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.


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)

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

Doctors and scientists as sheep

Should some people be blamed by patients for not thinking?

$150,000 a year not enough for one wife

The current Comment thread is raising the issue of whether scientists and doctors who go along with the current paradigm in HIV∫AIDS should be blamed for their lack of thought and research, which results in patients being severely mismedicated, according to the easily available scientific and medical literature.

This literature, which now includes tens of thousands of papers over the last 22 years, tells us that HIV as the cause of AIDS was first disproved (sic) by Robert Gallo and later more comprehensively by Peter Duesberg, that it is not noticeably if at all infectious between the sexes (so the global pandemic is a chimera, pace Laurie Garrett and the Council of Foreign Relations), and that the much vaunted antiretroviral drugs now kill as many AIDS patients as die from other symptoms. That is to say, half of AIDS patients in the US who die, die of symptoms (liver and kidney rot) which are not on the CDC list of thirty or more AIDS symptoms. They are dying of the drugs, not of AIDS.

We thought we would move our own comment on the topic of blame and responsibility here as a new post, since the issue is important enough to see the full light of day. Perhaps the thread will move here too, since it is overlong at 412 Comments.

As we said there, debating whether all the scientists in HIV∫AIDS are scoundrels is fairly irrelevant, since there are so many factors involved that nothing of that kind is black and white. There are probably some saints as well as sinners at every level, tongue tied though they might be.

Certainly the trusting patients who have suffered the vicious and needless impact of the wrong drugs – lambs to the slaughter, it would seem – have every right to be furious that their doctors either don’t even know about the critics and their critique of the paradigm, or refuse to follow its arguments, instead inattentively assuming, as an establishment scientist put it in his Comment, that it is “scientifically indefensible”.

Yet debating how rotten is this state of Denmark can’t get much further than speculating how many more black sheep there are than white in a herd of grey that stretches to the horizon with all the animals moving in the same direction.

Still, anyone like Kevin who complains that the entire system has shifted towards money and away from saving health and lives can hardly be contradicted, judging from the flow of news over the past three decades, with the money involved in medicine getting bigger and bigger. Only the other day the Times reported a newly fledged specialist turning his nose up at $150,000 a year, saying sorry, but he had to get down to Wall Street fast and make millions or his wife would complain.

Then there is the disillusioning experience of unprejudiced science reporters that come into contact with the system and see this for themselves. The abandonment of thinking for oneself that has occurred as medical and biological science has become a self protective and self interested profession is fairly obvious from the situation in HIV∫AIDS where it is clear that if more than 20 per cent of scientists and doctors in the field honestly reviewed what they “knew” about HIV and AIDS the paradigm would collapse politically as fast as it does logically from its internal inconsistencies.

The inability or unwillingness to think for oneself is something that should disqualify any person from practicing medicine or science. Is that the kind of doctor you would want handling your case? Yet Lo and behold, originality of thought is practically a justification these days for being kicked out of these professions, not only in censored HIV∫AIDS ‘science’, but for years in almost any field in medicine. Medical politics in New York State virtually guarantees prosecution if one steps out of line, for example, in cancer treatment.

Paradigms are naturally very hard to displace in any field of mental endeavor since all the senior members of any practice or profession or academic or other community become invested in the ruling wisdom. In matters of medicine or science, however, this bias is unethical and unprofessional, because it is against the public interest and may hurt other people’s health or even end their lives. It is the responsibility of the leaders of the community to allow vigorous reassessment of every dimension of knowledge, not to loathe and discourage it.

In particular, it is not for the powerful Dr. Anthony Fauci of the NIAID to discourage journalists from covering challenges to the HIV∫AIDS paradigm by publicly warning, in print in the AAAS newsletter, as he did early on after the birth of the HIV∫AIDS paradigm, that any calls on the dangerous subject of HIV’s questionability and the critical paradigm reviews by a certain eminent scientist (Dr Peter Duesberg of Berkeley, the world’s leading cancer retrovirologist at the time) would never be returned by his scientists at the NIH, whom he had under strict instructions never to mention the topic either.

(Pic at left is of a sheepdog herding a flock of Coopworth ewes on the English sea coast, representing the relationship referred to, ie the one between President Reagan’s distinguished “hero of AIDS” and the scientists, doctors, health workers, journalists, celebrities and activists of HIV∫AIDS).

Yet in real life in HIV∫AIDS we have the situation where those that act in this unethical way are celebrated and given awards and patent royalties and those who act ethically by challenging the status quo with some improvement are liable to get it in the neck.

The trashing of an outstanding scientist

The treatment of Dr Peter Duesberg by colleagues and officials at Berkeley for example has been and is a disgraceful sin against both him and the public interest. We understand he has been barred from including his views on the HIVÃIDS and oncogene paradigms in his lectures, which as far as we know are now limited to undergraduate students, and he has been effectively cut off by his colleagues (who advise the students against it for the sake of their careers) from having graduate students in his lab, and despite his triumph last year of collecting more applications from undergraduate students to work in his lab than any of his colleagues, he complained when we last spoke to him of having no one else helping him at all in the lab, now that his one loyal graduate lab assistant has come down with cancer.

We will check the details and include them here if he is willing to elucidate in public, but it seems pretty clear from all reports that the Berkeley administration and faculty have behaved like intellectual criminals in his regard. The criminality is social as well as scientific since Duesberg has been handicapped in pursuing his own initiative in cancer research which is widely acknowledged by even by his most prominent opponents (who are now trying to steal the credit) as having opened up a promising and hitherto neglected line of research which may help improve cancer treatment.

We haven’t suffered as Kevin has but we recall going to a specialist once for a prescription for a very mild skin complaint in recent years and paying good money to be misinformed by this Park Avenue hero (see pic, left) with medical misinformation that contradicted the literature. Not only do we feel that he should give our hard earned money back if we ask for it but we also feel that any such doctor or specialist that advises and treats patients in disregard of the literature these days is culpable civilly and probably criminally.

Of course this view is widely shared in the US today it seems since the high insurance rates that docs have to pay these days reflects their perceived risk of being sued for this kind of neglect when it results on sickness or death. And why shouldn’t they be blamed? Checking PubMed for the latest on whatever they are presented with is not difficult these days, thanks to the NIH.

But of course one suspects that none of them do it. In fact, a good friend of ours reports that while he was often in the library of an eminent medical treatment and research institution in New York City (Cornell) not too long ago he found that doctors in white coats in their rare appearances there often approached him for help in traversing its stacks and other resources.

But what interested them most often, he noticed, was sharing the sports pages in the newspapers in the lounge area.

His theory was that having had quite enough of medical texts in school and having dealt with sick people all day all they wanted to read about were super healthy athletes.

20 Responses to “Doctors and scientists as sheep”

  1. noreen martin Says:

    I love the analogy of scientists and doctors as poor, little, spineless sheep. Me thinks they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Since HIV and AIDS has developed into a religion, no one with half a brain in the scientific world will dare to speak out against it or dare to suffer the consequences. Even highly educated physicains quote from PubMed like it is scripture. If it’s in it, it must be right. My physicains believe it to be the gospel instead of looking at a healthy patient who is standing right before their eyes. These physicains are entrenched in their viewpoints and do not want to see the light as they would have the face the fact that they have poisoned and killed their patients needlessly.

  2. Wilyretrovirus Says:

    Yes, let’s move this conversation to a smaller thread…

    First, let’s deal with the misrepresentation. Kevin and I both criticize the herd mentality (as does TS) of the doctors and scientists in regard to “HIV/AIDS”. Just because we do so, doesn’t mean that it’s black and white, as another poster hellbent on misrepresentation tried to paint our criticisms.

    I don’t think that all the doctors and scientists out there that can’t seem to think for themselves are scoundrels. Many of them are very well-intentioned, and simply trust that the science behind “AIDS” is sound. Although, even as TS has pointed out (and I agree)…even a 12-year-old should be able to see that the HIV=AIDS paradigm is fatally-flawed.

  3. Henry B Says:

    There is an important distinction, rarely made anywhere but in specialist academic literature, and never made in the media, between doctors and scientists. Doctors are trained to treat patients, relying on knowledge passed on to them by others. Scientists who go into research, after graduate and postdoctoral experience, have learned how to go about assessing the validity of the current consensus and how to go about trying to acquire new knowledge.

    Of course, individual MDs may learn how to do research. Individual MDs may even somehow find the time to read the research literature on one or another topic. But it is not feasible for practicing physicians to assess for themselves the validity of currently consensual knowledge on every matter that their patients bring to them: statins? COX-2 inhibitors? seldane and hismanal? etc.–all the “miracle” drugs whose side effects turned out to be worse than the conditions they are supposed to treat. Practicing physicians have to rely on what the FDA approves.

    It is worth noting in the HIV/AIDS business that MDs are vastly overrepresented among the HIV=AIDS establishment, whereas scientists are vastly overrepresented among the HIV “dissidents”.

    The distinction between doctors and scientists is a matter of fact, not of worthiness or trustworthiness. There is much wrong with the system of medical care in the USA, but those least responsible for the ills–overall and as a group–are the physicians themselves. (Full disclosure: no member of my family is a physician. But my PhD mentor was first a PhD (Bonn) and then an MD (Padua), and he would often return from his clinical lab in a hospital to sigh, “The trouble with doctors is that they are not scientists”).

    The HIV/AIDS mess was created largely by officialdom in the shape of granting agencies, primarily NIH, and the fact that too many of the leading professionals in NIH and CDC are MDs and not scientists. Most particularly lacking in those places is a proper understanding of statistical inference.

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    Doctors are trained to treat patients, relying on knowledge passed on to them by others. Scientists who go into research, after graduate and postdoctoral experience, have learned how to go about assessing the validity of the current consensus and how to go about trying to acquire new knowledge.

    This is all very true, of course, and the primary reason for the delay between new scientific results and the changes they dictate in the practice of medicine. OK, that there should be a delay before the medical brigade follow new sign posts is not a bad thing in itself, since the test of time and tradition has some value and novel results may be revised or later prove to be aberrations. But we are talking here of neglecting 22 years of medical literature which constantly contradicts the ruling wisdom and warns that patients are dying of the medication. And new techniques mean that updating is more urgent than ever. A patient’s life may be saved by new data.

    There is really no excuse today for specialists or even GPs not keeping up. Searching the literature on PubMed with key words is as easy as reading an insert.

    What precisely are they paid for? Essentially, the supposedly up to date knowledge which informs their care. Better and more judicious expertise than their patients. They shouldn’t earn $150,000 or $300,000 a year and still have to be informed by patients waving Web research pages in front of their noses.

  5. Mouth of the Yellow River Says:

    Ni Hao!

    You have touched on the flaws in the juggernaut commercialization and politicization of science in general that began in the late 70’s, early 80’s using the HIV=AIDS nonsense as prime example and secondarily cancer research based on simplistic genetic mutation theory (and in the atmospheric sciences, man-caused global climate change). Lemmings, wildwest buffalo or crowded chickens or turkeys would probably be more appropriate than sheep in the animal kingdom analogy to human endeavors in this area.

    The sham called peer review of science fixes the futile cycling in place in that it is populated by the very lemmings who survive the precipace.

    There is no such thing as the scientific method being employed in its empirical sense in modern times and there is little hope for a reversal or Kuhnsian paradigm shift except by a sheer act of God under the current system.

    However, it would be refreshing if the political powers that be professing the support of science, and the welfare recipient lemmings and sheep going under the guise of scientists and their “translational vehicles” (doctors) would be honest and say, hell, the best idea and policy is to throw tremendous amounts of hard earned taxpayers money at support of our mindless and random activity going under the smokescreen of the scientific method and the Hippocratic Oath. This may have a devastating cost on the human guinea pig populations while we hope for the miracle of an enlightening paradigm shift in understanding complex biological systems, but trust me, it will be worth it in the long term.

    At least this is the group to most likely stumble onto something compared to all other known random endeavors like religious, philosophical and political approaches. But how to minimize their ignorant collateral damage is a challenge.


    Happy Year of the Pig (Feb. 18)

  6. kevin Says:

    “There is much wrong with the system of medical care in the USA, but those least responsible for the ills–overall and as a group–are the physicians themselves.” — Henry B.


    Doctors absolutely shoulder a large degree of responsiblity for the decrepit state of modern medicine. The most obvious reason being that they hold the important distinction of being a patient’s first contact point with the system. Thus, the viability of the entire system, including their role in it, requires that the exchange between doctors and patients be conducted with integrity and with honesty. Such honest exchanges are the exception, and if honest clinical assessments were the norm, a medical tragedy of this magnitude would never have been possible. Furthermore, there are numerous professional organizations, operated by doctors and for doctors, wherein accountability could be achieved; however, those organizations are also highly dysfunctional, and the doctors who are elected as representatives within these organizations do everything in their power to mitigate accountability and perpetuate the politicization of the profession. I do, however, agree that this behavior is encouraged by the secondary industries that overwhelmingly shape the kind of medical care doctors provide, namely insurance and pharmaceutical companies. That said, the system will never function healthily until doctors return to their traditional role as patient advocates. The reality today is that doctors are willfully being used by the aforementioned corporations for profiteering, and they operate not as patient advocates but as glorified drug dealers who obtain substantial material benefit from the current state of affairs, not unlike drug dealers you might find in a back alley.

    You, Henry B., want to argue that doctors do not have time to stay educated to the latest and greatest scientific results, but if you understand what I’ve explained above, you might be asking yourself, “who’s fault is that?â€? I, as a concerned and ill patient, found it very easy to motivate myself to seek out information regarding my own health problems, particularly after years of failed conventional treatments. Yet, when I offered to share this information with my too-busy-to-be-educated doctors, they all responded negatively, as if I was overstepping my rights as a patient by questioning their treatment recommendations. They can’t have it both ways. Either they can find the time necessary to be good doctors or they should expect patients to help them stay educated. I cannot imagine a profession that would benefit more from “continuing educationâ€? requirements than medical doctors, can you? The reality is that doctors are happy with the status quo. They are collecting large salaries, and the malpractice protection provided by the big corporations requires that they toe the party-line.

    I’ve been observing the inner workings of this flawed system for many years as a very motivated participant, and I can say without a doubt, no medical reform will work until doctors take responsibility for their role as enablers. The following quote from TS’s is exactly right:

    “But we are talking here of neglecting 22 years of medical literature which constantly contradicts the ruling wisdom and warns that patients are dying of the medication. And new techniques mean that updating is more urgent than ever.”

    This neglect is willful and not due to solely to time constraints.


  7. noreen martin Says:

    Kevin, I have to chime in on agreement with you. If the lay person can find out new theories/treatments why can’t they? It’s simple a matter of they do not want too. They like the status quo of being the smart doctor in charge of the poor, defenseless patient. Why would they want us to rock that boat. For 2 years, every doctor visit I had, I would bring in stacks of new information about numerous medical issues, rarely, would they acknowlege any new or different treatments or forget about my viewpoints of AIDS. To keep my sanity, I realized that I could not change them with arguments or the truth. I settled for my keep on keeping on and still seeing them as they have no answer to why I do so well without their drug.

  8. K. Mustafa Ali Says:

    Globalization and AIDS

    K. Mustafa Ali

    New Chuburji Park,



    92-42-741 44 56


    AIDS has become one of the major health problems affecting people around the world. As of 2006, more than 39.5 million people are currently living with HIV, and By 2010 it is estimated that approximately 100 million people will have been infected and that there will be 25 million AIDS orphans worldwide. By 2006 an estimated 39.5 million (34.1- 47.1 million) people were living with HIV/AIDS. Sub-Saharan Africa has been the region hardest hit by the HIV/AIDS epidemic; more than two-thirds of all people with HIV/AIDS are in this region.

    Asia is also grappling with the increasing feminization of the epidemic and its impact on children and families. The prevailing poverty among women and its further accentuation or ‘feminization of poverty’ due to adverse effects of globalization make the women in the region highly vulnerable to the epidemic. The impact of Globalization, which effect directly in some individual culture in some region, the opinion of AIDS researcher Mohammad Khairul Alam, “the mixed effect of traditional norm and globalization has brought frustration in the man. For these two things people are forgetting traditional social norms, social values and the social structure are facing a great threat following the western and others cultures. Familitical ties are breaking; family sexual behaviour is changing, attitudes of peoples towards sex is changing very fast. Besides migration for jobs, an increasing number of women taking up jobs outside the home, a decline in the traditional joint family system, and conflict to global culture were considered to have contributed to this phenomenon.� The situation is further aggravated by the presence of all forms of violence against women including those in conflict and disaster situations.

    From about 20% a decade ago, the percentage of women accounting for new infections has risen to 30 per cent indicating a constantly rising vulnerability of women and girls to HIV. Severe gender inequality in political, social, educational and economic areas and absence of informed choices in the region, render women extremely vulnerable to HIV and subject them to intense stigma and discrimination. Often, women have no control over their sexual lives and have extremely limited access to prevention information and services. However, even the best knowledge on prevention does not guarantee protection for women due to the overpowering dominance of patriarchy. It is not merely coincidental that about 14 per cent and 60 per cent of the girls over the age of 15 in South East Asia and South Asia respectively are illiterate. The Rainbow Nari O Shishu Kallyan Foundation survey focuses on the attitude, behavior and practice of commercial &non- commercial / casual sex workers (so-called sex workers), floating/ street sex workers in Dhaka city in Bangladesh, this study did point out that almost 16% of sex workers enter the profession before the age of 18 years, and 30% enter between 18 to 24 years of age. Approximately 10% of prostitutes belong to the scheduled castes minority people; about 90% floating sew workers enrolled due to poverty, and 85% are illiterate.

    Meanwhile, an issue that has a far reaching socio-economic impact, but is not acknowledged and measured in economic terms, is the stigma and discrimination faced by people living with HIV. The spread of HIV/AIDS presents a challenge to all of us in the Asia region, which is threatening to offset gains in human development. It underlines the urgency of effective prevention and changes in behaviors and attitudes in order to combat HIV/AIDS and mitigate its effects.


    1. WHO report, HIV/AIDS in Asia and the Pacific Region, 2003.

    2. Asia Pacific’s Opportunity: Investing to avert an HIV/AIDS Crisis, July 2004. ADB/UNAIDS study series.

    3. “Oh! This one is infected!�: Women, HIV &Human Rights in the Asia Pacific Region, paper commissioned by the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, ICW, 2004

    4. “From Involvement to Empowerment�, UNDP, 2004

    5. AIDS in Asia: Face the Facts. Monitoring the AIDS Panedmic (MAP) Report, 2004, HDR, 2003

    6. Rainbow Nari O Shishu Kallyan Foundation

  9. noreen martin Says:

    Wow, what a crock of misinformation. I love the term GLOBAL AIDS, which is basically a non-epidemic in the United States and so much for the argument that the anti-virals are saving live. In fact the AIDS deaths are now due to the drugs and not to the disease. AIDS is not increasing in the states because people are getting educated to this fact and are not taking the toxic drugs.

    My question for the above person would be, what was killing all of these people before AIDS, could it have been malnutrition, dirty water, unfit-living conditions, routine and basic medical attention, all which leads to diseae. Isn’t this the same thing that’s killing them now?

  10. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    The above person has a name, Noreen. K. Mustafa Ali. KMA makes many important points, that are not at all misinformed, regarding the seriously awful position many women are in all over the world. And KMA notes that much of this is due to the “feminization of poverty,” which is indeed, a global phenomenon. The question of course, is, as you have pointed out — how much of this is HIV/AIDS? That’s a fair question to ask. But KMA did not present a “crock of misinformation.” In fact, KMA presented a great deal of information that is not all refutable. The question is in the interpretation — is HIV/AIDS involved? If it’s not involved as an actual disease, it is most definitely involved in terms of the persecution faced by those who are labelled as HIV+ in these countries. One step at a time, Noreen. It is not right to hand wave KMA’s entire comment aside. There is a lot of important, factual, and real information in there.

  11. noreen martin Says:

    Mark, you’ve made my point for me. If HIV and AIDS were non existent, then these women would not be, to a very large extent, victimized and ostracized in their society. For that matter, neither would anyone else who has been labeled HIV+. All this labeling does to these poor individuals is to add insult to injury to already unbearable conditions.

  12. Wilyretrovirus Says:

    KMA’s post is little more than an attempt to lob a hand grenade at the rethinkers here.

    What does it have to do with the topic of this thread?

  13. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Noreen, I don’t make your point for you at all. The point I make is that women live in poverty all over the world. That’s an irrefutable fact. And Wily — one might argue that HIV/AIDS has at least shown a light on the horrendous situation women are in internationally. And since when do we keep track of what points are on topic or off topic here? Wasn’t the last thread enough evidence of how tangential things get? Give me a break. Sure, we don’t agree that HIV/AIDS is the main culprit, if any culprit at all. But the rest of KMA’s post is right on. Pick your battles. Women in poverty — not one of them.

  14. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    And by the way — I’ve just received bountiful email evidence that KMA is in fact Bialy or Gene — if you email me, I’ll send the evidence to you.

    So here we are, TS, apparently arguing about one of Harvey and Gene’s little tricks again. When will you stop this madness? This site is a shambles. Harvey Bialy and Gene Semon are running circles around you. Around all of us. I think they’ve gone far beyond being given the continued privilege of posting here. Time to block them both, once and for all. Don’t be weak-in-the-knees here, TS. They’ve already made a fool of you too many times for that. This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

  15. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Mmm. Forgot to include Claus Jensen in my indictment — or MacDonald, as we’ve come to know him. Sorry for that oversight, Claus. I do miss the days when you and I emailed long stories about our personal lives. I’ve kept those emails too. I’m a real pack rat that way.

  16. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    And while I’m holy rolling, I suppose it’s time to come clean with some new news:

    I’ve terminated “HIV” care entirely. Drugs, blood tests — all of it.

    This move was not prompted by anything anyone wrote here. It was prompted by the writing of two very compassionate and clear-headed women: Celia Farber and Rebecca Culshaw. Rebecca’s incredibly well-written book was the final nail in the coffin for me.

    I don’t say that I know what is up — what causes what. Because I don’t know the answers to those questions and would never pretend to know. So this is not an endorsement of any alternative paradigm at all. It’s a condemnation of all paradigms, and a move to free myself from this nasty prolonged entanglement with the medical profession.

    Now, enough said by me, for the time being.

  17. kevin Says:

    “All this labeling does to these poor individuals is to add insult to injury to an already unbearable conditions.” –Noreen Martin

    Very good point, Noreen. Had I ever been labeled HIV+, I’m not sure I would have had the courage to continue seeking my own answers. Those of you who must suffer this stigma while regaining your health are to be commended. You must be a very strong-willed individuals. I am lucky that I never tripped an Elisa considering how severe my canididiasis became, not to mention how I was bullied into taking the test 3 or 4 times a year. I saw through the charade a little clearer with each negative result. The confused, disappointed looks of my doctors was both chilling and empowering. If I can find the time, I’ll add a comment describing the last time I gave in to the meme. It was a memorable doc visit, that’s for sure.


  18. kevin Says:

    “I’ve terminated “HIV” care entirely. Drugs, blood tests — all of it.” — Mark

    I wish you well, Mark. It’s so much easier to feel well, when there are fewer people in your life waiting for you to get sick. If you ever want any commentary about particular holistic treatments, I’d be happy to give my two cents worth. I’ve tried about everything, and when appropriate, I tried many of them isolated from other treatments to better gauge their effectiveness. Anyway, the email on my account is real, so feel free.

    My personal goal is to make it two years without seeing a doctor. I’m at 21 months, right now (hope I didn’t jinx it). Before that, the longest I’d ever gone was a few months, I think. I’ve had a few health problems, some uncommon, but all have been mild and quick to resolve using only holistic, home care. I’ve even gotten over two sinus infections without antibiotics. There are some very effective natural treatments for sinusitis, so if anyway else suffers so, I extend my email offer to you all.


  19. Truthseeker Says:

    I’ve terminated “HIV” care entirely. Drugs, blood tests — all of it.

    This move was not prompted by anything anyone wrote here. It was prompted by the writing of two very compassionate and clear-headed women: Celia Farber and Rebecca Culshaw. Rebecca’s incredibly well-written book was the final nail in the coffin for me.

    I don’t say that I know what is up — what causes what. – Mark

    Glad to hear it. That is apparently how people survive.

    However, we are disappointed at the reasons, which sound much the same as the emotional ones that seduced you into it in the first place, even though you claim to be persuaded by Rachel Culshaw’s well argued book, currently sold out in its first printing.

    This blog stands for the influence of scientific reason and evidence, and we are going to redouble our efforts in the face of your lack of appreciation.

  20. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Here’s the thing, TS — it’s all in the approach, really. Did people really think I’d be convinced to leave HIV behind by being scorned, dismissed, and insulted? Certainly, many interesting arguments were made here — but a lot of mud slinging took place too. Not so with Celia or Rebecca. There — all wonderful points, and no personal mud slinging. Seems like the female dissidents could teach the male dissidents a thing or two. And thanks, Kevin, for your support.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 386 access attempts in the last 7 days.