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.

Shoveling the stable (Frog 6)

We return to the task of cleaning out the Augean stable of the Smith-Novella PLoS paper

There may be no end to its flaws, but we refuse to be defeated by sheer quantity

A service to newcomers, though tedious to the knowledgeable

herculescercopes.jpgRefreshed by our close contact with power, influence and celebrity, we return briefly to swatting two minor HIV apologists for their complacent insistence against all the evidence of the literature of the field that HIV causes AIDS.

Examining the real deniers of HIV/AIDS again

The notion has been endlessly eviscerated as logically and scientifically untenable for two decades, but Smith and Novella, being apparently somewhat illiterate in the science of the matter, still seem to view it as inviolable gospel, to be defended by faith bordering on religious zeal.

They deny paradoxical impossibilities that even laymen can see immediately are flaws as big as the Grand Canyon, and can only occasionally answer the challenges of the critics by reversing their arguments, as if they had none of their own, recalling the famous remark of Mathilde Krim of AMFAR to this author, referring to Peter Duesberg, the chief critic and tormentor of the HIV faithful and their exploiters: “Well, we can’t prove that HIV causes AIDS, but Peter can’t prove it doesn’t!”

So, we now embark dutifully on what we hope will be the final laborious half hour of the grand dissection of the PLoS Frog HIV Denial in the Internet Era, by the highly presentable and conventionally minded Tara C. Smith, University of Iowa epidemiologist and Aetiology blogger at SEED, and the modestly establishment and handsome Steven P. Novella of Yale. We believe it is important as a public service to continue, lest this misleading essay enter the uncritical bloodstream of the US media without any antidote.

A Herculean shoveling task

Here are the remaining errors in reason and understanding of good science which are paraded for the indignation of critics in this now notorious specimen of paradigm presumption, that is, the phenomenon of imagining that a working scientific assumption employed by most scientists in a field is by definition necessarily correct and accurate:

Reflex scorn of alternative medicine

Distrusting mainstream medical practitioners, many HIV deniers turn to “alternative” medicine in search of treatment. One such practitioner, Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati, suggests that “toxins” and drug use, rather than HIV, cause AIDS [18]. Dr Al-Bayati personally profits from his HIV denialism: for $100 per hour, Al-Bayati will consult “on health issues related to AIDS, adverse reactions to vaccines and medications, exposure to chemicals in the home, environment or workplace” (http://www.toxi-health.com/). Similarly, German vitamin supplier and HIV denier Matthias Rath not only pushed his vitamins as a treatment for AIDS [19], but his spokesman refused to be interviewed by Nature Medicine about the case because he claimed the journal is “funded to the hilt with drug money” [20].

Nowhere do these babes in the scientific woods show their political naivete more glaringly than in these comments, where they presume that alternative medicine is automatically quackery. Clearly they have no inkling (or at least for the purposes of their polemic prefer not to acknowledge) that standard medicine protects its territory as fiercely as a hungry mongrel defends a juicy bone, and heavy sanctions are rapidly visited upon practitioners for the smallest deviations, quite quickly extending to loss of license to practice.

al_bayati.jpgBut as history often has shown those who pursue alternatives to standard care may be honest pioneers trying to improve treatment. Certainly in the case of HIV/AIDS, there is every reason after a close reading of the peer-reviewed literature to suppose that men such as Al-Bayati are on the right track, and may be saving health and lives. To assume otherwise is to assume that the paradigm is correct without review or independent assessment of the mainstream studies carried out in the field to date, and the time for that is long past. In fact, for anyone who troubles to read that literature, there is no excuse for it at all, since year after year mainstream studies explode the basic assumptions of HIV/AIDS from the notion that HIV kills T cells to the idea that viral load correlates with immune dysfunction.

Meanwhile, Al-Bayati’s $100 fee is hardly outrageous exploitation of quackery in an era where most Manhattan lawyers won’t even speak to you for less than $300 upfront, and certainly not for a man with extensive qualifications in toxicology, including a Ph.D from the University of California at Davis in comparative pathology and who is a dual board certified toxicologist with two decades of professional experience.

The benefits of fitting in with the paradigm are not an influence on opinion

Deniers argue that because scientists receive grant money, fame, and prestige as a result of their research, it is in their best interest to maintain the status quo [15]. This type of thinking is convenient for deniers as it allows them to choose which authorities to believe and which ones to dismiss as part of a grand conspiracy. In addition to being selective, their logic is also internally inconsistent. For example, they dismiss studies that support the HIV hypothesis as being biased by “drug money,” while they accept uncritically the testimony of HIV deniers who have a heavy financial stake in their alternative treatment modalities.

Apparently in the minds of our two tyros Al-Bayati charging a modest $100 an hour for his heavily researched expertise weighs as heavy in the balance as the billions being spent on research, drugs and infrastructure by the paradigm army and its supportive governments and corporations. To argue that millions in grant money, fame and prestige don’t oil a paradigm is silly enough, but to equate generous drug company funding for HIV=AIDS activists and their organizations with the money raised by the vitamin advocates and alternative medicine practitioners who fight the paradigm is deluded. The fantasy that HIV dissenters are in business to make money off their books is also absurd, though not specifically mentioned here. Sales are typically in the hundreds or low thousands.

Critics’ case is distorted, or completely misstated

Portraying Science as Faith and Consensus as Dogma

Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma [21]. As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore’s book [10] remarked,
“There is classical science, the way it’s supposed to work, and then there’s religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”

On the contrary, the objections of critics to HIV/AIDS have been peer reviewed at the highest level and they have exposed the mainstream premise that HIV=AIDS as not meeting rigorous scientific standards, but rather, as based on faith and uncritical acceptance. To say otherwise is a complete falsehood, unworthy of publication by the Public Library of Science. The initial very thorough review and rejection of the paradigm in 1986 and 1987 in elite journals stands without rebuttal after twenty years, and mainstream studies in the literature since have continually confounded the initially absurd claim with their results.

What these defenders of the faith are referring to is that debate has been successfully banned from nearly all scientific journals and other media except for the Web. Having used hostile politics to shut out debate, or even mention of the objections of critics, from scientific journals, the New York Times and most other media, the paradigm defenders have successfully moved all complaints to the Web where they can ignore them more readily, or think they can.

We wonder how long that will be true. In fact, the Web now publishes much journalism and other writing which can be relied on by readers as credible, sometime more credible than newspapers and television coverage, since it may draw on more sources among its many readers and is more subject to their immediate correction, and can have much wider readership than many books. We like to think that this blog is one example of more informed and reliable information on HIV/AIDS and its validity than mainstream media and even scientific journals, where the paradigm is an unquestioned assumption of virtually all HIV/AIDS research and discussion.

But the disparagement of criticism as ‘unscientific’ is anyway a red herring – current dissent is based on the best scientific standards, and on reading the mainstream peer-reviewed literature, and using it to expose the contradictions of the claim that HIV causes AIDS, or anything else, and the lack of credibility of the claim that the drugs are aimed at the right target and have a beneficial effect.

Naturally, with so much science of record contradicting the paradigm, and the paradigm so blatantly and unreasonably opposed to scientific and common sense, the dissenters certainly must point to the religious impulse as the only thing that can account for so many loyalists such as Tara clinging to a scientifically unjustified and dangerous belief. The faith of the experts can likewise only be accounted for in this way, as long as the motivation of self-interest is ruled out by the presumably impeccable character of the leaders of the field.

Thoughtless exaggeration of critics’ views

Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion [22]. Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief. They argue that when mainstream scientists speak out against the scientific “orthodoxy,” they are persecuted and dismissed. For example, HIV deniers make much of the demise of Peter Duesberg’s career, claiming that when he began speaking out against HIV as the cause of AIDS, he was “ignored and discredited” because of his dissidence [23]. South African President Mbeki went even further, stating: “In an earlier period in human history, these [dissidents] would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake!” [1].

In fact, this description by HIV “deniers” of the way things have gone is perfectly accurate. Duesberg two decades ago was a golden boy of science, a National Academy member whose NIH grants were never turned down; in fact they culminated in a $350,000 grant to do whatever research he liked. But he has never been able to get one dollar OK’d by his colleagues since his stand against their newly lucrative HIV∫AIDS paradigm in 1987, even when his grant application was strongly supported by the ex-editor of Science.

Even though he was invited to the NIH recently to give a lecture on his productive new ideas on the development of cancer, he is still unable to find support from his peers for any grant proposal, after having about twenty refused – a striking contrast with his previous record of having every single grant he ever applied for from the NIH passed with flying colors.

Shame on you, authors

These babes-in-the-scientific-woods make fools of themselves with this paragraph, especially. More than that, it is morally revolting to misinterpret what stands as a shame of science, the lethal financial punishment of a scientist of integrity for standing by his judgment and his publications despite being turned into a pariah for it.

The invidious confusion of elite, peer-reviewed dissent with crackpot notions such as creationism

HIV deniers accuse scientists of quashing dissent regarding the cause of AIDS, and not allowing so-called “alternative” theories to be heard. However, this claim could be applied to any well-established scientific theory that is being challenged by politically motivated pseudoscientific notions—for example, creationist challenges to evolution. Further, as HIV denial can plausibly reduce compliance with safe sex practices and anti-HIV drugs, potentially costing lives, this motivates the scientific and health care communities to exclude HIV denial from any public forum. (As one editorial has bluntly phrased it, HIV denial is “deadly quackery”) [24]. Because HIV denial is not scientifically legitimate, such exclusion is justified, but it further fuels the deniers’ claims of oppression.

This is a perfect voicing of the blatantly unscientific attitudes of these paradigm defenders, who, rather than confidently expose the supposed flaws in HIV criticism, would rather censor the objections with prejudicial politics, and vociferously claim that the doubts are dangerous to efforts to combat HIV, when that is precisely the premise that is being doubted – that is, whether HIV is the right target for dangerous anti-HIV drugs.

Repeating doubter’s claims as if they were a priori baseless

Expert Opinion and the Promise of Forthcoming Scientific Acceptance

Although the HIV deniers condemn scientific authority and consensus, they have nevertheless worked to assemble their own lists of scientists and other professionals who support their ideas. As a result, the deniers claim that they are just on the cusp of broader acceptance in the scientific community and that they remain an underdog due to the “established orthodoxy” represented by scientists who believe that HIV causes AIDS.

In an effort to support its claim that an increasing number of scientists do not believe that HIV causes AIDS, Reappraising AIDS has published a list of signatories agreeing to the following statement:

“It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group [of] diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken” [25].

The HIV critics do not condemn scientific authority and consensus per se, but only when it blatantly flouts the findings of the peer-reviewed scientific literature of the field, produced by the very same authority.

The line of defense that takes comfort in the idea that the generals of HIV/AIDS are the ones who can rattle their medals and issue science by edict because they are at the top of their profession, and their critics are a motley crew of outsiders, runs up against the simple fact that review and rejection was initiated by the top man in the field.

Peter Duesberg is a scientist whom even his opponents have to recognize has a track record that well outclasses Robert Gallo, Anthony Fauci and John P. Moore rolled into one, both in theoretically informed science experiments and in debate. Moreover, given the extraordinary institutionalized pressure against the free debate of his case against HIV∫AIDS, it is actually very significant that several thousand professionals have taken a position in public that supports the demand for proper independent review.

Independent review is blocked, but not impossible: who can sort this out?

These signatories do not, however, suggest who the “suitable independent” group should be, since, presumably, many scientists have already been “indoctrinated” into believing that HIV causes AIDS. (Indeed, many of the signatories to this statement lack any qualifications in virology, epidemiology, or even basic biology.) They also ignore thousands of epidemiological studies that have already been published in the scientific literature. And the signatories fail to provide a convincing case that there is widespread acceptance in the scientific community for their marginal position.

Probably all thinking people in science recognize that something has to be done about the peer review system, and the solution has to be some kind of more independent review.

The problem is difficult, but as science feeds on more and more money with ever increasing public and private investment, it may be the only way to stop takeovers by paradigm mafia in fields which are not well understood by outsiders, as has happened in this case. Here the leaders of a field ignore the fact that tens of thousands of papers are written on assumptions which are disproved by those studies that (inadvertently) test them. So successful has been the takeover that the rest of the scientific community never hear a proper account of the problems, so assume all is well, and that any critics they meet are kooks.

We need a Congressional investigation of HIV/AIDS

Presumably the only solution in the realm of independent review will have to be a Congressional committee staff investigation and public hearing, which this blog advocates as the only means to force full public scrutiny and debate of this vexed issue, although we recognize that unless a powerful and influential political leader takes action to promote this solution, it will continue to be prevented by Anthony Fauci, the director of NIAID, his staff and the leading scientists who defend the paradigm from such outside scrutiny.

The presumption that many papers written on an assumption prove that assumption

Nevertheless, Farber wrote in a 1992 article that “more and more scientists are beginning to question the hypothesis that HIV single-handedly creates the chaos in the immune system that leads to AIDS” [26]. Similarly, a March 2006 article appearing on the AIDS denial Web site “New AIDS Review” claims that, in reference to the theory that HIV causes AIDS: “…the fabric of this theoretical mantle is threadbare to the point of disintegration” [27]. Mainstream scientists, of course, do not believe in the imminent demise of the HIV theory; instead they continue to produce novel research on preventing and treating HIV and publish thousands of papers every year on the topic.

Whether the challenge to the orthodoxy spreads or is beaten back depends on science and media politics, where the smaller community is unlikely to win soon against a very successful and well financed, virtually universal belief, supported by a wide range of emotions and moral attitudes in its followers, and which employs a goon squad led by Gallo, Moore and Fauci to inquisition heretics ruthlessly.

While we are delighted to be quoted accurately by these under researched authors, we should point out that what we “deny” is that their heroes of HIV∫AIDS are being honest or intelligent in interpreting their own data, which is to say, we promote good science against those who deny it, for what reason only they know (but see list of human frailties in the heading above this blog).

It is the mainstream scientific literature which shows that there is no good reason to believe that HIV causes immune dysfunction, and more than forty strong reasons to believe it doesn’t, and that the drugs are misdirected and only cause damage to patients, conclusions that have stood for 22 years without rebuttal and are annually confirmed by more mainstream studies.

Forty reasons why HIV is a crock

augeanstableshercuules.jpegWhat are these reasons? Being short of time, like our readers, we can only quote from The Scorn of Heretics, our expanded review talk on AIDS skepticism to the conference on Democracy and Science in Naples in 2001, wherein we listed the basic inconsistencies inherent in the paradigm which prevent credibility on any other basis than blind faith, which is appropriate to a religion but not to a science.

Here is the relevant section, if you wish to check it.

The litmus of common sense

“The most significant signal to outsiders is the endless list of challenges to
common sense inherent in the seventeen year old hypothesis.

As Duesberg has pointed out again and again, to believe in AIDS, we have to believe in the following:

An infectious viral disease where the virus’s rate of infection (1 in 500 sexual contacts) is outdone by the rate of human impregnation (1 in 10); a cell killing retrovirus, when otherwise retroviruses never kill cells; indeed, a virus provided to labs in immortal cultures of the same T cells it is said to kill off; a fatal virus that cannot easily be found in most patients, even dying ones, only antibodies to it; a disease where patients merely with antibodies can nevertheless die of the disease; a disease whose nature varies from place to place, being almost exclusively a homosexual and drug user ailment in North America and Europe, but heterosexual elsewhere; a disease that correlates with drug use in North America and Europe, yet is said to alleviated or prevented by a bowl full of other damaging and lethal drugs, never proved to be directly helpful, and causing the death of at least half the AIDS patients who die; a disease whose mechanism, including an up-to-twenty-year delay in onset, is as yet quite unexplained; a cell killing disease that also causes cell multiplying cancer, with no trace of the virus in the cancer; and a disease said to be a killer epidemic in Haiti and South Africa, with no significant change in overall mortality, and long endemic in sub-Saharan Africa, where a population explosion has nonetheless added 250 million people in two decades.

Let’s pause for a breath before we complete the list, for that’s hardly all.

We also have to believe in

An epidemic mapped in Africa by the World Health Organization almost entirely without the benefit of AIDS tests, which themselves are problematic; a viral epidemic uniquely without initial exponential growth or bell-shaped rise and fall; a viral epidemic which has not found immunity anywhere; a killer disease where no doctor, nurse or researcher working with it has caught the disease; a disease with risk group, lifestyle, and malnutrition specific symptoms; a disease whose every symptom is shared with other diseases–in fact, a disease which would in every case be counted as those other diseases except for the supposed presence of antibodies to the “virus that causes AIDS”; a viral epidemic without a sign of a promising vaccine despite the best funded army of researchers in history; a viral disease which quickly achieves the antibodies of vaccination of its own accord; and a virus transmitted 25-50% through birth which has produced no epidemic among children.

That list is long enough, I think you will agree, that a New Yorker such as myself might be forgiven for saying “If you can believe all that, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.”

Duesberg asserts and shows that all these paradoxes are resolved if we simply accept that AIDS is a drug phenomenon, or elsewhere a picture artificially created by gathering other diseases under the AIDS umbrella, where any occurrence of disease is relabeled AIDS if HIV antibodies are reckoned to be present. I know of no good reason to disbelieve him. One good reason to believe him is that there is no AIDS disease among HIV positive patients who abstain from recreational and medicating drugs.”

Every single one of those absurdities remains unexplained, unjustified and as unreasonable as ever, in 2007, with many of them confirmed and underlined by recent studies, especially ones that show that drugs are lethal, however relieved and delighted the recipients may feel when they are first granted their supposed blessings, including a psychological or a placebo effect of unusual intensity, no doubt, given the fear and panic engendered in the ignorant by “positive HIV tests”.

Only two arguments now in favor of HIV in AIDS

Meanwhile the only two arguments now adduced on the side of faith in HIV as the cause of AIDS in the public mind are these, and both are invalid:

1) That “correlation proves causation” in this case, HIV=AIDS, which for some reason is said to be the one exception to the rule that correlation never does prove causation, though it may suggest it, and anyway, the correlation between HIV and AIDS is the forced outcome of the definition of AIDS as any one of more than thirty symptoms occurring in the presence of HIV. The same symptom occurring in the absence of a positive HIV test is another illness entirely.

2) “But the drugs work, don’t they?”, the Jim Watson-Bill Clinton endorsed validation which is now contradicted by several recent studies, even if it made any theoretical sense at all, which it doesn’t. Half the current AIDS deaths in the US are due to liver and kidney failure, which is a drug symptom not on the list of AIDS problems.

Pace Gallo with his totally unconvincing HTLV-1 causing leukemia, it remains only too clear that retroviruses by nature do not cause any human illness.

Exhaustion sets in

At this point, we have to leave the rest of the shoveling out of the Smith-Novella paper till later, having once again exhausted the potential interest of any newcomer to this debate, which is the only purpose of rebutting its claims blow by blow in this arduous manner.

We hope that more knowledgeable readers will forgive us, since the real problem is that rebutting nonsense takes twice as long as writing it, the great advantage of those who defend a paradigm, Alas for truth in science.

But we refuse to be defeated.

159 Responses to “Shoveling the stable (Frog 6)”

  1. Rezaf Says:

    Hey, it seems that I made Adele agree with me that HIV only rises from the afterlife after the immune system is weakened by other unrelated factors. Am I exposing their own disbelief in the theory they love and adore? Or are their exposing themselves? I’d like to think so….

    MEC pointed that one out, too.

    ——————————————————————————————————

    Right actually varicella is a herpes, but why’s it so important if it’s a RNA or DNA virus? HIV, herpes they’re all kind of parasites, they all hide out in the body try to get to new hosts. They evade immune system. Immune system declines*, they go crazy. HIV herpes what ever. (Adele)

    Three BIG KISSES to Adele X-X-X.

    She has just agreed wih Rezaf that HIV logically must be an opportunistic infection. No need for the metaphysical concept of lentiviruses

    Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | November 30, 2007 3:49 PM

    ——————————————————————————————————

    * She still doesn’t answer what else causes the immune collapse so HIV can rise and cause THE immune collapse. But if the immune system has already collapsed, the reactivated HIV has nothing to cause collapse(?).

  2. Rezaf Says:

    Now that I think of it, the (failing) mechanism of HIV infection could be explained to anyone by making this: What is the point of taking on an army if one can’t kill soldiers faster than the enemy can train and equip them? That’s why God gave humanity the stealth bombers, so we can destroy the training camps ammo/fuel depots and cut the enemy off from their precious supplies. Once those are destroyed, the enemy army cannot train and equip soldier faster than one can kill them.
    That is the one thing that the HIV=AIDS advocates insist. HIV mainly targets T cells. But they never mention if the production and training facilities (bone marrow/thymus) are also destroyed. They may even report that same destruction, but is it present in immune deficient people that never took ARVs?
    In bone marrow transplants, to annihilate the immune system before the transplant, the defective bone marrow is destroyed with chemotherapy or radiation.
    This is one among other points.

  3. Douglas Says:

    TS,

    I took a second look at your blog today and I am left with only a sigh. You have completely capitulated to the “Reformers” who call us “denialist”.

    I warned you that it wasn’t healthy to spend so much time in their den, that you would track back the sh*t to NAR.

    Our adversaries are probably celebrating now at their victory which you in effect gave them. They don’t understand satire, if that is what it was. It certainly could be nothing but depressing for the dissidents. And you nailed it.

    I do not really see anything so different lately in this horrible deception. We have to just keep on swinging. We have the truth on our side, a major advantage. All they have is a charade. I thought that headline last week in London Daily Mail was a major break-through. Most people I talk with seem to understand that something is terribly wrong and do not accept the BS coming from the medical establishment. How can they? It is perfectly stupid to believe it. This is why I was happy today with the completion of my story, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” and was able to post it in opposition to the AIDS lie. Maybe I’m just too myopic about it, but I felt that is was a good antidote for what the establishment has dished out.

    I take heart when I see Hilary being trashed by her peers in her unconvincing fight against the poison of corporate fascism and Kucinich making all the right calls. Even Edwards and Richardson were looking good today.

    I’m sure with a little more time, we will win. The main thing is to end AIDS and end the wars. If Bush is not stopped, AIDS is a moot point.

    Sorry to be the one to criticize you, I’m not anywhere near your literary equal. I respect your wit and cunning, your tenacity, and especially your good disposition. I do hope you count me, a friend.

    All the best,

    Douglas

    Please see my story “The Emperor’s New Clothes” Retold. Simply click on my name at the top and make a book mark on

    http://forum1.aimoo.com/rethinkers_worldwide_forum

    (Please copy and paste in URL if necessary.) This is my newly reopened forum. Your visits and posts are welcome.

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    Aetiology apologists haven’t given up yet. But they provide innumerable opportunities to emphasize the basic flaw in HIV=AIDS, which is that, as Duesberg has never tired of pointing out, HIV is a pussy chased up a tree by the immune system and doesn’t have a chance to cause any trouble until the antibody army is decimated by some other attack.

    The body vaccinates itself. Period.
    ————————————————————————————————–

    It is not right for you to intoduce the word “lie” anywhere near Dr Karpas. This is not the kind of civility and manners we are used to at the top of the HIV club, especially in Cambridge.

    Are you still prolonging this stupid charade. Nobody is accusing Karpas of being a liar. I am saying that you are either deliberately misinterpretting Karpa’s paper or you are so completely incapable opf understanding it that you do not realise you are misinterpretting it.

    Do not try to enlist Karpas as a Denialist. You know that he does not support your claims. No amount of obfuscation will change this.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 1, 2007 10:01 PM

    So, if these are the studies to which Truthseeker (sic) is referring to, he must either (1) be lying or (2) have no scientific understanding of these papers.

    Posted by: franklin | December 1, 2007 2:11 PM

    So what happened to our deal, franklin, that if you were wrong, you would offer a handsome apology to me, and vice versa?

    You were shown exactly what I claimed was asserted by Abraham Karpas in the paper under discussion.

    Instead of apologizing like a man, you simply show you are suffering from the Moore-Noble syndrome, which results in an effusion of insults instead of the gentlemanly concession which is normal between respectable members of the civil community.

    This is disappointing. In fact, it is very disappointing. There is in fact very little which will excuse it. Does your mother know?

    On the other hand, I suppose you like Noble cannot afford to be detected in such a fatuous error, one that indicates you never read the paper we were talking about.

    Then you have the effrontery to try and weasel out of your fix by quoting from other papers that back up precisely what we said.

    HIV+ people are healthy for years, until SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS OTHER THAN A MIRACULOUS RESURGENCE OF HIV, according to all reports, studies, and discussion except that which goes on in your brain, the one with the monkey sitting on top of it and pulling your hair out when it isn’t clapping its paws over your eyes whenever enlightenment is offered by your betters.

    John Moore is proud of you and grateful, I am sure. After all, he has received our heartiest congratulations over at http://www.Science Guardian.com today for fooling the entire world with his absurd meme. You and other foolish people who seem unable to understand plain English are a pillar of his accomplishment, so you are to be congratulated too.

    However, since your nature and upbringing precludes you from offering the handsome apology due to all here for your error, we will restrain ourselves from giving you the acknowledgement you deserve until you rise to the occasion, and behave properly.

    Otherwise we shall tell your mother, if we ever meet her.

    Meanwhile your privileges are revoked and we will not be able to respond to your need for enlightenment on the science of HIV?AIDS until you snap to, shape up, and get rid of the monkey on the top of your skull.

    Sorry, but some standards have to be maintained here in honor of the blog owner, the delectable Tara, who for some reason has removed her lovely photo from the blog.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 1, 2007 10:19 PM

    Do not try to enlist Karpas as a Denialist. You know that he does not support your claims. No amount of obfuscation will change this.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 1, 2007 10:01 PM

    So you still argue with Karpas himself, or cannot bear to read what he writes?

    Chris, there is a monkey sitting on top of your head, the spit image of the monkey sitting on top of franklin’s nut.

    Can you explain? It seems to prevent you from understanding any point that undermines the HIV meme.

    Your demonstration that you, supposedly a reasoning being with some training in science, or at least computers, cannot see what Karpas is saying, and only accuse others of misinterpretation when it is brought to your attention, leaves us with one sad conclusion only: you identify with the HIV meme.

    You and the monkey are brothers, it seems. No wonder it likes sitting on your head.

    Unfortunately, we agree with Karpas, a good enough scientist to know when there is a flaw to be explained away in the HIV meme, instead of thinking it has none.

    Sorry you are not a good enough scientist, or even logician, to deal with the point he tries to explain away, or even see it.

    However, please curb your tendency to burst out in insults to our intelligence when you are exposing yourself in this manner.

    Take a tip from Karpas and cover up. It is rather embarrassing to see a grown man naked of all camouflage in mixed company, and stand revealed to all the world as incapable of understanding what is going on in a paper under discussion, even when it is quoted to him.

    Perhaps you could go over the posts and the paper speaking the words out loud one by one and using your finger to keep your place?

    This is what we do, and we find it helps a lot, especially if we keep a dictionary handy for all the long words.

    Try it, Chris, you might yet catch up with the rest of the world in understanding that HIV=AIDS needs to be explained if people with HIV do not fall ill unless some other attack on their immune system takes place.

    You weren’t aware that this is the fundamental difficulty?

    Karpas does, and that is why he speculates in his paper.

    But you can’t see that, right?

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 1, 2007 10:41 PM

    Truthseeker (sic):

    So what happened to our deal, franklin, that if you were wrong, you would offer a handsome apology to me, and vice versa?

    You were shown exactly what I claimed was asserted by Abraham Karpas in the paper under discussion.

    I missed that. Exactly what did you claim was asserted by Abraham Karpas in the paper under discussion?

    Posted by: franklin | December 1, 2007 10:46 PM

    Truthseeker (sic),

    My understanding is that you asserted the following:

    PCR cannot distinguish between live and dead virus. H E L L O…? PCR cannot distinguish between live and dead virus. All that latent virus in the serum is dead. The viral load is thus meaningless as any indication whatsoever in asymptomatic patients of any threat to their welfare.

    Robert Houston suggested that you based this assertion on the following quote:

    Studies from the USA of long-term survivors have also found high levels of neutralising antibodies (Cao et al., 1995; Pantaleo et al., 1995). Although PCR assays for the presence of HIV-1 RNA in the plasma revealed significant levels of RNA in some individuals, the biological assay for viral infectivity failed to reveal the presence of infectious virus, suggesting that the HIV-1 in the bloodstream had been inactivated by the neutralising antibodies. In addition, this indicates that PCR does not distinguish between infectious (live) and neutralised (killed) virus.

    As I already pointed out, for you to extrapolate from these statements about long-term non-progressors to all asymptomatic patients can only be explained by (1) you telling a blatant lie, (2) your inability to understand the essay, or (3) both.

    Posted by: franklin | December 1, 2007 10:59 PM

    Franklin,

    I’m intrigued once more. Are you saying that in some HIV+ persons, notably LTNPs, viral load testing is admittedly meaningless, whereas in others it is a correct measure of infectious virus and predictor of progression to AIDS and death? I’ll be darned if they didn’t forget to mention that on the kit inserts I’ve seen.

    So if the person has not yet progressed to AIDS or death, and since the viral load – CD4 decline correlation is not ermm… nearly as reliable as we would all like it to be, how can you tell in each case if the viral load is meaningful? – and how meaningful it is exactly?

    Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | December 1, 2007 11:22 PM

    So you still argue with Karpas himself, or cannot bear to read what he writes?

    This silly game only demonstrates your dishoensty. Karpas does not say that the human immune system defeats HIV. HIV continues to replicate after the initial acute infection. After a period of time HIV causes CD4+ cell depletion, immune suppression, and AIDS.

    There is nothing in Karpas’ writings that suggests otherwise. If you really think that Karpas believes that HIV is defeated then please write to him and ask him this question. Until then stop putting words into his mouth.

    I suspect that you know very well that you are wrong and that you are just afraid to admit it.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 2, 2007 12:12 AM

    As I already pointed out, for you to extrapolate from these statements about long-term non-progressors to all asymptomatic patients can only be explained by (1) you telling a blatant lie, (2) your inability to understand the essay, or (3) both.

    Posted by: franklin | December 1, 2007 10:59 PM

    Franklin, I am not your mother, fortunately, so I have no personal stake in your ineffectual disrespect. Not that I wouldn’t applaud if she spanked your tiny botty for your behavior, and that of the monkey jumping on your scalp.

    The point which you miss, just as you miss the scientific point we are discussing, is that people who accuse others of “lying” when they make counter assertions in a scientific discussion suggest that they occupy a lower plane.

    It makes you seem unsuitable to partner in any friendly intellectual effort to work things out, for the following reasons:

    a) It suggests you don’t really aim at working things out

    b) It suggests you have no sensitivity to language.

    c) It suggests – in fact pretty much proves – that you learned your science at an inferior college, if any college at all. Was it a correspondence course?

    All this makes one realize that probably nothing can be accomplished, however hard one tries.

    But this is not the fundamental reason why one gives up. It is simply that “lying” is a stupid accusation which doesn’t make any sense.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 2, 2007 1:08 AM

    It is simply that “lying” is a stupid accusation which doesn’t make any sense.

    While you continue to claim against all evidence that Karpas states that HIV is defeated there is no other way to explain your behaviour.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 2, 2007 1:38 AM

    This silly game only demonstrates your dishonesty. Karpas does not say that the human immune system defeats HIV. HIV continues to replicate after the initial acute infection. After a period of time HIV causes CD4+ cell depletion, immune suppression, and AIDS.

    Well, Chris, it seems that you share with franklin not only a pet monkey but also your self-condemning habit of charging dishonesty in a context in which it makes no sense whatsoever.

    Thank you for repeating the HIV meme once again as some kind of incantation, which you seem to find a pacifier, but there is nothing in your attempt to evade the meaning of the simple words that Karpas writes.

    You have exposed yourself Chris in your usual attempt to claim that others have misinterpreted whatever you think contradicts the meme.

    When will you wake up, throw off the monkey and understand that everything contradicts the meme? – except the evasive claims of those who cling to the paradigm as if it was their lifeboat.

    Which it is. There ain’t nothing else for them to cling to, since AIDS decline has zip to do with retroviruses of any kind as a cause, as the literature constantly confirms.

    HIV just a harmless passenger, dummy. Wake up and smell the coffee. Muttering mantra won’t change anything. The party line that antibodies don’t neutralise is bunk. Fauci agrees – read his textbook chapter in Fundamental Immunology edited by Willam Paul.

    Stop supporting dangerous and useless drugs which you would refuse yourself.

    That’s known as hypocrisy.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 2, 2007 1:58 AM

    “There ain’t nothing else for them to cling to, since AIDS decline has zip to do with retroviruses of any kind as a cause, as the literature constantly confirms.”

    What literature are you reading?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17494085&ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

    Care to tell me how this show HIV is a passenger virus?

    Posted by: Jim | December 2, 2007 2:04 AM

    It is simply that “lying” is a stupid accusation which doesn’t make any sense.

    While you continue to claim against all evidence that Karpas states that HIV is defeated there is no other way to explain your behaviour.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 2, 2007 1:38 AM

    “Defeated” “kept at bay” “vanquished” “kicked its little ass” you choose.

    It doesn’t make a comeback of its own accord with a healthy system.

    Antibodies neutralize.

    Drugs damage uselessly.

    Drugs kill.

    You wouldn’t take them.

    Hypocrite.

    By the way, Fauci says HIV makes T cells proliferate.

    Stick that in your monkey and smack it.

    Low enough style for you, Chris.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 2, 2007 2:13 AM

    Stick that in your monkey and smack it.

    I spent yesterday with a three-year-old. His use of the rhetorical “Nyaaaahh” surpassed yours, but only marginally.

    No matter how much you spin Karpas’ review it does not mean what you claim it means. HIV is not defeated. It is not conquered. It is not vanquished. It continues to replicate. It is not latent. It is a chronic infection.

    Fauci agrees – read his textbook chapter in Fundamental Immunology edited by Willam Paul.

    He does not. You are simply incapable of understanding the text.

    I have read the chapter and it most definitely does not support your bizarre interpretations. It describes several of the mechanisms by which HIV can cause immune suppression.

    etc. (Fauci quotes)….
    Truthseeker (sic),

    You continue to defend your claim that Karpas’s paper can be accurately described as:

    the paper of Abraham Karpas of Cambridge agreeing that ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it…”

    However, in his paper, Karpas flatly states that HIV infection leads to disease progression and death in nearly every infected person.

    A scientific discussion does not require politeness, but it does require honesty.

    There is no scientific discussion taking place between us, because you continue to misrepresent Karpas’s paper–even though anyone can obtain the paper and see for himself that your characterization in no way reflects Karpas’ views on the lethality of HIV infection.

    Your continued misrepresentation of Karpas prevents you from engaging in any meaningful intellectual discussion, scientific or otherwise.

    Your need to misrepresent the views of other people in an attempt to support your own flawed positions only serves to emphasize the irony of your Blog Handle.

    Posted by: franklin | December 2, 2007 3:23 AM
    ….

    Truthtwister,

    You might consider that some people consider lying to be rude. Whether its lying about the paper directly or whether its lying about having read and understood the paper.

    Beyond that, it is also considered rude, by many, to put your lies in the mouth of the author of the paper. That you are doing this is clear to anyone who has bothered to read your needlessly verbose comments.

    “90%…deadly…10 years” Who is stupid enough to consider a virus that ends the lives of 90% of those infected within 10 years defeated?

    You’re worse than the tobacco company execs Truthtwister. You are the Public Relations Officer for death. And you are a fool if you believe anyone should take you seriously.

    Posted by: Roy Hinkley | December 2, 2007 9:41 AM

    No matter how much you spin Karpas’ review it does not mean what you claim it means. HIV is not defeated. It is not conquered. It is not vanquished. It continues to replicate. It is not latent. It is a chronic infection.

    ” Fauci agrees – read his textbook chapter in Fundamental Immunology edited by Willam Paul.”

    He does not. You are simply incapable of understanding the text.
    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 2, 2007 3:02 AM

    Chris, there is no point in continuing to trade counter assertions, which is your only style of argument. Let the intelligent reader decide what is going on, on and between the lines, even if it is too subtle for you to appreciate. The text is there for all to see.

    It is disappointing however to try and meet you on your own three year old level and find that you disown it, Isn’t that what you enjoy? If not, why do you do it?

    Surely there is only one reason why those who are challenged reply with noxious crudities. Their intellectual position is too weak.

    Your continued misrepresentation of Karpas prevents you from engaging in any meaningful intellectual discussion, scientific or otherwise.
    Posted by: franklin | December 2, 2007 3:23 AM

    The readers can easily decide who is right, Franklin. All your claim repetition adds up to is your own certainty that you know what is going on. That is what is known as the Kraft-Dunning effect.

    “90%…deadly…10 years” Who is stupid enough to consider a virus that ends the lives of 90% of those infected within 10 years defeated?

    You’re worse than the tobacco company execs Truthtwister. You are the Public Relations Officer for death. And you are a fool if you believe anyone should take you seriously.
    Posted by: Roy Hinkley | December 2, 2007 9:41 AM

    The Kraft-Dunning effect in glorious technicolor, Roy, thanks for the demo. Maybe you should ask yourself if you understand why the texts we have in hand are being written, not just what they claim..

    Thanks again to Tara for hosting three supposedly competent people who when disturbed in their complacency emit such incivilities that decent people cannot abide being in the same room.

    Probably the only thing that keeps most good people here is a sense of public responsibility that impels them to contradict supposely intelligent people who distort science and condemn so many to lethal medications.

    Of course, the misleading claims and self-contradictory assertions are worth teasing out so that they can be exposed for what they are: management of data and logic to fit a monkey meme. Forewarned is forearmed, and the list of false counters to the debunking of HIV=AIDS is always useful.

    Shame on you three for the insulting tone of your posts, though, which don’t even deserve humorous tolerance, let alone satire. But the posts are now on the record for all to see and judge.

    1016 comments and what have you learned? Absolutely nothing, it seems. And that’s your most effective argument, isn’t it?

    Exactly like the professor in Pisa, who refused to look through the telescope, because he thought it was a trick.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 2, 2007 12:21 PM

    Precisely Truthseeker, these staunch defenders of failed science, refuse to learn anything let alone have any semblance of logical thought. Sad but true.

    Posted by: carter | December 2, 2007 12:36 PM

    Truthseeker (sic),

    If my posts seem repetitive to you, it is because you have yet to respond to the criticisms of your position.

    I explained my understanding of your assertions about Karpas’s essay, why they are wrong, how your continued defense of these assertions can only be explained by lying or a lack of comprehension, and your response has been merely to fantasize about my mommy spanking my tiny botty.

    Your incompetence even extends to your insults.

    You have accused Chris, Roy, and myself of demonstrating the “Kraft-Dunning Effect.”

    I believe you mean the Kruger-Dunning Effect, the phenomenon wherein “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” (as Charles Darwin put it).”

    That you are ignorant of the scientific context of the Kruger-Dunning Effect, yet continue to confidently assert it in your rhetorical arguments, provides an ironically satisfying illustration of your ignorance, incmompetence, and intellectual puffery.

    Posted by: franklin | December 2, 2007 1:01 PM

    I believe you mean the Kruger-Dunning Effect, the phenomenon wherein “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” (as Charles Darwin put it).”

    That you are ignorant of the fact that Chris mentioned this paper here first in this thread, and that I have mentioned it since many times, provides an ironically not very satisfying example of how silly you are, franklin.

    It doesn’t let you off the hook for misleading readers by claiming that an inert virus causes the immune system catastrophe which you want to medicate with DNA chain terminators, though.

    It doesn’t let you off the hook for supporting this monstrous iatrogenic evil when you claim to be able to understand the science, and read the criticism of it carefully.

    It doesn’t let you off the hook when people sicken and die, half of them in this country from the drugs you support, and which may support you, is that right?

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 2, 2007 3:49 PM

    The irony arises from repeatedly referring to it as the Kraft-Dunning Effect, illustrating the overconfidence fueled by ignorance that lies at the heart of the effect.
    Posted by: franklin | December 2, 2007 6:02 PM

    In a classic example of the Kruger-Dunning effect, the better irony arises, franklin, from your inability to appreciate wordplay. Perhaps one should call it the Kruger-Ebbing effect, to make it clearer through the fog that obscures your brain, the one that the monkey meme sits on, invisible to you but visible to all who read what you write. But then you would complain that I spelled it wrong…sheez.

    Anyhow the corpus of Krafft-Ebing is what one keeps thinking of in observing your behavior, and that of your fellow trio members, here. In fact, there seem to be five influences at work at once: 1) Kruger-Dunning 2) Krafft-Ebing 3) Moore-Noble 4) HIV meme 5) The Duesberg-Bialy litmus test for scientific intelligence, or its absence.

    In case you didn’t know the Duesberg-Bialy effect (discovered at New AIDS Review, as it happens by the humble blogger) is the following:

    The absence of a sense of humor correlates very highly – 99.9999% – with the inability to percieve the Grand Canyon sized flaws in the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.

    It is not yet known why this is, but the favored theory is that those brilliant fellows such as yourself who lack the wit and mastery of the topic that allows one to see what is really going on are distracted by the monkey meme jumping up and down on their head.

    HIV blocked from T cells

    By the way, franklin, if you guys are so familiar with the literature that you know our interpretation is wrong when we see Fauci, Karpas and other commentators of irreproachable mainstream authority acknowledge that HIV is a pussy which the immune system chases up a tree and keeps it there, how about this quote (you recognize it, I hope, and who wrote it):

    “However, quantitative studies of the frequency of HIV-infected cells in vivo suggest that single cell killing by direct infection with HIV may not be the predominant mechanism of CD4+ T-cell depletion. In this regard, the proportion of HIV-infected, peripheral blood CD4+ T cells in individuals in the early asymptomatic stage of HIV infection is typically in the range of 1 in 1000 to 1 in 10,10,000 (Pantaleo et al) Although this frequency increases with disease progression,the proportion of HIV infected peripheral blood CD4+ T cells rarely exceeds 1 in 100 even in patients with advanced HIV disease….the data illustrate the difficulty in accounting for CD4+ T-cell depletion solely by direct mechanisms.”

    Gee. No direct cell killing by HIV. Parade past us all the excuses and imaginative claims offered to fill this Grand Canyon of contradiction of the first mechanism assumed by the HIV brigade, then read Zvi Grossman on how none of them have the slightest data to back them up and how exactly how HIV kills T cells remains a “conundrum”.

    Neutralizing antibodies

    Meanwhile try contradicting my description of the overcoming of HIV by the healthy immune system as “DEFEAT” again, when Rochman’s paper is NAMED Rapid evolution of the neutralizing response to HIV type 1 infection. What do you think neutralizing means?

    “We report here that in most patients, potent neutralizing antibody responses are generated early after infection, at first to the autologous infecting HIV variant and then to subsequent variants.

    “During the natural course of early HIV infection, fully functional envelope variants continuously emerge and compete for outgrowth in a RAPIDLY EVOLVING NEUTRALIZING ANTIBODY RESPONSE.”

    Gallo himself saluted neutralizing antibodies to HIV in 1985 in Nature (Jul 4-10;316 (6023):72-4,

    “Natural antibodies capable of neutralizing HTLV-III infection of H9 cells were detected in most adults AIDS and ARC patients but in no normal heterosexual controls.”

    The only way HIV escapes these antibodies is to retreat to some hiding place protected from the antibodies in the bloodstream, folks. It doesn’t make any kind of comeback until the antibodies army is weakened by some other sickness, which HIV doesn’t have a chance to cause.

    Karpas explains

    Why the established paradigm exploiters insist on maintaining that the defeated HIV is the threat is a scientific mystery, but it may have something to do with money After all, even Abraham Karpas, professor of virology at Cambridge and one of the generals of the campaign to support HIV to the tune of $30 billion even though it doesn’t do anything, has this to say about the credentials of his colleagues:

    “The history of AIDS research involves huge rewards, unscrupulous ambition, disregard for common principles of scientific conduct, battles over priority leaving injustice uncorrected, and terrible consequences in the wider world.”

    Written about Gallo’s record in the early stage of HIV research, from which the asinine theory emerged, but also applicable to the whole crowd of scientific deceivers and their hangers on such as the trio here in the years since.

    A sad reflection on human motivations to peddle murder rather than medicine.
    ————————————————————————————————-

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    This guy is like some darned jack in the box:

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    This does not mean that an antibody response is without benefit.

    Nobody is saying otherwise. There is, however, a large gap between that and HIV being “defeated”. You appear to be going to a great deal of effort to confuse the issue. The evidence shows that HIV viral titres rise to a high during the acute infection stage and then fall to a non-zero “set-point”. At no stage is HIV “defeated”. It is never latent.

    HIV continues to replicate after the acute infection period and continues to cause CD4+ cell depletion.

    A large proportion of the damage is done in the initial acute infection stage.

    HIV pathogenesis: the first cut is the deepest

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:25 AM

    Karpas wrote it, I quoted it, your posts have confirmed it, your friends also confirm it, so I bid you Goodbye, since the case is proved.

    Karpas most definitely did not write: “ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it” and he most definitely did not write “because antibody neutralization is completely effective”

    You know perfectly well that Karpas does not agree with you and yet you continue to claim that he does.

    The only things that you have proven are your powers of self-delusion and your inability to admit to a mistake.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:36 AM

    At no stage is HIV “defeated”. It is never latent.

    It is “never latent”? A mistyping, Chris?

    You still are missing the fundamental distinction between the factual concession Karpas makes (HIV is neutralized by antibodies) and the imaginary claim he tries to make (it makes a comeback against a healthy immune system and defeats it after all):

    Factual concession:

    “This does not mean that an antibody response is without benefit.” Nobody is saying otherwise. There is, however, a large gap between that and HIV being “defeated”. You appear to be going to a great deal of effort to confuse the issue. The evidence shows that HIV viral titres rise to a high during the acute infection stage and then fall to a non-zero “set-point”. – Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:25 AM

    Imaginary claim:

    At no stage is HIV “defeated”. It is never latent. HIV continues to replicate after the acute infection period and continues to cause CD4+ cell depletion. A large proportion of the damage is done in the initial acute infection stage.- Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:25 AM

    Inadvertent factual concession:

    HIV pathogenesis: the first cut is the deepest. -Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:25 AM

    Yes. After the initial multiplication of HIV before the immune system gears up, HIV is quickly put down.and there is no further revival. But there is no “cut” before, during or after.

    HIV does nothing except vaccinate you against HIV.

    You are vaccinated by harmless HIV. Period.

    Chris, you seem to be unaware that the vaccine project is planning to spend billions, and here you are being told that the best vaccination against HIV is HIV itself.

    Why don’t you just believe what Karpas tells you, claim some of the money for yourself, take a holiday, and stop annoying everybody with misleading objections to good science?

    Just a suggestion.

  6. Truthseeker Says:

    Is it possible to tease the humorless, especially with the truth?

    ———————————————————
    Truthseeker (sic):

    You still are missing the fundamental distinction between the factual concession Karpas makes (HIV is neutralized by antibodies) and the imaginary claim he tries to make (it makes a comeback against a healthy immune system and defeats it after all)

    Why do you maintain that the continued replication of HIV in the face of the neutralizing immune response is imaginary, given that Richman has provided experimental verification of the virus eluding even the most potent immune responses that they observed?

    Richman demonstrates a neutralizing antibody response and the evolution of the virus to escape the response. Neither is imaginary. Both have been empirically demonstrated.

    You simply choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the data that you so helpfully brought to our attention.

    Posted by: franklin | December 3, 2007 2:15 AM

    “It is “never latent”? A mistyping, Chris?

    Unlike you I write what I mean and I mean what I type.

    At no stage is HIV latent. It seems that at this stage of the conversation you are still not aware of the distinction between latent and chronic infection.

    Natural history of acute and persistent human infections

    Inadvertent factual concession:

    It was neither inadvertent nor a concession. Why do you play these silly word games?

    Why don’t you just believe what Karpas tells you, claim some of the money for yourself, take a holiday, and stop annoying everybody with misleading objections to good science?

    I am not objecting to anything Karpas has written but rather your persistent misinterpretations.

    Your rhetorical attempt to pit me against Karpas is simply pathetic. You know perfectly well that Karpas does not agree with you.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 2:52 AM

    Why do you maintain that the continued replication of HIV in the face of the neutralizing immune response is imaginary, given that Richman has provided experimental verification of the virus eluding even the most potent immune responses that they observed?

    Because my wits have not been frightened out of me by the story of the nightmare Virus, which allows me to see that whatever life the virus might still manage to have coaxed out of it by Richman matters not a jot, because the Virus is so effectively neutralized by antibodies that it couldn’t overcome the healthy immune system which imprisoned it safely away from the bloodstream and which keeps it locked up safely for the duration.

    In biology quantity rules. As Moore points out in one of his sadly neglected masterpieces, they chuck 40-500 times as much Virus at cells to prove it is toxic as occurs in vivo. Naturally it proves toxic.

    Franklin you underestimate the level of rationalizing BS going on even though you do it yourself!

    Franklin, a word in your ear. Here’s a plan. Forget about Chris and John Moore, and repeat five times after me:

    Harmless HIV does nothing but vaccinate you against harmless HIV.

    See if it fits the scientific literature, which it will, without exception, except that part of the literature which consists of data management, paradigm imposed misinterpretation and so forth.

    Then have lunch at Nello’s with Anthony Fauci and David Ho, and tell them that you have a short cut to the HIV vaccine. HIV itself.

    Show them Karpas’ paper as evidence you know what you are talking about.

    Anthony Fauci will say something like, “Franklin, who have you told about this? Anybody else?” He will look at David Ho meaningfully.

    You should reply, “I have put it in a sealed bank box to be opened at my death.”

    Fauci will suddenly become very friendly, swear you to secrecy, and give you a check for $500 million.

    If you don’t bother to mention this to Chris Noble, no one will blame you. However, it might be as well to give him and Hinckley $100 million just in case they start investigating why Fauci didn’t respond to THEIR phone calls on the same topic.

    My commission is merely $10 million, since it is your status as family that will get you the lunch with Fauci and Ho. They probably wouldn’t see me at all.

    Good luck!

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 2:58 AM


    ” Because my wits have not been frightened out of me by the story of the nightmare Virus, which allows me to see that whatever life the virus might still manage to have coaxed out of it by Richman matters not a jot, because the Virus is so effectively neutralized by antibodies that it couldn’t overcome the healthy immune system which imprisoned it safely away from the bloodstream and which keeps it locked up safely for the duration.

    This is a classic Duesbergian misdirection. The vast majority of CD4+ cells are in lymphoid tissue and not in circulating blood. Not coincidentally this lymphoid tissue is the major reservoir for HIV and it is where it is doing its damage. Far from being locked up safely HIV is continuously replicating in lymphoid tissue at all stages of infection.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 3:19 AM

    At no stage is HIV latent. It seems that at this stage of the conversation you are still not aware of the distinction between latent and chronic infection.- Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 2:52 AM

    Neither statement is true.

    “You still are missing the fundamental distinction between the factual concession Karpas makes (HIV is neutralized by antibodies) and the imaginary claim he tries to make (it makes a comeback against a healthy immune system and defeats it after all):”

    This sentence highlights the fundamental dishonesty of Denialists. They cherry pick isolated bits of papers that they falsely believe support their position and ignore the rest that refutes that position.
    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 2:59 AM

    The above statement reflects the foolishness of those who cannot see what part of a paper is based on data and what part based on imaginative argument, which doesn’t refute anything, especially the data in the other part of the paper.

    The foolishness arises from the HIV meme which monkeys about with the already strained reasoning powers of those whose only scientific role is teacher’s pet.

    Sorry Chris but you are trying to manoever your next roadblock into our path when we are already gone.

    There is a limit to which one can carry on dancing with a monkey with a wooden leg, even if it is a meme.

    Adieu!

    ————————————————————–
    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 3:19 AM

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    Oh dear beguiled again.

    ———————————————————————-
    The above statement reflects the foolishness of those who cannot see what part of a paper is based on data and what part based on imaginative argument, which doesn’t refute anything, especially the data in the other part of the paper.

    No, it demonstrates that the sole criterion you use to decide which part of a paper to cite is whether you can spin it to support your position. You are quite happy to cite Karpas as an authority when a sentence can be twisted to mean something that appears to support your claim but you have no trouble dismissing every thing else he says that clearly refutes your position.

    You can’t have your cake and eat it too. This schizophrenic attitude to the literature is characteristic fro Denialists.

    The paper by Richman et al that you cited is a classic example. It details direct experimental evidence that HIV continues to replicate despite the antibody response.

    Even the title should give you a few clues: Rapid evolution of the neutralizing antibody response to HIV type 1 infection.

    Why would the antibody response continue to evolve over a period of 39 months if HIV has been put out of action?

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 3:34 AM

    At no stage is HIV latent. It seems that at this stage of the conversation you are still not aware of the distinction between latent and chronic infection.- Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 2:52 AM,

    Neither statement is true.

    I can only conclude once again that you are either knowingly lying or are too stupid to have a clue what you are talking about.

    The very paper by Richman et al that you yourself cited demonstrates that HIV is never latent.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 3:55 AM

    Baghdad Bob (AKA Truthtwister) said:

    “Karpas wrote it, I quoted it, your posts have confirmed it, your friends also confirm it, so I bid you Goodbye, since the case is proved.”

    Now TS, if only you would read it:

    “90%…deadly…10 years” – A. Karpas

    Posted by: Roy Hinkley | December 3, 2007 7:44 AM

    “Truthseeker” or, more aptly, truthtwister (with props to Hinkley),

    Your insistence on calling yourself a seeker of truth is irking me out of my silence of several weeks. You and your fellow “journalist,” Robert Houston, pretend to objectivity. Yet you both keep yourselves as far from facts as you can, and the extent of your “objectivity” is revealed in most of what you write, including Robert Houston’s reference to scientists as “HIV enthusiasts.” Anyone who can call a Joseph Sonnabend or any prominent AIDS doc or researcher an “HIV enthusiast” has never spent enough time with such people to learn of their passion and compassion and hatred of the virus.

    Until you have some basic knowledge of biology, chemistry, mathematics, etc., it is pointless to argue with you about science. Nothing lost there, since science is clearly not the sticking point with you. Your objection is to facts or authority in general, it seems.

    Is that perhaps why you try to provoke others with your self-consciously un-PC remarks?

    Such as calling Tara “delectable” above (i.e. delicious, for cooler’s benefit)?

    Or writing that jen is just another “female know-nothing”?

    Or questioning Adele’s gender, deciding she must be a (male) “gay activist,” a term you use with the utmost of disgust?

    Your apparent problems with society’s acceptance (relatively speaking, of course) of women as more than vacuous eye candy for British “gentlemen” who use the royal “we” and of gay people as worthy of something more than dismissal as “activists” would be a good place for you to start in assessing your unwillingness to be objective re science.

    Posted by: ElkMountainMan | December 3, 2007 11:51 AM

    Now TS, if only you would read it:
    “90%…deadly…10 years” – A. Karpas
    Posted by: Roy Hinkley | December 3, 2007 7:44 AM

    Why do you truncate this quote till it its absurdity is unrecognisable, Roy? It reads in full:

    Sexual intercourse has now spread the virus around the World; and there are probably some 70 million infected. 90% of those infected with HIV develop the deadly disease of AIDS within ten years of infection: the death toll from the disease has been enormous.

    You do know the date this was written, and examined, and revised, till Karpas and the peer reviewers and editors of Bio. Rev. were satisfied it was accurate? 2004, in case you overlooked it.

    So we have them all agreeing that 90% of those infected with HIV develop AIDS within ten years.

    How does this jibe with the current claim that the mean latent period of HIV is ten years or more? That would indicate that 50% or fewer would be showing AIDS symptoms by the ten year mark, wouldn’t it? Indeed that is the case – fewer, in fact, as the predictions fail and fail, kept up only by the medications being applied earlier.

    Now the UN has corrected the 70 million guess, which was pessimistic to say the least in 2004, to 33 million today.

    Don’t you recognise what is happening? These guys go overboard in pushing the view of AIDS towards the doomsday scenario of maximum sick and dead people, as they make as many claims as they can in that direction to keep the disbursements from the public purse flowing in an era where you have to compete for every penny, especially when you already have more than your fair share.

    It is almost childishly transparent in this case.

    Yes, Karpas is an honest man when contemplating facts. When trying to keep his fellow Fauci Club members happy, however, having burst their balloon with his observations of how HIV gets stopped and rolled back to a negligible set point by any healthy person’s antibodies (pace the three HIV meme monkeys sharing silently in this thread), he rushes to prove he is a fully paid up loyal member of the HIV=AIDS Maximum Funding Regardless of Absurd Hypothesis Killing Gays and Blacks Club, and talks nonsense about 90% being ill in ten years, and 70 million infected.

    Roy, as the only bright and creative and somewhat careful and thoughtful person here defending the absurd paradigm, at least unleash your sophisticated reading of journal review texts and in this case see the blindingly apparent.

    Harmless HIV vaccinates against harmless HIV.

    That is the only conclusion for which we have any data for this exceptionally rewarding but otherwise overwhelmingly inert retrovirus.

    Perhaps you are a physicist who doesn’t understand what is going on in biology as far as funding pressures warping common sense goes, but just as an example from another field, why not skim that Kruger-Dunning paper just for laughs?

    Its brilliant topic of study which it proves several different ways is that dim people do not realize how dim they are. The funding is from the NIMH. Yes, the review committee sat around one day contemplating this proposal and funded it. In other words, public money was spent proving that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

    This is the pretty pass we have reached in the semi-sciences of psychology and disease study. You may be shocked to hear me label disease study a semi science, and claim that disease is an active arena for such collegial boondoggles. But that is what appears to be the case, from SARS to bird flu. The outstanding example of jobs-for-the-boys peer review is HIV=AIDS, and it has encouraged all kinds of imitation, it appears.

    Of course, I am writing this in the fond belief that you are not a player in this sphere who is well aware of what I say, but an unwitting fellow traveler from a cleaner arena such as physics.

    Your friend,

    Baghdad Bob II

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 12:06 PM

    I must say that this amusing (and quite tedious) thread has showed a few glimmers of solid reasoning. I salute Truthseeker for actually engaging some of these AIDS knuckleheads, who really don’t think about these issues (let alone falsify them), but merely close ranks with their better paid brethren of the orthodoxy to recapitulate standard, scientific-sounding garbage.

    HIV develops its own vaccine!

    SARS is bullshit, so is avian bird flu, so is west nile, so is the dreaded swine flu of the 70’s, .. the list endless, and in a few years we may just have to add HIV to it.

    Posted by: Barney | December 3, 2007 1:27 PM

    Barney,
    The fact of the matter is HIV is on the list of dead virus campaigns, except that the great protectors and purveyors of the paradigm wish to keep the status quo because God forbid they should loose their funding. Want to stop HIV AIDS? – drop the funding.

    Posted by: Carter | December 3, 2007 2:22 PM

    “Truthseeker” or, more aptly, truthtwister (with props to Hinkley),…etc etc etc. Posted by: ElkMountainMan | December 3, 2007 11:51 AM

    By the mighty Virus you cannot even read the posts properly, Mr Elk, so you really don’t deserve a reply to this series of rank misstatements and misreadings, almost one per sentence. We would sympathie with you if any were true, but none of them are.

    One might observe, however, that you fit neatly into the Duesberg-Bialy litmus test of intelligence in this affair, being somewhat humorless in your perceptions of what we wrote. That’s one cause of what “irks” you, it is clear, in this very inaccurate reading of posts you have skimmed on return from your holiday.

    The absence of a sense of humor correlates very highly – 99.9999% – with the inability to perceive the Grand Canyon sized flaws in the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.

    But just for the record, who said Joseph Sonnabend lacked compassion? The problem is that he loves the Virus nearly as much as all its other scientific husbands, who we observe married to it for its money. He may not be thinking straight because he is a doctor in the midst of dealing with the tortures visited upon the HIV congregation by its priests, but he knew enough to resist until he was threatened with being cut off by the powers that be, when he compromised.

    We cannot see into his soul and cannot say why it happened, but it looks suspect to us, since nothing had changed in the data to make HIV any more likely a candidate for causing the effects of drugs, conventional illness and nutritional deficit, which are obviously the real causes of AIDS illness and deaths to anyone who reads the literature with any objectivity.

    Oh sorry, are we talking to someone with the HIV meme sitting in his brain? Then you believe that he just grew more enlightened, right, as “overwhelming evidence” accumulated?

    OK we’ll have to leave it at that, though referring you to the recent posts recording the rout of Christopher Noble et al trying to maintain that HIV is not powerfully neutralized by the immune system of any healthy person in a manner equivalent to any good vaccine.

    But kindly do not babble about how we don’t credit data and good scientific reasoning, that we scorn authority, etc when we don’t. We recognize the authority of good scientists who are not politically influenced to skew their judgement away from what good data and precise reasoning indicate.

    Nor accuse us of scorning gays when we only scorn the ignorance and prejudice of gay activists who profit from the monetary disbursement of drug companies into their organisations and then by some remarkable coincidence reliably agitate on behalf of the HIV paradigm and the drugs sold on that rationale which injure and eventually kill them and their friends.

    Sorry, but that is the height of non-science to us, since the reasoning and objective data of good science as found in the literature is our touchstone in viewing events in this catastrophically misunderstood plague. You imply this measure is yours also. Then what a pity you don’t feel responsible enough to get yourself together and get a proper grasp on events and what we are saying, instead of firing off objections to statements we didn’t make and attitudes we don’t have. So typical of the masochistic self injury of the gay activists in this field to be so righteous when wrongly informed. Do you really want to mimic them?

    And by the way we don’t have any problem whatsoever with society’s acceptance of women as more than eye candy, we support it totally, in fact unlike you we accept it as going without saying. In any circles we have anything to do with there is no mention of color or sex as affecting credentials in any public role, polticial or academic.

    Sorry that you still seem to feel this is an issue, so when we delight in Tara’s superattractive image as posted by herself proudly on her site you start worrying about whether we take her mind seriously or not, when it has nothing to do with that. We would take her mind more seriously if it showed a more critical and independent scrutiny of HIV=AIDS, but that has nothing to do with her appearance.

    Are you suggesting that attractive people are dumber than plain people? Why would that be? Is that what you think, since it occurs to you and not to us? If anything we imagine that they would be brighter, since they would get more attention and support in life.

    While we are repeating quotes, let’s just repeat this one from Houston for the third time:

    “The immune response to HIV can be compared to that of a live viral vaccine. It explains why most HIV-infected patients remain well for many years.” – Abraham Karpas

    Let’s see how Chris Noble’s hand cranked autoresponse you liar/you misinterpret/you liar/you misinterpret/you liar Krafft-Dunning-Kruger-Ebing-Moore-Noble-HIV meme machine deals with that one.

    Guess it lacks a reverse gear, so we can’t expect much except the same old same old, a pattern which suggests to us he is not even there half the time, he has just set the meme machine to respond automatically to certain posters while he is off somewhere else entirely doing something useful in his life down under..

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 2:47 PM

    Meanwhile back at the ranch…

    “Investigators found that Brodie [Scott J. Brodie] falsified data in 15 instances — in published and unpublished journal articles, and grant proposals. The research in question included cellular responses to the HIV virus.”

    Kinda make one think what kind of science Tara et al. are really supporting, doesnt it?

    Click on my name for Seattle Times article by Nick Perry and Carol M. Ostrom

    Posted by: carter | December 3, 2007 3:05 PM

    Thanks Carter. From that news story at UW: Researcher faked AIDS data, altered images:

    “It was a very traumatic investigation to be involved with,” Liggitt said. “We got to look at the underbelly of science.”….

    He said medical research and HIV research in particular is highly competitive, with the National Institutes of Health making cutbacks and many researchers competing for limited funding. Getting published can help bolster a researcher’s push to land the next grant, he added.

    “It’s ugly out there,” Liggitt said. “There are a lot more desperate people because of the cutbacks.”

    Oh dear, it seems that Fauci didn’t manage to keep funding up as high as he promised his faithful at last year’s HIVNET meeting after all.

    I dont have any sympathy for these guys working on a false and murderous premise which takes a disproportionate amount of funding anyway, so much of it wasted on examining an innocent retrovirus.

    They shouldn’t go into science unless they have something to offer science in genuine passion and talent. Find something else which suits you, for God’s Sake, instead of trying to live off deceit in an area which professes truthseeking.

    Once in though, I can see they become trapped, what with wives and children and all.

    This HIV=AIDS scam that Gallo launched without knowing it would grow so big can be viewed as a trap for all the people involved, with no one able to come clean now without being ruined. How Science, Nature, the Academy of Sciences, the NIH, the NSF, the New York Times, Harvard, etc etc etc can survive any correction is problematical, to say the least. That is why I posted on Saturday that the dissenters may as well give up.

    Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 3:45 PM

  8. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, you’re right Douglas, this should be a post here, and it will be, but no time at present:

    ————————————————————————————–
    By the mighty Virus you cannot even read the posts properly, Mr Elk, so you really don’t deserve a reply to this series of rank misstatements and misreadings, almost one per sentence. We would sympathize with you if any were true, but none of them are.

    Tuthseeker, ElkMountainMan is on old friend, who, like the paper tyger virus, should have remained in the aloof scientific recesses where he is no doubt germinating. However, since by his own words he has been coaxed out of his 6 foot deep chromatin slumber as a reincarnated authority on Political Correctness, moral philosophy, and the satiric genre, maybe he would now like to elaborate, in his own name, on his comments about Christine Maggiore, Al-Bayati and the baby killer connection?

    How about it Mr. PC Elk, were your statements concerning those matters just for fun? There’s a free trip to LA and instant fame for you if you can explain to Al-Bayati face to face in a public, non-anonymous venue why you find his work distasteful and his conclusions strange.

    Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | December 3, 2007 4:19 PM

    “There are a lot more desperate people because of the cutbacks.”

    Um, well Truthseeker, you know as well as I do it ain’ just cutbacks. The whole freakin ordeal with HIV is just plain desperate!

    Each and every post by the apologists here has a very strong and distinct smell of desperation!

    Posted by: Carter | December 3, 2007 5:01 PM

    MEC,

    Did you perhaps mean “ruminating,” not “germinating?” Your would-be linguistic master, the twister of truth, would not be pleased. But no matter; whatever I am doing in my “scientific recesses” is of little importance alongside the situation I read about this morning on the blog of Mark and Chris Hoofnagle.

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/12/hivaids_denialism_is_deadly_th.php#more

    It seems that the Liversidge-emulating “gatekeepers” at the MSN Aids Myth Exposed board are encouraging an HIV-positive mother to avoid any medical care for herself and her infant. Chiming in is one “rebecca veronica,” whom several denialists in the past have identified as Rebecca Veronica Culshaw. (Truthtwister, you may not be familiar with this minor denialist but cooler has vouched for her “hotness,” so you can safely listen to her. To use your words, Culshaw is a real female know-nothing, and not just some gay activist who likes to get a kick out of a female name.)

    Culshaw and sidekick former academic Darin Brown tell the young mother to continue breastfeeding her baby, since there is nothing healthier and the “orthodoxy” doubt that mother to child transmission ever happens.

    Lies, stupidity, and ignorance conspiring against an innocent mother and her child: a sad and lamentable state of affairs. How do these denialists sleep at night?

    Posted by: ElkMountainMan | December 3, 2007 7:30 PM

    HIV Is Not the Cause of AIDS
    By Peter H. Duesberg

    Science, Vol. 241, pp. 514-517, July 29, 1988.

    Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle, as well as six cardinal rules of virology.
    1) HIV is in violation of Koch’s first postulate because it is not possible to detect free virus (1, 2), provirus (3-5), or viral RNA (4, 6, 7) in all cases of AIDS. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has established guidelines to diagnose AIDS when all laboratory evidence for HIV is negative (8).
    2) In violation of Koch’s second postulate, HIV cannot be isolated from 20 to 50% of AIDS cases (1, 9-11). Moreover, “isolation” is very indirect. It depends on activating dormant provirus in millions of susceptible cells propagated in vitro away from the suppressive immune system of the host.
    3) In violation of Koch’s third postulate, pure HIV does not reproduce AIDS when inoculated into chimpanzees or accidentally into healthy humans (9, 12, 13).
    4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for (14). It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells (4, 6, 7, 15). Under these conditions, HIV cannot account for the loss of T cells, the hallmark of AIDS, even if all infected cells died. This is because during the 2 days it takes HIV to replicate, the body regenerates about 5% of its T cells (16), more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.
    5) It is paradoxical that HIV is said to cause AIDS only after the onset of antiviral immunity, detected by a positive “AIDS test,” because all other viruses are most pathogenic before immunity. The immunity against HIV is so effective that free virus is undetectable (see point 1), which is why HIV is so hard to transmit (9, 12, 13). The virus would be a plausible cause of AIDS if it were reactivated after an asymptomatic latency, like herpes viruses. However, HIV remains inactive during AIDS. Thus the “AIDS test” identifies effective natural vaccination, the ultimate protection against viral disease.
    6) The long and highly variable intervals between the onset of antiviral immunity and AIDS, averaging 8 years, are bizarre for a virus that replicates within 1 to 2 days in tissue culture and induces antiviral immunity within 1 to 2 months after an acute infection (9, 17). Since all genes of HIV are active during replication, AIDS should occur early when HIV is active, not later when it is dormant. Indeed, HIV can cause a mononucleosis-like disease during the acute infection, perhaps its only pathogenic potential (9, 17).
    7) Retroviruses are typically not cytocidal. On the contrary, they often promote cell growth. Therefore, they were long considered the most plausible viral carcinogens (9). Yet HIV, a retrovirus, is said to behave like a cytocidal virus, causing degenerative disease killing billions of T cells (15, 18). This is said even though T cells grown in culture, which produce much more virus than has ever been observed in AIDS patients, continue to divide (9, 10, 18).
    8) It is paradoxical for a virus to have a country-specific host range and a risk group-specific pathology. In the United States, 92% of AIDS patients are male (19), but in Africa AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes, although the virus is thought to have existed in Africa not much longer than in the United States (20). In the United States, the virus is said to cause Kaposi’s sarcoma only in homosexuals, mostly Pneumocystis pneumonia in hemophiliacs, and frequently cytomegalovirus disease in children (21). In Africa the same virus is thought to cause slim disease, fever, and diarrhea almost exclusively (22, 23).
    9) It is now claimed that at least two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, are capable of causing AIDS, which allegedly first appeared on this planet only a few years ago (20). HIV-1 and HIV-2 differ about 60% in their nucleic acid sequences (24). Since viruses are products of gradual evolution, the proposition that within a few years two viruses capable of causing AIDS could have evolved is highly improbable (25).

    References and Notes:

    J. Albert et al., J. Med. Virol. 23, 67 (1987).
    L.A. Falk, D. Paul, A. Landay, H. Kessler, N. Engl. J. Med. 316, 1547 (1987).
    G.M. Shaw et al., Science 226, 1165 (1984).
    D. Richman, J. McCutchan, S. Spector, J. Infect Dis. 156, 823 (1987).
    C.-Y. Ou et al., Science 239, 295 (1988).
    M.E. Harper, L.M. Marselle, R.C. Gallo, F. Wong-Staal, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 83, 772 (1986).
    A. Ranki et al., Lancet ii, 589 (1987).
    Centers for Disease Control, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 258, 1143 (1987).
    P.H. Duesberg, Cancer Res. 47, 1199 (1987).
    H. von Briesen et al., J. Med. Virol. 23, 51 (1987).
    D. Gallo, J. Kimpton, P. Dailey, J. Clin. Microbiol. 25, 1291 (1987).
    J.W. Curran et al., Science 239, 610 (1988).
    G.H. Friedland and R.S. Klein, N. Engl. J. Med. 317, 1125 (1987).
    J. Coffin et al., Science 232, 697 (1986).
    A. Fauci, ibid. 239, 617 (1988).
    J. Sprent, in B and T Cells in Immune Recognition, F. Loor and G.E. Roelants, Eds. (Wiley, New York, 1977), pp. 59-82.
    H.A. Kessler, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 258, 1196 (1987).
    R.C. Gallo, Sci. Am. 256 (No. 1), 47 (1987).
    Centers for Disease Control, AIDS Weekly Surveill. Rep., 18 April 1988.
    R. Baum, “AIDS: The molecular biology,” Chem. Eng. News (23 November 1987), pp. 14-26.
    R.M. Selik, E.T. Starcher, J.W. Curran, AIDS 1, 175 (1987).
    R. Colebunders et al., Lancet i, 492 (1987).
    K.J. Pallangyo et al., ibid. ii, 972 (1987).
    F. Clavel et al., Nature 324, 691 (1986).
    J. Sonnabend, in New York Native (9 May 1988), p. 19.

    Posted by: cooler | December 3, 2007 7:35 PM

    ———————————————————–

    TS: What did Karpas really say?

    The entire quote should be put up at once, before the handcranked Noble meme machine is launched. I believe it is worth going through with an index finger, mumbling the words out loud, to get the full impact of what it reveals:

    “The immune response to HIV can be compared to that of a live viral vaccine. It explains why most HIV-infected patients remain well for years. Other viruses that establish lifelong infection, such as herpes viruses, tend to remain latent in the body and the only other exogenous retrovirus known to be capable of infecting humans, the adult T-cell leukaemia HTLV-1, causes disease in less than one in a thousand of infected individuals. In man infection with HIV is probably never latent, because the virus appears to mutate continuously in every infected individual due to its highly error prone reverse transcriptase (RT) which lacks the proof reading capabilities of other RNA polymerases. This has two consequences: 1) In nearly every infected individual, despite a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years, eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death; (2) in drug-treated individuals, a drug resistant virus emrges and treatment fails to halt disease progression. The continuous mutations of the replicating virus cannot be the only reason for the very high mortality of HIV infection in man, because the viruses HIV-1 and HIV-2 do not cause disease in their natural hosts, the chimpanzee and the sooty mangabey monkey, respectively. Disease occurs only when the viruses cross species.

    In addition to its high mutation rate, HIV can also evade the immune response by direct cell-cell contact through fusion between infected and non-infected cells: the virus can be transferred without being exposed to agents of the immune response, such as neutralising antibodies. This is facilitated by the affinity of viral glycoproteins expressed on the surface of infected cells for CD4 molecules on neighboring uninfected cells. Probably this process is particularly important in the lymph nodes, where presentation of foreign antigen to lymphocytes by cell-cell contact is an essential step in initiating immune responses.

    Early after infection with HIV, cell-mediated immune responses can be detected in infected individuals… It is possible that when cytotoxic T-cells are lost a high level of neutralising antibodies can by itself delay disease progress….

    Most HIV infection in the world is not confirmed by tests:

    Most test methods can give false positive readings, so it is important to check any positive reading by a screening assay with a confirmatory test…..many third world countries are not in a position reuglarly to confirm positive readings obtained by the routine screening methods such as an ELISA. Since nearly 90% of the HIV infected live in third-world countries, this means that the majority of positive reactions are unchecked.

    (Karpas developed his own alternative test method in 1985 which “contains its own controlled confirmatory test”):

    The cell test showed that most of the healthy HIV-infected individuals have a very high level of anti-HIV antibodies whereas, in contrast, patients who progressed to AIDS had a low level of antibodies that decreased further with disease progression. Studies of such sera with Western Blot correlate with the cell test titration studies… The sera from the AIDS patients are missing numerous antibodies and even the antibodies which are present are at low concentrations…. We have assayed for the presence of neutralising antibodies in over 100 healthy HIV-1 infected individuals and without exception found that the sera contained significant levels of such antibodies….(We carried out) one of the earliest studies trying to explore and explain the differences in the immunological state between healthy HIV-infected individuals and AIDS patients (in 1985). Our studies have demonstrated that healthy HIV-1 infected individuals who were not viraemic had high levels of neutralising antibodies against the virus and a CD4+ T-cell count within the normal range while AIDS patients with very low numbers of CD4+ T-cells and high levels of HIV-1 were devoid of neutralising antibodies and had low levels of other antiviral antibodies (Karpas et al 1988).

    Studies from the USA of long-term survivors have also found high levels of neutralising antibodies (Cao et al 1995, Pantaleo et al, 1995). Although polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for the presence of HIV-1 RNA in the plasma revealed significant levels of RNA in some individuals, the biological assay for viral infectivity failed to reveal the presence of infectious virus, suggesting that the HIV-1 in the bloodstream had beeen inactivated by the neutralising antibodies. In addition, this indicates that PCR does not distinguish between infectious (live) and neutralised (killed) virus.

    Yes, sir, neutralise= kill.

    Also helpful are someone else’s antibodies:

    We have recorded similar observations with AIDS patients who were treated with passive immunotherapy (PIT). AIDS patients before the infusion of hyperimmune plasma were HIV-1 viraemic as monitored by the isolation of infectious virus from the plasma. After the infusion of hyperimmune plasma, infectious virus could not be isolated but many remained PCR positive.

    Translation: Neutralising antibodies reduce HIV to vanishing set point. The pussy is treed by the dogs of the immune system.

    Ultimate conclusion, as we said before:

    HIV vaccinates you against HIV.

    Here’s a bonus. How about AZT? Nasty stuff. Killed thousands, right?

    Confirming this, Karpas continues, showing what a mistake AZT, and how beneficial IN AND OF ITSELF it must have been to stop using high doses of the poison – a proven useless poison which reportedly they are still mixing in small amounts into the cocktails:

    The first drug that was approved for use in people with HIV disease was azidothymidine (AZT), a chemical developed years earlier as an anti-cancer drug but abandoned because of its high level of toxicity…. Not surprisingly, an early study of bone marrow in patients who had been receiving AZT revealed that all developed anaemia with a varying degree of other white blood cell deficiencies. AZT inhibits HIV replication by blockingg the viral RT and there is no doubt that initially the effect is very dramatic. In the early short-terms trials, AZT appeared to be beneficial. However, within a few weeks to a few months of AZT treatment, replication-competent, AZT resistant HIV strains emerge followed by disease progression, A placebo-controlled trial, lasting two years, revealed that AZT did not imptove survival and was associated with more side-effects. In the British/French Concorde trial which involved 1700 patients and lasted three years, follow-up revealed a statistically significant increase of deaths in the AZT treatment arm as compared to those in the placebo (J. Derbyshire, personal communciation, 1994). The other nucleotide analagues that have been approved for use, such as ddC and ddI, are also highly toxic and of short term benefit….

    (With regard to protease inhibitors and HAART) Protease inhibitors are less toxic than AZT but when used alone , the virus quickly develops drug-resistant mutants. However, when a protease inhibitor was used together with two RT inhibitors it marked the first significant progress in anti-HIV treatment, The combination of drugs has been named highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Following the initiation of HAART treatment approximately 80% of AIDS patients improved clinically; and coincidentally their CD4+ T-cell counts increased and the plasma viral load dropped significantly or completely disappeared. (Hogg et al 1997). The length of the beneficial effects of HAART differs between the individual patients and ranges from a few months to several years. For some the toxic side effects are more pronounced than for others. In most individuals who can tolerate the drug combination over prolonged periods, a wide range of pathological conditions develops due to toxicity, many of them, such as lipodystrophy, have never been seen before in AIDS while liver damage and vascular conditions are common. As a result the HAART treatment of AIDS patients has changed from combating opportunistic infections to reducing toxic side effects…

    Meanwhile HAART fails to eradicate replication competent HIV-1:

    A recent study of a group of patients who have been treated successfully for up to 30 months with triple therapy, replication-competent HIV-1 was routinely isolated despite the fact that even the plasma assay for HIV-1 PCR was negative (Finzi et al, 199; Wong et al 1997).

    Some AIDS researchers suggested that drug treatment should be initiated early in the course of HIV infection (Ho, 1995) but so long as the available drugs have only a limited period of effectiveness, and are toxic, that may be misguided. In most HIV-infected individuals, the immune system manages to limit the damage caused by the virus for many years – far longer (on average nine years) than any drug cocktails available that have the added disadvantage of being toxic.

    Hey, why not try borrowing antibodies from healthy patients? It worked!

    After our early study demonstrated that healthy HIV-infedcted individuals had high levels of neutralising anitbodies, while AIDS patients had none, we investigated the possibilitiy of using passive immunotherapy as a form of treatment in AIDS. This began in 1985, transfusing blood plasma from healthy HIV-1 infected individuals to AIDS patients (Karpas et al, 1985)….(There was ) some evidence of benefit when the patients were treated for two years…(Other studies suggested that PIT is beneficial but) Unfortunately, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have not been able to muster financial support in the UK….

    (Meanwhile they have found) an increasing number of plasma donors who have been donating continuously for 3-7 years without a decline in numbers of CD4+ T-cells or antibody level or other signs of disease progression (Abelian et al, 2001). The mechanism of these effects is not understood. Defining it might help us to understand why HIV overcomes the immune system, and could open up new avenues for the development of therapeutic strategies against this deadly virus.

    After you read enough of this stuff, you realise that Karpas is a reviewer who is severely handicapped by the HIV meme, which here, for example, prevents him from seeing the obvious – that the simplest explanation of “the effects” is that HIV is not deadly or even harmful at all.

    Following all this you can read Richman’s paper, which Karpas didn’t see before going to press, and see that mutation is no answer to the question: How come the virus makes any kind of comeback with antibodies around to neutralise it?

    Because Richman showed that the antibodies keep up very well with viral mutation, leading the dogs of the immune system to chase all the new variants of pussy cat virus up a tree just as fast as before, sometimes faster.

    What a mess. All any thinking gay has to do is read this paper, I would think, and he wouldn’t cooperate with this latter day pellagra. But Alas! they all will doubtless read it like ElkMan with the monkey meme in their noggin, just like Karpas, and not see where the dividing line comes between evidence and misinterpretation.

    Maybe one should borrow that meme machine from Noble and turn it on Karpas: “you liar/you misinterpret/you liar/you misinterpret/you liar/you misinterpet”.
    —————————————————————–

  9. Natashayi Says:

    Natashayi…

    Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !…

    ((We’ll leave this one up, to brighten the landscape here. – Ed.))

    ((From Natasha’s web site: Natasha Yi’s slight, well-distributed body has a natural grace, and Natasha Yi’s unmistakable radiance is undoubtedly what drew the talent scout’s attention at the fast-food joint where Natasha Yi was discovered.

    It’s somewhat hard to comment on Natasha Yi’s style since in most available pictures of Natasha Yi, Natasha Yi is doing her job — that is, posing. Natasha Yi does, however, look great in casual sportswear, and judging by Natasha Yi’s leisure preferences (watching boxing on TV, hanging out with her friends), Natasha Yi hasn’t caught the high-class bug yet. So don’t expect Natasha Yi in any haute couture; do expect Natasha Yi, though, to impress you in whatever Natasha Yi’s wearing. – Ed.))

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 354 access attempts in the last 7 days.