca Roman candle of HIV∫AIDS debate, Dr. Harvey Bialy, the most damnably imaginative prodder of the elephantine beast that is HIV∫AIDS, has come up with another devilishly clever way to make a point.

As noted previously innumerable times it is the clear conclusion of Peter Duesberg, Bialy and the rest of the HIV∫AIDS reassessment movement (such as your faithful blogger), that the scientific literature shows that the notorious deadly Virus, contrary to the worldwide HIV∫AIDS panic, is not sweeping the universe in a deadly infectious spread, does not show any genuine sign of causing any trouble, in fact, is merely a harmless passenger transmitted for millennia between mother and child.

So it would be appropriate, Dr. Bialy suggests, to test the mother of anybody who scored positive on their first HIV antibody test.

The proposal is posted on the AIDS Wiki, mathematician Darin Brown’s home for accurate information on HIV∫AIDS, where it is safe from changes by those hostile to paradigm review, and an accurate counter balance to the misleadingly titled site led by John Moore of Cornell, AIDSTruth, which in a few short months has become the peerless source of HIV∫AIDS misinformation on the Web.

Here is what it says on Mom Is Positive too:

Retroviruses (of which HIV is a classic example, see Correlation But Not Causation: HIV Is a Conventional Retrovirus Without an AIDS Gene) are normally transmitted in the wild through perinatal routes (that is from mother to child), making them endemic rather than epidemic microbes. A virus that depends on such transmission for its survival is, as would be expected, essentially a harmless passenger. Killing the only host it depends upon, and having no other transmission route that is even slightly efficient, is a dead end evolutionary strategy.

Thus, quite the opposite of what you have been told, HIV is an old, established virus in the United States and not a newly introduced killer from Africa. The US government/WHO certified figures to prove this can be found at Incidence of AIDS and Prevalence of HIV in the US Population.

It is a firm prediction of the “harmless, passenger HIV hypothesis” that for those who are not obviously at risk from the known causes of a positive test (biological and artefactual), their test result has a chance of being reproduced in their mother.

If after your first antibody test, you were told you were positive, you may have been that way all your life and not known it, and it is possible your mother is as well. Since HIV does not cause any harm in a human body, she would never imagine she was an “AIDS victim”.

So, if you inherited HIV from your mother, there is nothing for either of you to worry about, and of course neither she nor you are to be blamed, nor should either of you be made to feel guilty about anything. Quite the opposite. This is good news, not bad.

Since this alternative hypothesis, like so many others in the field of “HIV/AIDS”, has never been allowed to be tested, we have no idea how many first-tested, antibody positives outside of known risk groups might be expected to have this surprising good news with which to enlighten their family and friends. Until enough people are savvy or brave enough to try, neither will anyone.

You are not being asked to participate in any kind of study. This is an individual empowerment exercise only.

But, even a few positive pairs might be enough to start a chain reaction, that could result in sufficient pressure being brought to bear on the US government agencies to force them to conduct a proper, epidemiological survey – something that ought to have been done long ago.

For this reason we encourage anyone who wins this reverse HIV lottery to contact the wikimaster here so that we may figure out the most appropriate way of making results of this campaign known.

Harvey Bialy adds a note pointing out that this suggestion dates from 2000, when it was purportedly agreed to by the CDC, but soon politically scotched.

Evidently, it appeared to be a threat, understandably so, to the status quo, vulnerable as ever to almost any trial of its validity.

Perhaps it is worth noting that in 2000, the South African Presidential Advisory Panel on AIDS unanimously recommended that a mother-child tracing of this very sort be undertaken using the pool of subjects provided by the US military. I was appointed a coordinator of this project along with Dr. Helene Gayle (at the time the director of the Africa AIDS division of the CDC). Unfortunately, after several months were spent on preliminary logistics, I was informed, for reasons never made clear, that the study was “not technically feasible”. Harvey Bialy, Cuernavaca, 8 Sept. 2006

Would this little study, so easily carried out, have weakened the paradigm or even brought it down all by itself?

Will it now?

It certainly will bolster the case of the rethinkers immensely.

But one wonders what the reaction of the mothers might be when one by one they all score positive too. Will they march on the NIH, like the mothers of the disappeared in Argentina?

Will the HIV∫AIDS tower pancake?

Like Bialy’s other devilish proposals, it is not easy to map the boundaries of what might happen. Bialy himself has a clear idea of what would be the most powerful outcome, though. He writes to us that

“The real need is to educate the black American community about these points because they are targeted for large scale HIV testing right now… and if enough of them smarten up quick, they could turn the tables on their persecutors. And of course every healthy positive Mom whose Mom is living has a positive Mom .. EVERY ONE OF THEM!”

“This could bring them down,” he concludes.”Three positive pairs and I could make more hay than you can imagine. And more trouble too.”

This fearsome prospect should give Anthony Fauci, John P. Moore and other paradigm propagandists pause. And the possibility seems very easy to bring about. All the dissenters need to do is persuade three HIV positive black Americans to persuade their Mom and grand Moms to tested too!

Then Dr Harvey S. Bialy, the most effective warhead on the Rethinking AIDS missile, can be aimed and fired directly at the HIV∫AIDS citadel, with an effect that one only imagine. As we approach 9/11/06 one cannot help but envision the collapse of that huge structure like a pack of cards.

But this time, it will be a blow struck on behalf of reality and true science against the religious impulse.

Bialy’s previous challenges

His most striking previous proposal was to suggest that the editor of Nature and of Science poll their readers to ask if they would support a public debate on the HIV∫AIDS issue between Dr. David Baltimore, Nobel prize winner, and Dr Peter Duesberg, Nobel prize winner manque.

He renewed this proposal recently in the aftermath of John Moore of Cornell’s refusal to debate him publicly, declining on the weak grounds that anyone who wanted to deny that HIV caused AIDS was by definition not a credible scientist, a sly bit of self serving logic.

I’ll expand a very little…about why it’s not appropriate to ‘debate’ with HIV denialists who also happen to be scientists, by profession or self-proclaimed… The principal reason is that there’s nothing to debate… A secondary one is that there’s nobody worth debating with. One should only debate science with credible scientists, and no credible scientist could ever dispute the causative role of HIV infection in AIDS.

Darin Brown has written up the story on the AIDS Wiki at Who Are the Real AIDS Denialists? — Testing the “Moore Assertion”

“In the interests of once and forever ending the disquieting and possibly harmful pseudo-debate over the cause of AIDS that has been simmering at the margins of the journals and popular media for almost two decades, we urge you to use your good offices to take an electronic straw poll of your readers in which you simply ask them to respond to the following question. Would you support a series of debates between David Baltimore and Peter Duesberg, to be organized by, and held under the auspices of, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, on the etiology of AIDS?”

If you would like to see this experiment performed, you may meaningfully contribute by sending a joint email to Don Kennedy (scipak@aaas.org) and Philip Campbell (exec@nature.com), (the editors of Science and Nature respectively) expressing your agreement with the letter above (and carbon-copying me at darincbrown@yahoo.com) so we can, in the words of Prof. Moore, “keep at the maths…someone has to do it, after all.” (Please address them by name in your email.) In contradistinction to the “Moore Assertion,” we present the “Brown/Bialy Conjecture”:

“No matter how many emails are received by the editors of Science and Nature in support of the above experiment to test the ‘Moore Assertion,’ they will never allow such an experiment to take place.”

We speculate that the reason is because they know full well what the uncomfortable result would be.

The remarkable AIDS Wiki

Who Are the Real AIDS Denialists? — Testing the “Moore Assertion” by Darin Brown was first published on Lew Rockwell, but it is now on Darin’s Brown’s AIDS Wiki.

Hit this link Who Are the Real AIDS Denialists? — Testing the “Moore Assertion” to go to the page and its reference links on the AIDS Wiki, and explore the rest of what is now the encyclopedia of reference on AIDS Truth (the genuine kind) on the Web).

Searching the AIDS Wiki for “Bialy” for example will yield the complete contribution of Peter Duesberg’s most authoritative and combative colleague.

Here is the text, but without links:

(show)

Who Are the Real AIDS Denialists? — Testing the “Moore Assertion”

by Darin Brown

LewRockwell.com

21 June 2006

A very interesting and instructive exchange between myself, Harvey Bialy and the New York Times-celebrated Op. Ed. author Prof. John P. Moore, self-appointed “Major General in the War on AIDS” and spokesperson for “The Scientific Community,” recently appeared on the AIDS Wiki. The exchange was prompted by an offer to Prof. Moore to participate in a moderated debate with Dr. Bialy, who wrote in part:

I propose a simple debate at the AIDS Wiki on the etiology of AIDS. I further propose it take the following form:

I will present one fully referenced (with PDF files that the moderator can hyperlink) challenge to your favorite and livelihood-sustaining hypothesis, and you can demolish my feeble arguments in the same fashion. We will continue this for one additional round, and then move on to the next challenge. I have maybe seven such challenges.

At the end, we will have produced the first fully documented, real scientific debate on the cause of AIDS. Interesting that after 25 years none has ever been held before, Bob Gallo’s promise in the PNAS in 1989 not withstanding.

Within the hour, Prof. Moore had replied to me by email:

Participating in any public forum with the likes of Bialy would give him a credibility that he does not merit. The science community does not ‘debate’ with the AIDS denialists, it treats them with the utter contempt that they deserve and exposes them for the charlatans that they are. Kindly do not send me any further communications on this or any related matter.

Despite Prof. Moore’s expressed wish to discontinue communication, he in fact continued conversation with Dr. Bialy and myself for several days thereafter. By the end of this exchange, Moore had produced (and “more” than thrice) what we now call “The Moore Assertion.” In the professor’s inimitable style,

… I’ll expand a very little…about why it’s not appropriate to ‘debate’ with HIV denialists who also happen to be scientists, by profession or self-proclaimed… The principal reason is that there’s nothing to debate… A secondary one is that there’s nobody worth debating with. One should only debate science with credible scientists, and no credible scientist could ever dispute the causative role of HIV infection in AIDS. I repeat, in case you have missed the point: Any scientist who claims that HIV does not cause AIDS (or that HIV does not exist) is simply not credible, essentially as a point of definition. The evidence is so overwhelming that a credible scientist could not fail to understand and accept it… Would astrophysicists and geologists debate with people who believed the moon was made of green cheese?

More succinctly, “The Assertion” denies that there is any scientific reason to doubt HIV as the cause of AIDS because a vaguely defined “scientific community” has already pronounced on the matter ad nauseum. This is vigorously defended by the ultra-orthodox AIDS cadres that Moore represents, even though the only semblance of a “real” debate in the literature occurred in the journal Science in 1988.

It ran under the logo of a “Policy Forum,” with Peter Duesberg arguing against, and William Blattner, Robert Gallo, and Howard Temin arguing for, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. In his book Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS, Bialy gives an entertaining and accurate description of this “heavyweight science fight.” Here is the last paragraph of the linked excerpt

After the ‘Policy Forum’ appeared, Peter all but begged Dan to sanction another round, to no avail. And so just when it was getting good, the bout was declared a technical draw on an inexplicable and non-appealable decision of commissioner Koshland. There was never to be a rematch. The failure to extend the discussion in the pages of Science was significant. Most scientists have neither time nor inclination to follow specialist literature in fields outside their own. They depend, consequently, on journals like Science and Nature to tell them what is considered important. Having read, as best they could at the time, the arguments of the Policy Forum, and then seeing nothing more than vulgar anti-Duesberg editorials in the scientific press and worse in the popular media, even a partially persuaded non-specialist could and would eventually concur with the ‘overwhelming evidence’ of Team Virus, although it has become even less overwhelming now than it was in 1988.

The truth of the “Moore Assertion” is a key point of dispute between the two camps. Indeed, in the absence of a satisfactory resolution of its validity, it remains the principal impediment to ever discovering the real scientific merits of the virus-AIDS hypothesis that have nothing to do with the consensual basis of the claim. Until now, assertions of this type were like the Riemann hypothesis in number theory — important but impossible to resolve due to a lack of technical tools. With the ascendance of the internet, however, the “Moore Assertion” is readily testable as a scientific hypothesis. All that is required is to take an anonymous, electronic straw poll of the readership of Nature and Science, the world’s two most prominent science journals, asking whether they would support a series of debates, organized and held under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, between Peter Duesberg and David Baltimore (the two most prominent and best-credentialed spokespersons for the two sides) on the cause of AIDS.

The goal of such an electronic straw poll would not be to generate an actual debate between Duesberg and Baltimore, but to test the “Moore Assertion” that “there is nothing to debate and no-one worth debating with, and the issue has already been decided by ‘overwhelming evidence’ by the ‘scientific community.’”

To take this experiment out of the gedenken, we propose the following letter to the editors of Nature and Science:

“In the interests of once and forever ending the disquieting and possibly harmful pseudo-debate over the cause of AIDS that has been simmering at the margins of the journals and popular media for almost two decades, we urge you to use your good offices to take an electronic straw poll of your readers in which you simply ask them to respond to the following question. Would you support a series of debates between David Baltimore and Peter Duesberg, to be organized by, and held under the auspices of, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, on the etiology of AIDS?”

If you would like to see this experiment performed, you may meaningfully contribute by sending a joint email to Don Kennedy (scipak@aaas.org) and Philip Campbell (exec@nature.com), (the editors of Science and Nature respectively) expressing your agreement with the letter above (and carbon-copying me at darincbrown@yahoo.com) so we can, in the words of Prof. Moore, “keep at the maths…someone has to do it, after all.” (Please address them by name in your email.) In contradistinction to the “Moore Assertion,” we present the “Brown/Bialy Conjecture”:

“No matter how many emails are received by the editors of Science and Nature in support of the above experiment to test the ‘Moore Assertion,’ they will never allow such an experiment to take place.”

We speculate that the reason is because they know full well what the uncomfortable result would be.

© 2006 by Darin Brown

23 Responses to “Ask Mama – clever Bialy initiative”

  1. Chris Noble Says:

    Brilliant idea. I only wish I had of thought of it first.

    http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1155530746.shtml#1483

    Although there was one difference in my proposal. My proposal gave the possibility of falsifying Bialy’s claim.

    I only wonder whether we will hear anything about the results if the data does not support Bialy’s beliefs.

  2. Claus Says:

    CN, you’ve reportedly been sorely missed. How about telling us what in your opinion would constitute incontrovertible proof of Bialy’s claim, that HIV has been with us since the beginning of meteorites?

  3. truthseeker Says:

    Chris, your post is dated Aug 28 2006. Bialy suggested the idea and got Darin Brown to write a Rockwell piece (click Who Are the Real AIDS Denialists? – Testing the ‘Moore Assertion’) before that, even though the AIDS Wiki illustration is dated Sept 2, and the Bialy text attached to it Sep 8. The Rockwell piece is dated Jun 21, 2006, and Bialy suggested the idea to us and others well before he triggered Brown into writing the piece for Rockwell.

    In fact, come to think of it, he presented it in its original form in South Africa in 2000.

    But priority doesn’t take away much from your originality if you never heard of it before, of course. It is a known fact that when an idea’s time has come, more than one great mind thinks of it (Newton and Liebniz and calculus).

  4. Claus Says:

    The immortal Francis Bacon himself in his intimations to TS has called on us to cease and desist as documented in the latest great post:

    Bacon: As for jest, there be certain things, which ought to be privileged from it; namely, religion, matters of state, great persons, any man’s present business of importance, and any case that deserveth pity.

    One wonders if J. P. Moore’s call to heaven hasn’t preceded the Truthseeker’s in this case, since he was the first to expound this wisdom as it applies to HIV Science.

    Ts’s own exegesis of these memorable words is equally memorable though:

    NAR: So those who try and show they are superior by making cutting remarks should be curbed?

    In face of such profundity piled on profundity, we conclude there is little more for us to do here and will immediately retire to play “You Bet Your Life” (http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/) with Barnes, and George and Prof. Knobless and The Mouth of the Yellow River, and Celia Farber and a host of other colourful characters who are wittier by far than we and guaranteed uncensored.

    We do not wish to depart, however, without first offering a solution to yet another question of origins, in a double sense as it were, that seems to have confused some:

    There is a *very* long thread at NAR which has many interwoven comments concerning vertical vs horizontal modes of retroviral transmission. For the most part it is extremely confusing. However, near what is now the C-terminus, Michael (I believe the one we all know from Barnes-world) makes what I consider a brilliant, insurgent suggestion that puts a rocket-loaded AK47 in everyone’s hands.

    The suggestion is that anyone who receives a positive antibody test should immediately (if not sooner) have their mother tested. For *some* the result will engender the child saying, between guffaws, “Gee mom, all these years and we never knew you had AIDS!”

    I suggest another button Hank. This one says:

    “My Mom is POSITIVE, and So Am I.

    HIV is NOT The Cause of AIDS”

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_

    world/2006/08/more_aids_goofi.html

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    NAR: So those who try and show they are superior by making cutting remarks should be curbed?

    Claus, this site is independent, even of Sir Francis, so we don’t have to follow his advice. All we ask is that jibes are witty as well as barbed.

    Let’s not forget the public acknowledgement that whoever “Michael” is, the Ask Mom idea was first suggested by Dr. Harvey S. Bialy, when participating in the all important South African government panel on the Big Question in AIDS, whose outcome was a prize specimen of the typical official response in HIV∫AIDS whenever it is demonstrated that the paradigm has no intellectual defense, when without delay an emotionally based one of political propaganda will be brought forward from the rear to rout the revolutionaries.

    We hope you will give your opinion here of this proposal and its prospects.

  6. Chris Noble Says:

    CN, you’ve reportedly been sorely missed. How about telling us what in your opinion would constitute incontrovertible proof of Bialy’s claim, that HIV has been with us since the beginning of meteorites?

    A better question is to ask what would falsify Bialy’s claim.

    If Bialy managed to get a significant number of HIV+ people to get their mothers tested and if none of them (with the exception of mothers that have had known risks for HIV infection after the birth of their children) turned out to be positive then this would falsify his hypothesis that HIV relies on perinatal transmission.

    In fact it is already redundant because the available evidence already refutes Bialy’s claim.

    Phylogenetic analysis shows that HIV and SIV recently had a common ancestor.

    Stored blood samples show that HIV was extremely rare or not present in the US before the 1970s.

    HIV+ children born to HIV+ mothers have a much higher mortality than HIV- children born to HIV+ mothers. The determining factor is the status of the child.

    Perinatal transmission efficiency is too low to sustain HIV.

    HIV is found predominantly in high risk groups in the US which indixates that it is not endemic. See the paper that Bialy cites – Since the virus is not endemic in the U.S., it is transmitted more often by parenteral exposures associated with risk behavior (see below) than perinatally.

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    Perinatal transmission efficiency is too low to sustain HIV.

    Chris, it is 25-50%, as Duesberg stated, do you agree? If this is insufficient as you have stated (saying 100% is necessary over the long term) pehaps you would explain why HTLV-1 and HTLV-II get along very well in Japan at those levels?

  8. McKiernan Says:

    You are not being asked to participate in any kind of study. This is an individual empowerment exercise only.

    This is why people cannot trust Bialy. Voluntary participation was Chris Noble’s and then Michael’s suggestion. The comment archives support this conclusion.

    NAR finds a differnet conclusion and says Bialy said it in 2000. The SAAIDS Report of March 2001 doesn’t confirm any notions of a voluntary, personal empowerment exercise.

    Bialy is wrong . Claus found the error. And NAR is the reporter that is mistaken.

  9. Chris Noble Says:

    Chris, it is 25-50%, as Duesberg stated, do you agree? If this is insufficient as you have stated (saying 100% is necessary over the long term) pehaps you would explain why HTLV-1 and HTLV-II get along very well in Japan at those levels?

    Because HTLV-I and HTLV-II are also spread by sexual transmission. The seroprevalence of HTLVs rises after the age in which people become sexually active. Most HTLV infection is acquired sexually

    Read this book rather that Duesberg’s “interpretation” of it.

    Human Retrovirology: HTLV (Blattner WA, ed) Raven Press, New York

    Also do a pubmed search for sexual transmission HTLV and read papers that have been published since 1990.

    Don’t rely on Duesberg’s interpretation of the science.

  10. Truthseeker Says:

    NAR finds a differnet conclusion and says Bialy said it in 2000.

    Sorry, McK, we didn’t realize this was a nit picking exercise. We just reported what Bialy told us, which we have no reason to assume was wrong, which is that he raised the idea of Mama testing in 2000.

    It is too obvious a proposal to quarrel about priority over, surely. It occurs to anyone who hears that perinatal transmission is the probable long term basis for HIV being around at all. What are you giving up to pursue the point? Nothing significant, we hope.

  11. McKiernan Says:

    Your right, nothing important except the reporting by the reporter does match the fact-checking.

    Chris found it, Claus found it, McK found and surely Michael found it.

    And Chris originally proposed it. So if you’re a truthseeker, report some of it once in a while.

  12. Plummet C. Nobel Says:

    Dr. Noble, I cannot tell you how happy I am that this important topic is revived once again by your untiring self in such an unequivocal manner. Kudos to you for coming up with this brillant experiment to Test Mama. When the truth will out, I’m sure you will get full credit. But allow me to take a little credit first, because here’s a unique opportunity to present some of the important findings in my latest cyber research paper entitled THE DUESBERG CONNECTION

    Earlier I was struck by the utter sanity of Trrl’s theory that Duesberg’s papers were in fact not written by himself, but by some other even more sinister mathematical ignoramus. Armed with the hypothesis that Duesberg’s military recruits were only the tip of the iceberg in a worldwide conspiracy to sneak bad math into theories of vertical transmission of retroviruses, I promptly set out on a journey of discovery – noblesse oblige as they say – to uncover the plot.
    What I found was a long trail leading back to the most prestigious journals and institutions, representing nothing less than the complete bastardization of statistical analysis.
    For fear of ad hominems, ad murines, or even ad geographicals, I have chosen to post under my pet name, and I will withhold all useful references in the following. . .

    Importance of the various routes of transmission of HTLV-1 is believed to vary geographically. In Japan, the geographic clustering of infection and the rarity of unprotected sexual contact suggest that the virus is more dependent on mother-to-child transmission.

    A human retrovirus depending mainly on MTCT? Duesberg! Unmistakably Duesberg! A single glance at the numbers below, revealing as they are of complete ignorance of lottery draws as applied to biological phenomena, will convince even the most entrenched worshipper of the singular dishonesty of the man:

    Children of seropositive mothers have an approximately 15 to 20% risk of infection if they receive long-term breast feeding, as is normal in many regions, for example in Peru. In the descendants of the Japanese immigrants from Okinawa, an endemic island. The first generation exhibited 14% HTLV-1 positivity, the second generation just 4% and in the third this is a particularly rare infection. This is explained by the shorter breast feeding period in the younger modern generation.

    Notice in particular the facile and laughable attempt at explaining away the evolutionary decay so typical of creationists and Duesberg worshippers (the last only different from the first in that they think Duesberg created the universe)
    But the evolutionary decay of mathematical ability is already now evident in yet to be published papers such as the one below:

    Intrauterine transmission of HTLV-1 is very rare, and prolonged breastfeeding seems to be the main risk factor associated with this type of transmission. In Peru, breastfeeding is the most common route of transmission of HTLV-1. In a study of 120 HTLV-1-infected Peruvian women and their offspring, infection was not detected in children who were not breastfed, but was documented in 14 percent of those who received maternal milk for less than 6 months and in 31 percent of those breastfed for more than 6 months (… unpublished data). Moreover, in a hyperendemic area in southwestern Japan, screening pregnant women and abstaining from breastfeeding has been documented to dramatically decrease the prevalence of HTLV-1 (Katamine, 1999). HTLV-1-related disease in mothers may also be associated with the increased risk of transmission of the virus to their children, as suggested by a recent study which found that HTLV-1 is present in 43 percent of children born from mothers with strongyloidiasis, and 20 percent of children born from mothers with tropical spastic paraparesis (p less than 0.01). Gender also seemed to be a factor, as HTLV-1 is transmitted to 17 percent of males and to 32 percent of females (p less than 0.01)

    Here again we see how layer upon layer of variables are added, duration of breast feeding, age, gender, race, co-infections etc., all in a pathetic attempt to confound clear mathematical analysis. But it’s the numbers, the oh so Duesberg’sk numbers, that give the insidious ghost writer away. In spite of all their fancy maneuvers and misinterpretations, the math morons still can’t come up with a transmission percentage higher than 14-43%. Note how those numbers are almost identical to the estimates for HIV (once HTLV-III), which means of course that it is a similar, essentially perinatally endemic, retrovirus.

    As of now we still don’t have a full sense of how widespread this conspiracy to further mathematical incompetence in the biological sciences, also known as the Duesberg Connection, is, but we encourage all human mice to be on the lookout.

    PS. Duesberg sucks

  13. Claus Says:

    McK,

    Thank you.

    Thanks to your heroic efforts in the service of truth, there will henceforth be no doubt in the minds of Tony Fauci, John Moore and the rest of the real HIV scientists regarding who the genius was that first conceived of the “TEST MAMA” Experiment.

    Actually, Bialy did have a similar idea once. But it was carried out in the usual amateurish way that made it both expensive and impossible to falsify. Nothing compared to the grandeur of Dr. Noble’s vision:

    In 1976, my daughter Tara, pictured at the bottom of the page linked here, had full-blown AIDS according to the Bangui definition. In 1995, Tara’s mother was tested privately by one of the foremost HIV labs in NY by antibody/antigen, and nucleic acid amplification methods. Unfortunately, she was negative on all tests and so my very first early “insurgent” action was thwarted before it reached stage two of having our children tested (the boys are as physically gifted as Tara — her brother Ezra was also a nationally ranked track star in college, and Ben is a serious, martial arts student), let alone the glorious act three in which we took this show public. But some of the most successful shows have had long, and uninspiring roads to the lights of Broadway, and the expression “an idea whose time has come” is true enough to have withstood the most extreme forms of today’s single, cultural achievement – trivialization.
    Harvey Bialy

    Guernavaca
    10 Sept.2006

    But it is the real genius that sees old problems afresh in the light thrown by new technology. In other words, the real power of “TEST MAMA” lies not in the concept, but in the technological solution Dr. Noble has applied to it. The technology not only means the survey is near zero cost, it also guarantees against all types of fraud and misconduct and thus answers all possible accusations of being unscientific affirmatively in the negative.

    It is in my opinion not unlikely that the Noble vision of cyber science could revolutionize the very way HIV research is being carried out in the developed world. I firmly believe there will be special occasion for Fauci et al to thank Dr. Noble before this is all over – regardless of outcome.
    I know Dr. Bialy, being a fair minded, albeit somewhat matehmatically mediocre scientist, will be among the very first in the line of congratulators.

  14. Claus Says:

    Link to Bilay quote above:

    http://www.reviewingaids.org/
    awiki/index.php/Image:Momispositivetoo.jpg

  15. Chris Noble Says:

    Thrush in babies is common. It is not AIDS.

    According to Bialy’s account his daughter is not HIV+.

    Unlike Bialy I regard the HIV- status of Tara, her mother and her siblings as fortunate. I would not wish HIV infection upon them.

  16. Claus Says:

    Bwana Noble,

    is there no end to your fault pas’es these days/ First lewd references, now it’s First World centrism. Let me educate you in the plight of those less fortunate that we’re trying to save from themselves.

    Bangui definition of Aids:

    Severe Thrush, prolonged fever, any other of a number of symptoms = AIDS no HIV test necessary.

  17. Chris Noble Says:

    is there no end to your fault pas’es these days/ First lewd references, now it’s First World centrism. Let me educate you in the plight of those less fortunate that we’re trying to save from themselves.

    Bangui definition of Aids:

    Severe Thrush, prolonged fever, any other of a number of symptoms = AIDS no HIV test necessary.

    The Bangui definition was specifically formulated for use in situations where HIV testing was not available.

    It has been widely criticised (by the “orthodox”) as being limited in its applicability and HIV testing is recommended. Certainly ARVs are not being provided where HIV testsing is not.

    Even given the non-specifity of the Bangui definition there is no justification for further blurring the definition by including neonatal thrush. Nobody has ever claimed that all cases let alone a majority of neonatal thrush is caused by HIV disease.

    The whole thing is another distraction because Bialy’s daughter was not HIV+. Asking whether she was perinatally infected is therefore a non-question. Why does Bialy bring it up in the first place?

  18. Claus Says:

    Noble Bwana,

    Why does Bialy bring it up? I wouldn’t know, why are you bringing it up? Maybe he wanted to make a point about the racial politics of AIDS – it’s not all maths you know.

    Once you’re finished with your movies, you could try picking up something like Bialy’s book and read for instance that in 1995 a baby born to a white university lecturer and a Nigerian woman who presented with ANY severe infant disease would automatically be reported to the WHO as AIDS, and fast too!

    I believe Michael’s been trying to drive home to you that there’s more to the AIDS phenomenon than Duesberg’s math and googling Bangui. Sometimes it seems we’ve got to allow for the unpleasant possibility that those pub med. stats papers just don’t reflect the reality on the ground. A point well worth remembering before one starts questioning somebody’s personal motives for bringing up stories involving people precious to them.

  19. Chris Noble Says:

    Once you’re finished with your movies, you could try picking up something like Bialy’s book and read for instance that in 1995 a baby born to a white university lecturer and a Nigerian woman who presented with ANY severe infant disease would automatically be reported to the WHO as AIDS, and fast too!

    Bialy may well make this claim in his book but it does not make it true. Can you find any evidence for this claim apart from Bialy’s bold assertion.

    I also find it rather bizarre that Bialy refers to the fact that the mother of his child tested negative for HIV as an unfortunate event.

  20. Claus Says:

    Noble Bwana,

    If all your googling skills have left you of a sudden I’ll be happy to provide you a couple of dozen reports similar to Dr. Bialy’s, as soon as you tell me and everybody else here exactly what the problems are with the Bangui definition, the criticisms directed at it, and not least the limitations to its applicability.

    Your posts above clearly reveal the extent of your familiarity with this issue, so I think if you’d care to provide us and yourself with some more factual context, it would serve everybody better than your usual academic style of immediately calling people liars from behind the safety of your computer screen, even when you’ve just been shown to not know what the hell you’re talking about.

  21. john-2 Says:

    I am not at all a nice person, even less so than john(1) might seem to be, and McK I asssure you we are not one in the cyber-same. And so I mince no words.

    There would appear to exist a class of actual morons who seem to think the Brown/Bialy initiative has a damn thing to do with deciding the natural route of transmission of HIV, or anything else “scientific” despite having presumably read the not overly long, nor complciated text at least once.

    This is ALL about falsifying one of the KEY FEAR FACTORS that AIDS, Inc and its associated church have used to KILL people. It is oh so simple:: THREE, 3-generation (or even 2 generation), ordinary and normally healthy Americans could be multiplexed through the media easily, and the towers that invented the phantom killer virus would actually shake. This is a nothing number to ask for.

    If I were in Fauci’s Guicci’s, which thank God I am not, my socks would be getting a little damp and I would worry about removing my loafers at the Japanese restaurant.

  22. john-2 Says:

    Calling Dr. Christopher Noble.

    Hey know-it-all, full of himself for no earthly reason assistant stats prof from somewhere in the middle of nowhere Australia near where the Murchison meteorite landed. (You should be even a fraction as famous, which is your hope and clearly only reason for broadcasting your twaddle for TEN YEARS (I am informed) on the net.)

    Shame on you who cannot publish a single peer reviewed paper in statistical analysis.

    Have you nothing to write Plummet? Have you nothing to say to Claus?

    Have you ever been to Africa?

    Do you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about ever?

    Why are you so concerned about the adult film industry and its AIDS problem? Is it perhaps because you fear the industry will be forced to adopt condoms and make your morning, noon and night delights less delightful?

  23. Undergrad(XX/XY) Says:

    Dr. Noble,

    You wrote yesterday (for the second time too):

    I also find it rather bizarre that Bialy refers to the fact that the mother of his child tested negative for HIV as an unfortunate event.

    Boy am I glad YOU are not my professor of statistics biology or ANYTHING. I may not be the sharpest tack on my block but even I can understand this:

    Unfortunately, she was negative on all tests and so my very first early “insurgent” action was thwarted before it reached stage two of having our children tested (the boys are as physically gifted as Tara — her brother Ezra was also a nationally ranked track star in college, and Ben is a serious, martial arts student), let alone the glorious act three in which we took this show public.”

    At least my biology prof in Idaho (never mind where)has a secret internet site to crib from and Dr. Knobless turned me on to those wonderful prion things that got a Nobel Prize (any relation?). But you….sheeesh. No wonder you in Australian.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 147 access attempts in the last 7 days.