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.

Dying is “doing well”

Crowe reads Journal of AIDS with meme-free vision

“The drugs work”, don’t they? Well, they kill babies

Collateral damage small price to pay for HIV protection – circumcision doesn’t protect!

bigdark.gifDavid Crowe of the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society has been reading the August 20 2007 issue of the Journal named “AIDS”. He is not wearing the meme prescription glasses supplied free by the editors and researchers of that leading journal, so they may not like what he finds.

His comments are bold in [] brackets:

[This issue of “AIDS” also has two articles on how to properly stop taking AIDS drugs. I guess they are worried about people both stopping drugs AND stopping visiting their doctors…]

[Severe side effects in a little girl due to exposure to AIDS drugs in the womb]
“A 7-month-old girl was admitted to intensive care following resuscitation for a severe metabolic acidosis. Her mother had started highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) at 6-weeks gestation before she knew she was pregnant…The mother…was asymptomatic prior to starting HAART with combivir and nevirapine for a CD4 of 200 million/L and viral load of 280,000 copies/mL.”
Silf K et al. Methylmalonic acidaemia in a 7-month-old following maternal highy active antiretroviral therapy during pregnancy. AIDS. 2007 Aug 20; 21(13): 1835-1836.

darkmirrored.jpegDear reader, let us expound on this for a moment. If you believe that HIV causes AIDS, you write and publish such a report without a single pang of self-questioning, because these deadly side effects are merely the collateral damage of the top priority aim of keeping the virus at bay, even when the mother has no symptoms. Such is the power of the HIV∫AIDS meme. To those uninhabited by the AIDS meme, however, like David Crowe, the concern is the effect of antiretroviral drugs on the foetus, here exemplified as something which can kill at seven months after birth.

Ants in the anthill – almost none

ants.jpgPerhaps in this context it might be worth reflecting that 280,000 copies per milliliter may sound like an infestation of virus comparable to ants in an anthill, but what it actually signifies, even to meme ridden researchers, is less than five intact infectious copies per milliter. To be precise, 4.7 copies per ml, since there is only one fully intact infectious virus per ml if the viral load is 60,000 (see Piatak M. et al, Science 259:1749=1754, 1993)(“The PCR method they use overestimates by at least 60,000 times the real titre of infectious HIV: 100,000/60,000 is 1.7 infectious HIVs per ml, hardly the “virological mayhem” alluded to by Wain-Hobson… infectious units, after all, are the only clinically relevant criteria for a viral pathogen.” – Peter Duesberg and H. Bialy. HIV An Illusion. Nature, 375:197, May 18, 1995)

Positive and healthy for 36 years

[36 year long-term-non-progressor who, despite not knowing his status, did not transmit to his wife]
“In June 2006, a 77-year-old Japanese man with an acute asthma attack was admitted to our hospital in Yokohama, Japan. A pre-admission HIV screening test by enzyme immunoassay unexpectedly detected his HIV seropositivity…strong seroreactivity to HIV-2, but not to HIV-1 [and further tests confirmed this]…He had no history of engaging in high risk sexual contact and substance abuse in the past. Both his spouse (72 years old) and their son (34 years old) were HIV-negative. He, however, had a near-fetal[sic] motor accident in Senegal in June 1971…he received a large unit of blood from a number of volunteer Senegalian donors. He has never been transfused with blood products except on that occasion…After 8 days, he was discharged from hospital…His CD4 cell count was 827 cells/µL…He continues to be [a] long-term nonprogressor”
Utsumi T et al. An HIV-2-infected Japanese man who was a long-term nonprogressor for 36 years. AIDS. 2007 Aug 20; 21(13): 1834-5.

Another example of how the meme addles the brain of otherwise smart researchers. 36 years! Maybe the latent period of HIV-2 should be raised to average 20 years. Did they suggest he take ARVs after leaving hospital?

Babies do well as they die

[Dying is apparently the new “doing well”… ]
“A total of 439 [Malawian] children started on ART [anti-retroviral therapy]…By September 2006, 49 children (11%) had died, of whom 35 (71%) died by 3 months and 44 (89%) by 6 months. The cumulative incidence of death at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after ART was 8, 12, 13 and 15%, respectively…CONCLUSION:: Although children do well on ART, there is high early mortality [!]”
Bong CN et al. Risk factors for early mortality in children on adult fixed-dose combination antiretroviral treatment in a central hospital in Malawi. AIDS. 2007 Aug 20; 21(13): 1805-1810.

In the meme warped view, death is not too high a price to pay for avoiding the depredations of the Virus. You only lose one in six children in two years, after all. The rest may be sick from the not yet fatal effects of the drugs, but they are triumphant over HIV.

[More evidence of the infant deaths that formula feeding is causing, although the authors of this study don’t actually supply the raw death rate]
“The World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF recommend that HIV-positive women should avoid all breastfeeding only if replacement feeding is acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe…[This study was a] Prospective cohort study of 635 HIV-positive mother-infant pairs across three sites in South Africa to assess mother to child transmission of HIV…Three criteria were found to be associated with improved infant HIV-free survival amongst women choosing to formula feed: piped water; electricity, gas or paraffin for fuel; and disclosing HIV status…Infants of women who chose to formula feed without fulfilling these three criteria had the highest risk of HIV transmission/death [the risk of death alone is not given]”
Doherty T et al. Effectiveness of the WHO/UNICEF guidelines on infant feeding for HIV-positive women: results from a prospective cohort study in South Africa. AIDS. 2007 Aug 20; 21(13): 1791-1797.

Even in South Africa, one of the very few places where the global meme has not yet turned the entire population into paradigm pod people, they are pushing bottle feeding in a food and hygiene challenged society where breast feeding is one of the best protections against nutritional deficits and infection for helpless babies and their hapless mothers.

***************************************
Perhaps in this context it might be worth reflecting that 280,000 copies per milliliter may sound like an infestation of virus comparable to ants in an anthill, but what it actually signifies, even to meme ridden researchers, is less than five intact infectious copies per milliter. To be precise, 4.7 copies per ml, since there is only one fully intact infectious virus per ml if the viral load is 60,000…
****************************************

By the way, what does a meme free observer suspect, if piped water, electricity, and fuel correlate with lower HIV transmission/death? Could it be that other diseases are being kept at bay here, so death or HIV positivity (through cross reactions with other agents such as TB) shows up less often? Enquiring minds not yet paralyzed by the AIDS meme might ask this question.

Contraceptive hormones test positive, but circumcision doesn’t help after all!

[Hormonal contraception makes women more likely to be HIV+ but …]
“Data were from a prospective cohort study of 1206 HIV-1 seronegative sex workers from Mombasa, Kenya who were followed monthly…233 women acquired HIV-1 (8.7/100 person-years)…In multivariate analysis, including adjustment for HSV-2, HIV-1 acquisition was associated with use of oral contraceptive pills [adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.46] and depot medroxyprogesterone acetate [aka DMPA or Depo-Provera, a contraceptive providing 3 months protection with each injection] (adjusted HR, 1.73).”
Baeten JM et al. Hormonal contraceptive use, herpes simplex virus infection, and risk of HIV-1 acquisition among Kenyan women. AIDS. 2007 Aug 20; 21(13): 1771-1777.

So the hormones or their effect cross react with the HIV antibody test, and render hundreds of sex workers ripe for antiretrovirals, even though their ability to infect truck drivers from Nairobi and spread AIDS through Kenya is nil, if we believe Nancy Padian’s study which showed no transmission at all in San Francisco among heterosexual couples except for that deduced by her imagination, which even then amounted to only one transmission in 9000 or so couplings.

So have these sex workers been put on ARVs, or what? Shall we guess?

Circumcision doesn’t protect!

[…but circumcision does not]
“Data were analyzed from 4417 Ugandan and Zimbabwean women participating in a prospective study of hormonal contraception and HIV acquisition…At baseline [start of the study], 74% reported uncircumcised primary partners, 22% had circumcised partners and 4% had partners of unknown circumcision status. Median follow-up was 23 months, during which 210 women acquired HIV (167, 34, and 9 women whose primary partners were uncircumcised, circumcised, or of unknown circumcision status, respectively). Although unadjusted analyses indicated that women with circumcised partners had lower HIV risk than those with uncircumcised partners, the protective effect disappeared after adjustment for other risk factors”
Turner AN et al. Men’s circumcision status and women’s risk of HIV acquisition in Zimbabwe and Uganda. AIDS. 2007 Aug 20; 21(13): 1779-1789.

So circumcision has no protective effect after all? But this is the latest thing! We can’t have contradiction of the latest hot fashion in HIV∫AIDS talk, not when we have whole conferences scheduled on it!

High CD4 count? Giv’em drugs!

[Large study of HIV-positive people not taking drugs. Shows a strikingly low death rate among groups with high CD4 counts … and then recommends they should all be put on AIDS drugs…]
“17 609 [HIV-positive people] contributed a total of 30 313 person-years to the analysis of rates of AIDS or death in ART[anti-retroviral-therapy]-naive patients…The first AIDS events occurring at CD4 cell count >350 cells/mL were…examined: 63 (20%) were Kaposi’s sarcoma (compared with 16% overall), 62 (20%) oesophageal candidiasis (17% overall), 42 (14%) tuberculosis (13% overall), 35 (11%) herpes simplex (6% overall), 37 (12%) recurrent bacterial infections (6% overall), 20 (6%) Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (19% overall), 17 (5%) cryptosporidiosis (3% overall) and 13 (4%) lymphoma (3% overall)…[Table 1 shows that the risk of death in 100 person years is 0.32 for CD4 counts 350-499, 0.20 for 500-649 and 0.17 for over 650]…[despite this, the authors conclude]…Our findings suggest that risk of AIDS and death might be reduced by using ART to raise CD4 cell counts even among patients with high CD4 cell counts”
Rate of AIDS diseases or death in HIV-infected antiretroviral therapy-naive individuals with high CD4 cell count. AIDS. 2007 Aug 20; 21(13): 1717-1721.

“Our findings suggest that risk of AIDS and death might be reduced by using ART to raise CD4 cell counts even among patients with high CD4 cell counts”. So the fact that HIV doesn’t seem to result in death very often even for people under the death sentence of HIV antibody positivity if they don’t take drugs, and that many have high CD4 counts, this is a good reason to start giving the latter group death dealing drugs?

alberta.jpegPerhaps our brain is not working very well, but this seems wrong to us too. What do you think, gentle reader?

As far as we are concerned, living in Alberta, Canada seems to give you a very clear perspective. Go to Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society for much good data on the HIV∫AIDS challenge and the latest news items on the battle front.

8 Responses to “Dying is “doing well””

  1. MartinDKessler Says:

    The AIDS establishment probably assumes correctly that the general public either (1) haven’t read the above excerpts or (2) even if they did couldn’t comprehend it. Maybe I’m underestimating the intelligence of the public – but the web has a huge stimulus overload of information. The public may retrieve their information from web sources they are comfortable with or that makes them comfortable – something the AIDS dissident sites may not do for them.

  2. Truthseeker Says:

    Whether people are “comfortable” with new information must have a lot to do with whether they already agree with it or not, and brain research suggests they will switch new data around to fit their preconceived framework, which is hard for a dissent site to do, that is, first meet thei preconceptions. Easiest thing in the world for a conventional site, of course. So you must be right, the dissent site starts off on the wrong foot, by definition. Some people must like it, though. We do – we find any debunking is automatically interesting unless it is obviously dumb. Seems to us that by definition anything that can turn the world upside down is exciting. Presumably others are too insecure.

    Tons of information on the Web for sure but dont most people soon develop a filter which rejects most of it as unreliable? This site exists to make these things they dont understand intelligible, so they can see things for themselves. But it would be terrific if the NIH had a reform policy like lawyers, and refused to pay for studies until they tested 95% understood by 12 year olds.

    Of course the real audience that need things to be explained super clearly is politicians, celebrities and others with power to change things, which of course is why Dr Fauci will probably not support Operation Clarity for anything accurate in HIV∫AIDS theory, where he is still peddling the idea that HIV kills T cells on Charlie Rose, while writing in reviews that it stimulates their production.

    Probably the whole scene would improve if dissenting sites just said that HIV didn’t cause AIDS, period, instead of mincing about trying to be respectable by acting as if it wasn’t entirely resolved.

    A communication from Dr Bialy out of the blue a day or two tells us to say he has no interest in AIDS any more since the matter of the science is “settled”, and he is entirely occupied with his art which is about to be exhibited in Mexico, where he is now a permanent resident.

    Frankly in our opinion anyone who is still capable of thinking at all who reviews the data and doesn’t realize the issue is settled is plain dumb as an oyster. Or suffering from one of the distorting human impulses listed above. But lack of objectivity is a kind of dumbness so we reckon that the smart people at the top like Fauci and John “I did win awards they are just not listed on my Cornell page” P. Moore know exactly what they are doing, whether they admit it to themselves or not.

    This is a massive genocide which demands straight talk if they are ever to be called to account. Is there really any genuine excuse for it? They live off the sacrifice of health and lives. However, this is not to say that all except the very top leaders are not just plain dumb, carried along by mind warping social currents. Probably they all are.

    Above them, however, it is guilty on a charge of manslaughter. But of course, to say anything like that sounds like the rants of Moore to anyone who comes here from reading newspapers.

    But surely the only way the critics can get anywhere is to Act Up, themselves. Anyone for dramatizing this stuff with direct action, instead of running polite sites? Why didnt Act Up SF ever run interference in public – or did it?

    If not, why bother? As one experienced in the politics of cancer over the last thirty years told us today, when we asked how long they thought it would take, “Not in my life time”. That meant not in the next 25 years or more.

  3. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Truthseeker,
    It is an unfortunate fact that many of us who choose to go off meds, as I have, are still asked to submit to blood tests at least 4 times per year (I refuse), to take Bacterim if our T-cell counts go under 200 even only briefly (I have refused repeatedly), and are discouraged from seeing other specialists for any other health problems we might have because “it’s all HIV-related anyway.” For these reasons, many of us stop seeing doctors altogether, as I have. When I’m sick, I figure out what I have and buy medications on-line, and treat myself. Or, as I now know I must do, I look up a doctor I’ve never seen before and fail to tell them about the harmless virus I may be carrying. Men like myself are pretty-much exiled from the medical establishment — which does of course put us at higher risk for other problems — which is of course, exactly what AIDS, Inc. wants. Don’t want to comply and take our chemotherapies? Well then, good luck to you getting anything resembling decent medical care. I was refused care recently because I am HIV+ AND won’t take the meds AND could not produce a recent CD4 count and viral load. So now — the discrimination is not against those who are HIV+, it’s against those who are HIV+ and refuse to play the game.

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    Hi Mark, yes, I can believe it. Mike Hersee of England was writing recently that when someone HIV+ he knew decided to skip the meds, the doc nearly had apoplexy and when he wouldn’t listen, afterwards treated him as some kind of a pariah.
    So this is another factor – perhaps the most lethal of all, in a way. Also the most revealing of how the medical profession works, in a depressing way. Apparently docs are not acquiring, building up and selling their knowledge and expertise derived from hands on experience with patients, they are selling their authority, whether they know what they are doing or not. Not in this case. Must be where that reaction comes from – if you know something you don’t get upset if a patient won’t cooperate, at least not angry, do you? It is that there is something to be concealed, that beneath the authority there is a big hollow space which hasn’t been topped up since they won their MD because they dont have time to read much (and they dont care to – one friend tells me that when he was using the Weill Cornell library they were all reading the sports pages if they were seen in the library at all.

    So if you dont take your damaging medications for a harmless virus they get seriously disturbed at someone dissing their one professional qualification, perhaps.

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    OK here it is, I found the exchange about how docs scream at patients who give up on the drugs, it was on the AIDSoc List:

    O, I tend to be supportive of anyone’s decision to quit meds, but in your case I have a serious question to ask first: How sure are YOU that you will benefit by quitting?

    If you aren’t convinced that the meds are doing more harm than good, and that you will benefit by quitting them, then psychological factors can come into play that may cause psychosomatic illness. In such a case, you might actually be better off NOT quitting for the meantime, even if the meds aren’t doing any good at all.

    Of course, I still think that you should make it your goal to get off of those godawful pills, and I think it will do wonders for your health if you do. However, before making that decision, you should consider very carefully how YOU feel about it, and not worry quite so much what the rest of us think is best for you. After all, if it turns out to be a bad decision, it won’t be us who suffer for it.

    Having said that, you have my overwhelming support for whatever decision you choose to make, particularly if it involves quitting meds.

    — G

    O,

    I wholeheartedly endorse G’s advice, and something else I’d advise too – If and when you decide to stop taking the meds, unless you have people around you who actively support you in that decision, keep that decision to yourself.

    The reason is that people around you who care about but who themselves have absolute faith in the medical establishment will put untold pressure on you to start taking them again. A case in point is the singer Beverley Knight, who said in an interview that a friend of hers had stopped taking the meds because they were making him so ill. She desperately persuaded him to carry on taking them because she believed they were his only hope, so he did, but died not that long after. If you want to avoid pressure from family and friends while you are doing what is for you an experiment because you are not sure, just keep the experiment to yourself.

    One thing is for sure – if you are still engaging with the medical establishment, as presumably you are if you are still getting prescriptions for the drugs, DON’T tell your doctors you’ve stopped. I promise you, the vast majority of medical professionals will turn into Nazis before your very eyes if you contradict their advice on something they believe in so intensely. They will withdraw ‘love’, and cooperation on anything and everything you want from them. They may rage at you and terrify you with threatening, dire predictions unless you yield to their advice again. When I went with a friend to his AIDS doctor, specifically because my friend wanted me to challenge the doctor to see who made the most sense, the doctor ended up literally shaking with fury and screaming at me, “HE’LL DIE WITHIN A YEAR IF HE DOESN’T TAKE THE DRUGS”.

    I was in shock because I’d never considered it possible that an experienced medical professional would behave in such an emotive and irrational manner, and he wasn’t the only doctor that has done that either. My friend said afterwards it had really terrified him, but he also said, “I’m not going back – every time I go to see the AIDS doctor I feel ill.” They will challenge your sanity and heaven knows what they may put in your medical notes. I know one guy whose doctor blatantly lied in his medical notes. Just make out you are a good boy, and keep getting the prescriptions if you want to continue engaging with them. But don’t put them down the toilet because they are harmful to aquatic life, and may persist in the water supply if it is fed back as drinking water. I certainly wouldn’t want AZT or protease inhibitors in my drinking water.

    Mike

    Hersee also writes to us today that

    I can think of one guy who resisted taking AIDS drugs and was refused things like dental treatment unless he complied, and also another guy’s girlfriend was denied treatment for a blood problem unless she also went on AIDS drugs. My previous partner I don’t remember actually being denied treatment unless he took the AIDS drugs, but a doctor who I visited with him said that his condition at the time (he died soon after of heart failure with a big infection in his congenitally-damaged heart valves) was ‘obviously’ due to him not taking the drugs and was not interested in any further investigation, until I insisted that he at least give him an examination.

  6. Mike Hersee Says:

    Just to directly add some thoughts about interaction with doctors, I can also relate a story about someone in another country I converse with occasionally (I can’t even mention the country because the person would become too identifiable which they don’t want). This person was pretty much the only person publicly questioning the AIDS paradigm and in fact they told me that our phonecalls were pretty much a lifeline in terms of moral support. This person’s own son and his fiance were antagonistically against them questioning the orthodox model of AIDS among this population that generally has unquestioning faith of authority, especially with the fiance belonging to medical authorities.

    Eventually this person sank into deep depression with the whole situation. In deep depression they became ill, and paranoid and almost psychotic. They were forcibly committed to psychiatric care and given what an external medic subsequently described as ‘surprisingly strong’ doses of anti-psychotic drugs. In this state the person agreed to start taking the AIDS drugs as they were very ill at that point and feared death. They started to make a recovery and not that long after was released from hospital too, whereupon they stopped taking the AIDS drugs.

    I only found out about this after I realised I hadn’t heard from them for several months, so emailed to find out what was happening and subsequently we spoke about it. It became apparent that the medical profession had been still displaying extreme coldness to them – withholding ‘love’ – until they agreed to start taking the AIDS drugs in a psychologically, emotionally and physically weakened state. Immediately they described a change of attitude on the part of medical staff that sounded more like ‘love-bombing’ that various cults have been accused of to bring emotionally vulnerable new recruits into the fold.

    They were of the opinion that the AIDS drugs themselves had helped, although when I put it to them that their recovery may have been due to the change from being extremely isolated to the loving attention of both the medical professionals and their own family, they thought about it and conceded it might have made a significant difference. They had already told me that the reason for becoming ill in the first place was solely because, “It was too much, and I was too much alone”.

    Tellingly, a similar situation happened again, after having disconnected from their son and fiance to the point of not even going to their wedding, as maintaining such a poisonous relationship was contributing significantly to the distress. The sudden collapse into depression and ill-health to the point of near death occurred when they were innocently congratulated by a third party that they were now a grandparent, and they had not been told by their own son and his wife. Subsequently I was told that this time it was caused by the sudden and dramatic corresponding feeling of insignificance and worthlessness because of that.

    Clearly, psychological factors are profoundly important in the well-being of people challenging the orthodox model of AIDS, and feeling of isolation is the key thing to avoid.

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks Mike, yes, the more these pictures get filled in the more powerful an influence the psychology of treatment medical and social seems to be on the outcome. However, if you read earlier posts you will see a few fill ins on how these drugs have a good effect initially because they are poisonous and wipe out parasitic flora and fauna that have taken up residence in the digestive system.

    Basically it would appear that two factors are at work: the suggestive system and the digestive system. One simply has to try and imagine what it is like to see how vast the effects of the suggestive system are. I believe research will eventually show that the cock and bull story of HIV and AIDS had a very powerful psychological effect on all that were persuaded they were involved. One can imagine that artists in particular were vulnerable with their well developed imaginations.

    So there went Nuriyev, AZT or no AZT:

    Rudolf Nuriyev, the great Russian ballet dancer, would have turned 65 on Monday.

    He was called the “Illegal Comet,” the “God of Dance.” He stunned people with his fantastic capacity for work, his vehement temper, his exceptional courage: having contracted AIDS, he lived – and worked! -with it for a record breaking period of 12 years. He liked to be the first. He was the first to have started wearing a skin-tight tricot, he was the first to perform a high jump. He made masculine dance important again.

    BREAKING NEWS
    Proton rocket launches suspended at Baikonur spaceport
    Osama bin Laden prepares new video
    Russia signs billion-dollar deal with Indonesia

    Anastacia: Little lady with big voice who beat breast cancer
    More…

    Born on a train in 1938, Nuriyev sped through his life at 100 kilometres per hour. No one danced as much as he. Having spent three years as a soloist with Leningrad’s Kirovsky Theatre, he has a brawl with the Soviet leadership because of his “amoral behaviour” during a foreign tour. In 1961, he deserts Russia for good and settles down in France.

    That moment marked the peak of Nuriyev ‘s fame and his innumerable tours. He gave at least 200 performances a year all over the world, and never left the stage for more than a fortnight. They said the only place in the world where he did not dance was Antarctica. Travelling across the world, Nuriyev kept falling under the influence of various ballet schools – Dutch, American, English, etc. -all the while remaining a true disciple of the Russian classical school. That was the essence of the “Nuriyev style.” Having settled down in France, Nuriyev conquered Europe. He appeared at the Covent Garden and the Grand Opera. Among his dancing partners was the great Margot Fontaine. They called the Nuriyev -Fontaine duo the most beautiful and poetic pair in the world.

    Still a highly prolific dancer, in 1983 Nuriyev headed the Paris Grand Opera. Despite protests from ill-wishers, he often staged Russian classics (mainly by Tchaikovsky). Worn out by disease by 1991, he left his post to change his profession and become a conductor. He was successful in that too.

    Huge popularity brought him money, which he spent on immovable property, antiques, pictures and fabrics. His Paris flat still serves as a sample of exemplary design. Foreign publications labelled him “the richest person in the world of ballet.” But neither money nor fame changed the dancer’s “plebeian substance and socialist ideals,” as Kirovsky Theater’s ballet prima Gabriela Komleva put it. Nevertheless, millions of admirers, who were either ignorant of or forgave him his weaknesses, he remained an unparalleled master of movement.

    Nuriyev died in 1993 and was buried in Sainte Genevieve de Bois, outside Paris.

    “Worn out by disease”…Reportedly he died from AZT, but presumably the fantasy was what ruined him, since he can’t have take full dose all the time.

  8. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    I can tell you that when I was denied care because I did not have a current CD4 count, I offered a current Total Lymphocyte count — that which the beloved World Health Organizations uses — and was told that really wasn’t good enough.

    We used to say that we had a Military-Industrial Complex in this country. Today, we have a Medical-Industrial-Governmental Complex, and if you don’t comply, then you are simply to be treated as less than human, or not treated at all.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 144 access attempts in the last 7 days.