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.

Fiction wars: “Wrongful Death” explodes on AIDS scene


Joins “Serious Adverse Events”, “Oncogenes” in front line attack on NIAID construct

Wave of fact/fiction may finally overwhelm HIV?AIDS sci-fi

Hot, hot, hot. No, not the US megaheatwave but the latest books attacking HIV?AIDS, now a trio with the arrival of Stephen Davis’s “Wrongful Death”.

Harvey Bialy’s “Oncogenes, Aneupolidy and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg” is enjoying a burst of sales in the wake of unconvincing attacks on Amazon by John Moore and his clique (amounting to only three friends/employees so far, sad to say). This only resulted in a wave of positive reviews from authorities as eminent as Lynn Margulis, so it could be said to have backfired as a way of undermining this rather unassailable book.

Actually today we like best of all this review, which makes the key point of all this debate: why is it necessary for defenders of the faith to tell us not to read its critics? (That’s right, Dr. Fauci, why is that? Why have you spent twenty years publicly squashing media review of HIV?AIDS scientific shakiness?)

Always read the book you are told not to read, July 6, 2006

Reviewer: Patrick T. Moore “free thinker” (Switzerland)

Rule of thumb for the laymen out there of which I am one: always read the book you are told not to read. The first part of the book is indeed difficult to read as it is very technical and for the rest, well, I had to interrupt my reading several times in order to collect my eye balls from the floor; the world of science will never look as mythical to me again. It is a world, exactly as the world I inhabit, within which a few censored uncorruptibles endlessly battle the very human politics of deceit, greed and fame. Thanks for the tip!

Then we had Celia Farber’s “Serious Adverse Events” getting a boost from Chicago Time Out’s pitch perfect review by Rachel Shindelman. Marcus Cohen, columnist for the Townsend Letter for doctor’s and patients, has also written a long and admiring review of “Serious Adverse Events” for his column next month (October issue):

Over the past year, familiarization with AIDS research and treatment has convinced me that efforts to quell dissent within this field are the most stifling in the medical world. Such a situation requires exposure – as often as possible…Ignore the HIV extremists who tag Farber a “denialist,” detest her AIDS reporting, and regard her as incapable of perceiving truth however near it approaches her. Forget the writers for mainstream media who’ve interviewed her, listened to her reminisce about her formative years in Sweden, where the government frequently lied about conditions and events, and drawn shallow pictures of her as temperamentally disposed to distrust authority. Farber knows that the truth shows a number of faces, some of them disguises, that it’s no cinch discerning which face is authentic…..If it were in my power, I’d award her a commendation for public service – and several purple hearts for wounds to her psyche and reputation suffered in performance.”

Cohen’s review includes many extremely powerful quotes from the book:

(show)

Long or short, there’s not a slow read among the 12 chapters.

Chapter Eight, titled “The Rebel Genius,” portrays Kary Mullis, who earned a Nobel Prize in 1993 for figuring out a method of rapidly mass-producing DNA segments, called the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Like Duesberg, Mullis doesn’t think HIV causes AIDS, and public airing of his disbelief has ticked off many of his scientific peers.

“A lot of people studying this disease are looking for the clever little pathways that will show how this works. Like, ‘What if this molecule was produced by this one and then this one by this one, and then what if this one and that one induce this one’ – that stuff becomes, after two molecules, conjecture of the rankest kind. People who sit there and talk about it don’t realize that molecules themselves are somewhat hypothetical, and that their interactions

are even more so. You don’t need to look that far. You don’t discover the cause of something like AIDS by dealing with incredibly obscure things.”

Mullis is also quoted as saying, frustrated, and irate:

“Do we care about these people that are HIV-positive whose lives have been ruined? Those are the people I’m most concerned about. Every night I think about this…The horror of it is every goddamn thing you look at…seems pretty scary to me…God, I hate this kind of crap…It just drives me to – I’m making tears thinking about it. I don’t see how to deal with it. I can’t possibly write a book that will describe it to somebody. You can’t do a damn 22.8-minute TV thing that is going to have any effect…”

“Science Fiction,” Farber’s tenth chapter, exposes the shoddy research and hype that led to mass adoption of drug cocktails – combinations of recently-developed protease inhibitors and AZT – to prevent replication of HIV and drop viral load below detectable levels. Dr. David Ho, newly-chosen director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in NY and his colleague Dr. Markowitz had conducted the pioneering research on the combination therapy, giving cocktails to 9 AIDS patients.

Ho reported his findings at the International AIDS Conference in Vancouver in the summer of 1996; after cocktail therapy for between 90 and 300 days, the nine patients showed no evidence of HIV in the bloodstream. Hit early and hard, Ho concluded, and it was possible to eradicate HIV permanently.

Farber quotes Dr. Steven Miles, professor of medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, on the impact of Ho’s findings and conclusion: “It was almost like an instantaneous religion, or a cult, right after Vancouver. You were either a part of that hit-hard-hit-early religion or you were not. It split the HIV community.” She sums up the broader effects of Ho’s research: “The ‘breakthrough’ provided hope to two main players: HIV-positive people could hope for a new lease on life, and the drug companies could sell drugs like never before. They could even keep their customers convinced, through the AIDS-care network itself, that total compliance with the draconian discipline of the cocktail was the only path to heroic survival. Miss one pill, the new wisdom held, and HIV, enigmatically, will ‘mutate.’”

Cohen writes that “Farber devotes the rest of this chapter to demolishing Ho’s mathematical model… She accomplishes this chiefly through quotes from experts critical of Ho and the cocktails. I should add that more than half of these experts subscribe to the theory that HIV causes AIDS.”

“Ho’s equations predict that over the course of ten years, an HIV-positive person will produce more particles of HIV than there are atoms in the universe. There is no way you could make that much virus.” (Mark Craddock, mathematician, University of Technology – Sidney)

“Of course it’s wrong…Everyone knows that…The notion of ‘eradication’ is just total science fiction. Every retrovirologist knows this. The RNA of retroviruses turns into DNA and becomes part of us. It’s part of our being. You can’t ever get rid of it.” (Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, AIDS clinical researcher)

On measuring viral load: “When they look for HIV in breast milk, they do forty-five cycles of PCR, which is a 35-trillion-fold amplification, in order to find enough genetic material. We are at the level of nuclear physics now with this PCR stuff. And David Ho talks about making HIV ‘undetectable.’ It starts out undetectable. That’s the whole point. HIV has always been more or less undetectable.

“So they’ve taken a number that is next to nothing, and mass multiplied it. But it’s still next to nothing. Just a bunch of numbers that are used to scare people and make

people go on these drugs…All this stuff about wanting to get to zero, or to undetectable, is absurd because it implies that a single particle of HIV is lethal, but it’s not.

“This is the biological equivalent of counting bumpers in a junkyard and saying they represent functional cars.” (Dr. David Rasnick, definitely not an HIV subscriber; once employed by Abbott in diagnostics)

On side effects: “The meaning of the side effects suffered by patients who have been prescribed Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) – the multi-drug regimen that includes protease inhibitors and is now the standard of care for AIDS patients, including adults, children, and pregnant women – is fiercely contested. There are facts and figures, studies and counter-studies, a virtual blizzard of data that could be arranged to show any number of things. The new AIDS drugs have saved people’s lives: That’s one piece of truth. But the new AIDS drugs have killed people: This is another piece of truth. The drugs have damaged and deformed some people so badly that although they are alive, they wish they were dead. In the end, everybody who is taking protease inhibitors is contributing to one big medical experiment and no one knows what the outcome will be. “’There is absolutely no question whatsoever that protease inhibitors have helped people,’ notes Joseph Sonnabend. ‘But they’ve probably hurt more people than they’ve helped. That’s why it’s complicated. The people for whom benefit has been proven beyond a doubt are really sick people who would have died without them three years ago. But the target population for the drug companies are the healthy people, and these people will almost certainly have their lives shortened by these drugs.’” (Farber)

“One of the unexpected effects of protease inhibitors seen in recent years was a disruption of the body’s fat-distribution mechanisms. This in turn has caused strokes and heart attacks in many patients at the very moment when the drugs were theoretically ‘working,’ meaning so-called surrogate markers (CD4 cells and viral load) were going the right way. The other significant danger of HAART proved to be liver and kidney failure, which, according to a study done at the University of Colorado Health Science Center ‘surpassed deaths due to advanced HIV’ in 2002. In 2005 the Wall Street Journal reported that, according to a Danish study, AIDS drug cocktails ‘may double the risk of heart attacks.’ “‘The vast majority – about 75 percent – of people who go on these drugs are completely healthy,’ says Dr. Steven Miles. ‘Large numbers of people are being inappropriately treated with drugs they don’t need. And their lives are probably being shortened, yes.’” (Farber)

On compliance: “An entire surveillance system has been put in place to ensure that people stick to the new drugs despite their side effects. There are computer chips embedded in bottle caps that record the date and time of each opening. There are beepers, support groups, buddy systems, observation centers where patients take the drugs while being watched, and even groups of AIDS professionals who infiltrate people’s social networks to enlist them to help promote and dispense the drugs. They call it ‘treatment compliance,’ and it has largely replaced safe-sex as the core social imperative of the AIDS industry. The goal is to get as many HIV-positive people on the drugs as possible, whether they are sick or healthy, and to keep them on them, through debilitating ill effects, which are dismissed as a small price to pay for the benefit of lowering the amount of virus in the blood.” (Farber)

On the media’s role: “Anybody is capable of having stupid ideas, but what’s unusual is getting them onto the front page of The New York Times and Time. The real villains are…the journalists. We have traditionally depended on the press to protect us from nonsense like this – not anymore. Now people who have feet of clay become oracles thanks to their publicists and the cooperation of journalists. And the real tragedy is that years have been wasted on this David Ho eradication hype. What he did was unspeakable. To dangle a cure in front of such desperate people is the cruelest thing

imaginable.” (Dr. Joseph Sonnabend)

Cohen comments that “I’ve quoted extensively from Farber’s chapter on protease inhibitors because I believe it’s the most widely relevant and disturbing in the book. According to a physician she cites, three out of four people currently on these drugs are asymptomatic. As she puts it, that’s “one big medical experiment,” the outcome of which is uncertain. Add another uncertainty, the long-term side effects, and that’s a huge amount of potential risk riding on a gamble – that protease inhibitors will prove more beneficial than harmful at the end.”

Now “Wrongful Death” has arrived, and is already making a splash with author Stephen Davis doing radio interviews all over and getting reviews online including a friendly backscratch from Harvey Bialy:

Congratulations Mr. Davis, you actually pulled it off and created a legitimate page-turner from the debacle of HIV/AIDS. I am delighted, and a bit surprised as well :). I even learned new dirt about Gallo, in addition to discovering the exact number of annual AIDS deaths post AZT (Harry Barrow indeed!).

Not having seen a copy yet we can’t judge but reading all the reviews garnered in a few days they all seem to agree, even if they are all friends of Davis, that the book is absorbing fiction.

We did ask Davis how it had all come about, and he replied with this exclusive:

While a German high court decision in 2001 ruled that HIV had never been isolated [This may be a misunderstanding – see Comments. – Ed.], there has never been a public trial in the U.S. challenging the HIV∫AIDS hypothesis. In my original paper called “AIDSgate,” published on the Internet in 1997, I called for a class-action suit against Dr. Robert Gallo, the Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, and Burroughs Wellcome/GlaxoSmithKline for the wrongful death of 300,000 HIV-Positive Americans who died as a result of taking AZT between 1987 and 1997. Unfortunately, I couldn’t participate in that court case myself, because I had no standing: i.e., since I am not gay, nor HIV-Positive, nor lost a loved one to AIDS, I was not personally damaged by this issue.

Although there were a number of suits filed, especially against GlaxoSmithKline, they were all settled out of court with the stipulation that nothing be made public. So the truth about HIV∫AIDS has never been expressed through sworn testimony in a U.S. court of law. I had high hopes that if it were, things could be different and many lives could be saved. So in 2003 I decided to write a movie, then a novel, as if such a trial had taken place. The result, “Wrongful Death: The AIDS Trial,” is a fictitious class-action lawsuit that reads like a John Grisham courtroom drama, but every word of testimony and every statement concerning HIV and AIDS and AZT is based on more than 900 medical and scientific references that I list both in the book and on my website at www.theAIDStrial.com. However, rather than being a highly technical approach to the issue, it is written in simple three-letter words so that all of us can easily understand the basic issues involved in this tragedy. While “we” in the “dissident movement” might know it all already, the book makes a perfect gift for those we might know who are HIV-Positive and need to hear the truth, or those who are skeptical that we are trying to convince of the truth.

It’s too late to file this particular wrongful death lawsuit. However, my next book due out in a few months, called A Death Sentence?, will focus on the arbitrary and capricious HIV blood tests, and the emotional and psychological trauma, the family stress, the social rejection, and the financial hardship (also caused by the drugs) of being diagnosed HIV-Positive. That continues to this day, and it’s literally a crime. So we may yet get our chance in court to set the record straight and save future generations from the genocide of the very faulty HIV∫AIDS hypothesis.

Too late to file a suit for Wrongful Deaths? Surely not Stephen. They continue, as well as the hideous effects of HAART drugs, also without validated medical and scientific justification.

But, the problem, as always, is that it is very hard to prove what goes on inside people’s minds. “Well that’s what the scientists told us from the NIAID, so who are we to know better?”

Fiction will be defeated by fiction

We detect a trend, which is that, with Harvey Bialy covering the precise reality of the back stage dealings of HIV?AIDS – the threatening accuracy of which was beautifully pointed up by the highly subjective counterattacks of the Moore and his three friends on Amazon – we now have Celia Farber’s extraordinary personal account of her time on the front lines of HIV?AIDS reporting, which as Shindelman noticed, has all the emotional drama of blockbuster fiction – “death, disease, conspiracies, heroes, villains and martyrs.” And now on Farber’s heels, fiction, which Davis wrote with a screenplay in mind, which he may sell shortly.

Precise fact, then fact with all the flavor and appeal of soul searching fiction, and finally fact based, movie-making fiction. This looks like the recipe for the spreading the message as widely as possible, far from the boundaries of science into the supermarkets and homes of America.

Especially when the spreading invasion is taking place from the beachhead that is allowing all this to happen, courtesy of the courage and intelligence of the editors of America’s oldest and most liberal yet worldly magazine, Harper’s, in publishing Farber’s myth shattering expose in its March issue this year, “Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science”.

Has the message got through to Berlin yet? We doubt it, given the thickly insulated walls of NIAID. But just in case someone is reading this blog, we advise all to pack their suitcases for a quick exit sometime in the next year or or three. However long it takes for Hollywood to get the movie in the can.

81 Responses to “Fiction wars: “Wrongful Death” explodes on AIDS scene”

  1. pat Says:

    “HIV rose from 4% to 68% in 6 years”What does this mean in absolute numbers?Has the estimate of 0.5 to 1.0 million that Duesberg casually rounds up to one 1’000’000 changed since? Is the estimate of .5 to 1.0 million still the same today as it was back then?

  2. Truthseeker Says:

    It is patronising to tell me to just read Duesberg’s articles and then I’ll see the light.

    Like almost all your statements, this is inaccurate. We said that you were unqualified to comment unless you had read this and other key material with attention.

    I’ve read the 2003 Biosciences paper and wonder how it passed peer-review. It is full of misinterpretation, empty rhetoric and downright errors.

    With respect, this is the opinion of a man who cannot spell and who is unaware of basic grammar (“It’s” in the sentence below), and that is all it is. You give not one good example of what you claim (the one example you give, see below, is incorrect).

    It’s appearance in a journal with an extremely low impact factor is hardly coincidental.

    The impact factor of the journal is no guide in this case to the value of the text, as you know well, since the prejudice of the editors of high impact journals against the Duesberg material is well demonstrated, but not justified in the literature, and therefore can be taken to be political, illfounded and against the fundamental principle of science, free criticism.

    The table of “predictions” and “facts” is laughable. Most of the “predictions” are simply straw men that Duesberg sets up so he can knock them down. Many of the “facts” are not at all factual.

    Dear me, the Indian Academy should make sure you are a reviewer next time, you notice their mistakes so readily. Why not write to the Journal editors and point out these egregious errors? There is not a moment to be lost.

    Take this “prediction”:Viral AIDS like all viral/microbial epidemics in the past – should spread randomly in a population…Have you checked the stats for gonorrhea and syphilis in the US lately? Has Duesberg? I don’t think so. He just makes up predictions that suit his agenda.

    Wait. You don’t realize that the statement is ceteris parabus, and that of course behavior and other factors modify the pattern of spread? Maybe you shouldn’t write too hastily to the journal.

    The whole paper is more rhetoric than substance. I’ve already mentioned this “fact”: But, contrary to the spread of AIDS, there is no “spread” of HIV in the US . In the US HIV infections have remained constant at 1 million from 1985 (29) until now (30). (29. Curran, J. W., Morgan, M. W., Hardy, A. M., Jaffe, H. W., Darrow, W. W., and Dowdle, W. R. 1985. The epidemiology of AIDS: current status and future prospects. Science 229:1352–1357.) Unlike most followers of Duesberg I actually read the references. For a start the reference actually gives an estimate of 0.5 to 1.0 million. Duesberg casually rounds this up to 1 million and hopes nobody looks. Even worse the estimates are based on data from the San Francisco City Clinic Cohort where the prevalence of HIV rose from 4% to 68% in 6 years. Hardly static!

    You are not aware that HIV prevalence in the general population of the US has remained very roughly level at around a million, give or take 200,000, according to the very rough estimates of the CDC, for the duration of the supposed ‘epidemic’? You are not aware that this horizontal line, however roughly estimated, in no way matches in fact or in principle the curved rise and fall of ‘AIDS’ in America?

    I could keep going and going.

    Since your points involve misunderstanding the material, we have no doubt that this is the case.

    Both Duesberg and the Perth Group have sacrificed large parts of their lifes, reputations and careers in pursuit of their quixotic dreams. It is precisely for these reasons that it is unlikely that either Duesberg or the Perth Group will ever admit they are wrong.

    The cost of capitulating would be far less than the cost of continuing. Welcome back, congratulations on seeing the light, would you like to speak and write on it at the next AIDS Conference, etc.

    The Perth Group make it quite clear that if they admit that HIV does exist then they are also forced to admit that HIV causes AIDS. They aren’t going to admit that HIV causes AIDS so they have to cling to their delusion that HIV does not exist.

    Since the one doesn’t follow from the other, they probably didn’t say this in these terms. Do you have a reference?

    It is ironical that “rethinkers” use exactly the same argument for why the “orthodoxy” won’t admit to the “greatest scientific blunder of history”.

    You are right, of course both sides invest in their position over time. Doiesn’t affect the issue of who is right. You consistently confuse politics and sociology with science, when these factors must be separated from science. The thing is to decide who is right based on reason and evidence, and not deal in the kind of social and political factors that you constantly exhibit in this thread as filling your mind.

    The ability of intelligent people to delude themselves is well established in history.

    Only if they ignore reason and evidence, which is why the scientific literature exists and is peer reviewed. Duesberg has contributed at the top level, and his peers have been forced to stand aside for lack of effective counter arguments, which they have been unable to produce before publication or afterwards. They have only succeeded in defeating his case by using force – blocking him from platforms and from publication, refusing to support his funding, the life blood of any professional scientist, and generally smearing his reputation and his achievement in establishing an unanswerable case by misinforming and censoring media reporters.

    You are apparently unaware of this process, as you are unaware of the force of the arguments and evidence in his papers. That is why we tell you, with great respect for your functioning mind, that you are unqualified to comment. You continually demonstrate that you are unaware of the arguments that have been made and you wish to dismiss, by inaccurately reprensenting them. If the material was as weak as you think it is, there would be no debate at all. No Duesberg papers on the topic would have been published.

    Please don’t waste the time of this blog by posting contradictory material until you have read the Biosciences paper sufficiently well to show you understand it, and also the Bialy book. The indication that you have done that will be the respect that replaces your contempt, whether you ultimately agree with them or not.

  3. Stephen Davis Says:

    I have tried numerous times in private emails with TS to get my remarks correct on his original post on this website concerning me and my book, Wrongful Death: The AIDS Trial. The first line (italicized) is supposed to read: “Despite the German high court decision in 2001 which ruled that HIV has not been properly isolated, there has never been a public trial in the U.S. challenging the HIV∫AIDS hypothesis.”

    I realize that there is controversary concerning this statement. On August 5th, I provided a translation by an objective professional translator in Germany that I hired to translate the paragraph in question, and it is my interpretation that the translation I provided in my post of that day confirms my original statement.

    After Chris and “A German Guest” offered a different opinion, Truthseeker unilaterally decided that the verdict was in and I was totally wrong, and wanted to change my original post to some wishy-washy “some people say that a German court….” I refused.

    To me, a blog is an opportunity to exchange information and ideas. Not all the information or ideas that are originally posted are going to be 100% accurate, and certainly not agreed upon by everyone. That’s what the comments are for, as I understand it.

    If I were to conclude, by reading other people’s comments and doing further research, that I had made a mistake in my original post, I would clearly say so in a subsequent comment. TS’s solution, on the other hand, is to go back and erase it from the original post as if it had never been said.

    That, to me, is not “truthseeking.”

    I think there have been legitimate questions raised about the German court decision, but I don’t consider anything that has been said thus far to be definitive. Nothing said yet by anyone on any comment has convinced me that I am wrong. If that happens, you will hear about it here, but my original comments will remain intact.

    If that is not acceptable to TS, I have asked him to remove any reference to my book on his website, because I don’t play those kinds of games and don’t want to be associated with someone who does.

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    This is an important issue, because whether facts are accurate on NAR is central to its purpose. Whether Mr Davis is an accurate reporter in Wrongful Trial is also important.

    I have tried numerous times in private emails with TS to get my remarks correct on his original post on this website concerning me and my book, Wrongful Death: The AIDS Trial. The first line (italicized) is supposed to read: “Despite the German high court decision in 2001 which ruled that HIV has not been properly isolated, there has never been a public trial in the U.S. challenging the HIV∫AIDS hypothesis.”

    Let’s check the post. “While a German high court decision in 2001 ruled that HIV had never been isolated, there has never been a public trial in the U.S. challenging the HIV∫AIDS hypothesis.” That is how the post reads! Is there some significant difference, Stephen?

    I realize that there is controversy concerning this statement. On August 5th, I provided a translation by an objective professional translator in Germany that I hired to translate the paragraph in question, and it is my interpretation that the translation I provided in my post of that day confirms my original statement. After Chris and “A German Guest” offered a different opinion, Truthseeker unilaterally decided that the verdict was in and I was totally wrong, and wanted to change my original post to some wishy-washy “some people say that a German court….” I refused.

    Not in fact. The wording was changed to “it is said that”. This was done with Mr Davis’s agreement (initially, “Sure it can say “despite an apparent German high court decision”, then when it was changed to “It is said that”, “Okay. Thanks.”)) Later he wanted it changed back. Then in a later email, he wrote (this is the entire message) “Screw it, leave it alone, I’m tired of this bullshit”. So we did.

    Then he demanded the qualifier be removed again, in a very lengthy email, while acknowledging “there are still legitimate questions concern what the court actually said. I repeat. I still think there are questions about it, with some interesting comments on both sides. I certainly haven’t reached a final conclusion whether my original statement was right or not, but I still stand by it until proven wrong, which I certainly have not been.”

    So it was changed back, since it was his quote. Evidently Mr Davis did not check his facts before writing the above complaints in Comments, and believed that it was not once again changed in accordance to his wishes. Why all the other explanatory statements were sent to us and not simply made in Comments we have no idea.

    If I were to conclude, by reading other people’s comments and doing further research, that I had made a mistake in my original post, I would clearly say so in a subsequent comment. TS’s solution, on the other hand, is to go back and erase it from the original post as if it had never been said. That, to me, is not “truthseeking.”

    To us, it is. This is not a chat board, but a reference site where all statements are as accurate as we can make them, unless irony is intended. In general NAR policy is to correct all NAR posts in which factual errors have been found. This is not a blog to prove that TS is always right the first time. All corrections welcome, and will be made.

    The aim is to correct the science of HIV/AIDS and rescue patients and health workers from acting on false claims and incorrect interpretations of the literature. Accuracy is paramount. All factual corrections will be made in posts, not just in Comments, which as we have just seen can see-saw from one conclusion to another.

    We would prefer that Mr Davis be quoted as saying only what he knows to be true, rather than making claims which he believes may still be disproved. We worry that he is willing to risk bringing the accuracy of dissenters in HIV?AIDS into question, and possibly misleading readers, by allowing people to read a “fact” which is later contradicted, apparently successfully, in Comments.

    All this is important because it raises the question, How many “facts” are correct in Wrongful Death? We like Dr Bialy have assumed that all the facts we were unaware of that we read in Wrongful Death were truth not fiction, but now we wonder. Can readers trust the facts in the testimony that they read in this book’s fictional court case, or are some of them fiction?

    We hope that Mr Davis will confirm that they are all accurate facts.

  5. Chris Noble Says:

    “Has the estimate of 0.5 to 1.0 million that Duesberg casually rounds up to one 1’000’000 changed since? Is the estimate of .5 to 1.0 million still the same today as it was back then?”

    No. And Duesberg knows this.In his Genetica paper http://tinyurl.com/qvhru Duesberg cites this CDC report http://tinyurl.com/ps284The figure for HIV prevalence in 1992 of (650,000-900,000) that Duesberg again does some magic mathematics on is taken from this paper JAMA 1996;276:126-31Prevalence of HIV Infection in the United States, 1984 to 1992http://tinyurl.com/ncu7rThe data from this paper is.1984 400,000-450,0001986 550,00-650,0001992 650,000-900,000Clearly the CDC do not think now that 1 million people were infected with HIV in the US in 1984 and 1985 or 1986 and Duesberg knows it.Note that the estimates of HIV for the years 1984,1986 and 1992 in this paper were in part derived from back-calculation. In other words the the incidence of AIDS was used to estimate the incidence of HIV in the preceding years. Thus to claim that the CDC figures for the incidence of HIV are incompatible with the CDC figures for the incidence of AIDS is just plain stupid.It is widely acknowledged that early estimates of HIV prevalence in the US before 1990 were overestimates. Sufficient data from seroprevalence studies were just not available fro any precision. Most of the seroprevalence data was restricted to data from small cohorts of high risk individuals such as those attending STD clinics. Extrapolating this data to the total population obviously gave huge uncerntainties.Implying once again that I have not read the Biosciences paper in sufficient detail is extremely patronising and insulting. In contrast to you I have read the paper and I have checked the citations that Duesberg uses.

    You consistently confuse politics and sociology with science, when these factors must be separated from science.

    Pot, Kettle, Black.I have consistently presented data. It is the “rethinkers” that consistently resort to confusing science and sociology.

  6. Chris Noble Says:

    For the benefit of Stephen Davis I will make it clearer.The translation of the paragraph in question is not under dispute. The question is whether it is a judgment of the court (actually a district court not the high court) or the claims of the defendant. Anyone that can read German will see from the entirety of the document that it is the latter.If, for example, an individual attempts to assasinate the president of the US and when caught claims that he did this because George Bush is in reality a shape shifting alien and the court document prints this claim it does not make it a judgement of the court. It remains a delusion of the defendant.Stefan Lanka is a crackpot. He has managed to convince a small group of people in Germany that no virus causes disease in humans and that vaccinations are equivalent to genocide. He and his group are in a campaign against the “orthodox” medical sciences that involves sending hundreds of petitions to courts and the parlament and even making death threats or threats of violence against public officials.The legal case referred to involved one of Lanka’s victims being sentenced to several months imprisonment. In my opinion it should have been Lanka that was locked up.

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    Implying once again that I have not read the Biosciences paper in sufficient detail is extremely patronising and insulting. In contrast to you I have read the paper and I have checked the citations that Duesberg uses.

    No offence intended. The statement was that you could not be counted sufficiently informed if you hadn’t read the Biosciences paper (and the Bialy book), however sharp the points you made. Now you state that you have read the paper and checked the citations.

    But your analysis is still inadequate, it seems to us. The estimates of the CDC for the early years might well have been revised downwards to make them more sensible, and of course they were guesswork as long as they didn’t sample the general population well enough.

    But the fact remains that early big gains to 1992 as now reguessed (whopping spread, have you noticed?) contradict even more the decline in AIDS that soon followed in the mid ninties, especially when HAART is now acknowledged in the Lancet as not having improved the death rate. The brief improvement before HAART was implemented was due to giving up high doses of AZT.

    AIDS in the US went up and down, but HIV prevalence did not. Do you have an explanation for this?

    And by the way, the 0.02% rate for Army recruits was way below this earlier guesswork. If true for the general population, it implied about 50,000 total positives in the US general population of 260 million in the early years.

    How this was expanded to 1 million is unexplained, unless they are all special groups ie gays and IV drug users and the now forgotten Haitians. Perhaps you know the answer.

    Chris, Lanka may be a crackpot but he could be right on this. The evidence that your favored HIV peddlers are even greater quacks and charlatans litters the landscape. Why do you put your good mind at their service?

    We appreciate your posts, though.

  8. Chris Noble Says:

    AIDS in the US went up and down, but HIV prevalence did not. Do you have an explanation for this?

    The best current estimates from sources including the CDC show HIV prevalence in the US rapidly increasing during the 1980s. The highest incidence of HIV was during these years. The highest incidence of AIDS was approximately 10 years later. There is no contradiction.Read the JAMA article I cited (with data cited by Duesberg).

    And by the way, the 0.02% rate for Army recruits was way below this earlier guesswork. If true for the general population, it implied about 50,000 total positives in the US general population of 260 million in the early years.

    It is quite clearly stated in any detailed estimate of HIV prevalence that the majority of people infected with HIV in the US have been in certain high risk groups (although these have been declining over time). This directly contradicts Duesberg’s dual claims that a) the prevalence of HIV in the US has been a constant 1 million as far back as 200 years in the past and b) “HIV is a long-established perinatally transmitted retrovirus”.If the majority of people infected with HIV are in high risk groups then they were not infected perinatally (unless you can provide some explanation as to why only mothers of homosexual men and intravenous drug users have HIV). Duesberg can either claim that HIV is spread predominantly through perinatal transmission or that there are approxiamtely 1 million people infected with HIV according to CDC statistics but not both.Duesberg has not presented a complete and coherent model.

    But the fact remains that early big gains to 1992 as now reguessed (whopping spread, have you noticed?) contradict even more the decline in AIDS that soon followed in the mid ninties, especially when HAART is now acknowledged in the Lancet as not having improved the death rate. The brief improvement before HAART was implemented was due to giving up high doses of AZT.

    Now, you are playing loose with the facts. The article that you refer to (I have read it) quite clearly states that HAART has reduced mortality. What the article also says is that there have not been further reductions of mortality during the last 10 years. The article also provides some possible explanations for this disappointing observation including the changing demographics of people infected with HIV in the US and changes in the spectrum of opportunistic infections (in particular TB). Your claims about AZT are not, as could be interpretted from the sequence of the two sentences, made by the Lancet article.

  9. Chris Noble Says:

    The impact factor of the journal is no guide in this case to the value of the text, as you know well, since the prejudice of the editors of high impact journals against the Duesberg material is well demonstrated, but not justified in the literature, and therefore can be taken to be political, illfounded and against the fundamental principle of science, free criticism.

    You then write:

    You consistently confuse politics and sociology with science, when these factors must be separated from science.

    This is exactly what you are doing. You are invoking political explanations for why Duesberg’s papers are rejected by high impact journals. Stick to the science. Duesberg’s papers are rejected because of the poor science contained in them. Sometimes reviewers do indeed check the citations in papers.Do you have a list of the journals that rejected the Journal of Biosciences paper? Do you have copies of reviewer’s grounds for rejection? Do they make some of the same comments that I have made? Did they find the same misrepresentations and inaccuracies that I did?

  10. Truthseeker Says:

    The best current estimates from sources including the CDC show HIV prevalence in the US rapidly increasing during the 1980s. The highest incidence of HIV was during these years. The highest incidence of AIDS was approximately 10 years later. There is no contradiction. Check your own post above, which shows giant jumps to 1992. This directly contradicts Duesberg’s dual claims that a) the prevalence of HIV in the US has been a constant 1 million as far back as 200 years in the past and b) “HIV is a long-established perinatally transmitted retrovirus”. Duesberg found no evidence that there had been any expansion in the past had been provided. Naturally b) is the simple answer. If the majority of people infected with HIV are in high risk groups then they were not infected perinatally (unless you can provide some explanation as to why only mothers of homosexual men and intravenous drug users have HIV). Duesberg can either claim that HIV is spread predominantly through perinatal transmission or that there are approxiamtely 1 million people infected with HIV according to CDC statistics but not both. Congratulations on your logic. If you believe it is valid, we won’t trouble you. HIV is spread perinatally in the normal population. In high risk groups it is artificially spread. The first is steady, the second varies with behavior. If the behavior ceases, the total will recede to the norm, whatever that is. The one million figure is the CDCs. Whether correct or not, it is the sum of both. The norm without high risk behavior could be as low as 0.02%, as Army figures indicate. Now, you are playing loose with the facts. The article that you refer to (I have read it) quite clearly states that HAART has reduced mortality. What the article also says is that there have not been further reductions of mortality during the last 10 years. The article also provides some possible explanations for this disappointing observation including the changing demographics of people infected with HIV in the US and changes in the spectrum of opportunistic infections (in particular TB). Your claims about AZT are not, as could be interpreted from the sequence of the two sentences, made by the Lancet article. The reduced mortality stated is due to the easing off of AZT doses. HAART subsequently failed to show an decrease after that. The explanations are invalid excuses. The essential claim is that people are sicker when they start the regime. In fact, the general trend has been towards starting people on HAART earlier, before they have symptoms. Soon they will give it to patients as soon as they are infected with HIV. They are looking everywhere for more candidates, Chris. Some like Andrew Sullivan have suggested giving HAART to those who are HIV- but in high risk groups. It does not seem impossible that someone will suggest giving it to everyone in America. If so, Chris, will you accept the offer? You are invoking political explanations for why Duesberg’s papers are rejected by high impact journals. Stick to the science. Duesberg’s papers are rejected because of the poor science contained in them. Sometimes reviewers do indeed check the citations in papers. Chris, if you wish to believe this, there is no reason to disturb you.

  11. Chris Noble Says:

    Check your own post above, which shows giant jumps to 1992.

    No, the JAMA paper did not demonstrate this. The figure of (650,000-900,000) for 1992 was an estimate range. The greatest increase in HIV prevalence was in the mid 1980s. By 1990 the prevalence was levelling off. “National serosurveillance studies generally show stable HIV prevalence rates from 1990 through 1993. [22-24]”

    Duesberg found no evidence that there had been any expansion in the past had been provided.

    Duesberg most certainly has found evidence he just ignores it. Duesberg also says this The infectious diseases have one thing in common: Without one single exception, all infectious diseases are always equally distributed between the sexes. Zero exceptions. From measles to mumps, syphilis, gonorrhea hepatitis, tuberculosis, all infectious diseases follow soon after contact. Has he looked at the sex ratio of syphilis and gonorrhea in the US recently? Duesberg’s problems in finding evidence that contradicts his theories appears to be psychological.

    Naturally b) is the simple answer.

    The problem is that Duesberg uses the magic 1 million to argue that HIV prevalence has been constant for the last 200 years and that it is spread predominantly through perinatal transmission. Quite obviously the 1 million were not infected by perinatal transmission hence HIV is not predominantly spread by perinatal transmission. On account of these tests, one million Americans were found to be HIV-positive in 1985 and one million Americans were found to be HIV-positive in 1992 and again in 1993. HIV is a totally long-established virus and on the grounds of this type of epidemio logy, you can extrapolate this curve back 200 years. It’s as solid as that. You can say the virus came with the immigrants 200 years ago to this country. It’s an old, long – established virus, but AIDS is a new disease. It’s not a good candidate for a new disease.

    In fact, the general trend has been towards starting people on HAART earlier, before they have symptoms.

    You do not appear to have read the Lancet paper that you refer to. The median CD4 cell count when starting HAART increased from 170 cells per uL in 1995 96 to 269 cells per uL in 1998 but then decreased to around 200 cells per uL. Table 1. shows that CD4 cell counts when starting HAART have decreased in recent years and the number with an AIDS diagnosis are increasing. People are waiting longer to start HAART.If Andrew Sullivan (whoever he is) is really suggesting what you say (forgive me for being skeptical) then he appears to be underestimating the toxic effects of these drugs.

  12. Truthseeker Says:

    Has he looked at the sex ratio of syphilis and gonorrhea in the US recently? Duesberg’s problems in finding evidence that contradicts his theories appears to be psychological. Chris you are repeating yourself with points we have answered.Glad you recognize the toxic effects of the drugs. Sullivan is identified in our earlier post on him, ex editor New Republic, gay, Brit expat, busy blog, uncritically HIV faithful,. currently on HAART because he like you thinks CD4 counts are exact measures of health. The early prevalence estimates are rough guesses. That is why we have those wide spreads. You gave three early ones to 1992, jumping substantially. Therefore the rise should have led to an AIDS curve peaking at least ten years later. After that prevalence has stayed more or less flat (different guesses, swinging around a million). That doesn’t match the subsequent fall in AIDS cases. Try as hard as you like, Chris, the two curves don’t match. Didn’t you read the exhaustive thread on Dean Esmay that Dr Bialy sparked as the first real debate on the Web? It is now available at the AIDS Wiki, we believe. The HAART regime actually changed somewhat over the years, the Lancet article indicates, so one would actually expect some improvement in death rates, even if HIV was not the threat, but that didn’t happen. And more gay men die of drug toxicities now than of AIDS symptoms. That’s all you need to know. HAART is poison. If you walk into a house with a flamethrower, you will chase the mice out. But the house will burn down soon enough. Now the Lancet study shows what is happening.

  13. Chris Noble Says:

    Therefore the rise should have led to an AIDS curve peaking at least ten years later. After that prevalence has stayed more or less flat (different guesses, swinging around a million). That doesn’t match the subsequent fall in AIDS cases. Try as hard as you like, Chris, the two curves don’t match. Didn’t you read the exhaustive thread on Dean Esmay that Dr Bialy sparked as the first real debate on the Web? It is now available at the AIDS Wiki, we believe.

    At the risk of repeating myself once more – the estimates of prevalence of HIV in that JAMA paper were derived from back calculation from AIDS incidence data. If they are derived from the AIDS incidence data then they obviously cannot be incompatible with the data. Arguing that they are is just stupid.You seem not to understand the terms prevalence and incidence.The highest incidence of HIV appears to be in the mid 1980s. This lead to a rapid rise in prevalence. The HIV incidence then decreased and the HIV prevalence appears to have levelled off in the 1990s even decreasing somewhat before beginning to rise again in more recent years. The important factor is not the HIV prevalence but the HIV incidence for a given year. The highest HIV incidence rates were in the mid 1980s. The peak in AIDS cases was in the mid 1990s. If you had read the “exhaustive” thread on Dean Esmay’s blog you would have seen that I asked Bialy to demonstrate his ability to do the mathematical modelling. He then sent an email with the subject heading “Help” to his mathematician friend. They never got back to me. The only thing that Bialy did was to insult people and babble nonsense about Eccles. Only a true Duesberg believer could see this as a victory for Bialy.You also appear not to have checked Duesberg’s data for the magical “flat graph”. You have just accepted Duesberg’s verison of reality on faith.

  14. Truthseeker Says:

    You seem not to understand the terms prevalence and incidence. Tell us, what do you think is the difference between these two concepts that matters, in this context?Chris, the rise and fall of AIDS in this society does not match the statements of the CDC for the prevalence of HIV over the years, years that we lived through, so we know how the estimates went, and how bad they were and are anyway.You naively accept all these numbers however and still cannot see they do not match? Then we can do nothing for you. We will just salute your genius, and leave it at that.

  15. Chris Noble Says:

    Tell us, what do you think is the difference between these two concepts that matters, in this context?

    Prevalence is the number of people infected with HIV at a given time. Incidence is the number of new infections during a period. They are two different concepts and should not be confused with each other. Duesberg confuses the terms in his Biosciences paper which is an indication of the quality of the peer-review.The highest incidence of HIV infection was in the mid 1980s. Even if the prevalence from 1990 onwards remained level at 1 million by new incidences being balance by deaths then the incidence of HIV would be lower than in the mid 1980s. So even if the prevalence remained perfectly flat and even if HAART had no effect of mortality then you would still expect a peak in AIDS deaths 10 years after the peak in HIV incidence.

    You naively accept all these numbers however and still cannot see they do not match? Then we can do nothing for you. We will just salute your genius, and leave it at that.

    You are the one that is naively believing the myths put forward by Duesberg. I have looked at the data. You haven’t.It is extreme arrogance on your part to constantly tell me to read the “rethinker” tracts when a) I have read them and b) you are profoundly ignorant of the actual science.

  16. Truthseeker Says:

    Chris, we have saluted your genius, and we do so again, even though you didn’t answer the question, what do you think is the difference between these two concepts that matters, in this context?You are clearly a very smart fellow, much smarter that we would ever aspire to be. We feel it is of the utmost importance that you contact the editor of the Journal of Biosciences immediately, and let him know what you have discovered re Duesberg’s lack of understanding, undetected by the peer reviewers, and the inclusion of myths in the paper.You deserve full credit for your careful research, and the penetrating brilliance with which you have examined the rethinker tracts to discover their flaws, demonstrating a grasp which is entirely beyond our poor faculties. To accuse us of not appreciating your abilities and the research you have put into your conclusions is quite misplaced. The aim of this blog is to improve the accuracy of the arguments that are advanced pro and con the paradigm that HIV is “the virus that causes AIDS”.Obviously you can make a huge contribution on this front and we are glad to have your comments, although we respectfully beg you not to repeat them once you have demonstrated your position, if you don’t mind.

  17. Chris Noble Says:

    Chris, we have saluted your genius, and we do so again, even though you didn’t answer the question, what do you think is the difference between these two concepts that matters, in this context?

    The two concepts are fundamentally different in any context. Confusing the two is like confusing velocity with acceleration while claiming to have found a flaw in modern physics.You make a claim that HIV statistics are not consistent with AIDS statistics yet you cannot explain in any mathematical sense why they are inconsistent.The best available estimates of HIV prevalence are based in part on back calculation from AIDS incidence data. To claim that they are inconsistent is ludicrous.Your implied assertion that because Duesberg managed to get his latest pseudocience published in a journal with a very low impact factor (after being rejected by other high rated journals) that it must be correct is laughable when you also claim that thousands of other articles published in more prestigious journals are all false. The fact that Duesberg managed to find a journal that would publish his article does not make it science. Pseudoscience in a peer-reviewed journal is pseudoscience. Thankfully it is also blatant pseudoscience and will not convince any scientists. The style of rhetoric may convince a lay-audience. I actually suspect that he was targetting a lay-audience all along. Duesberg gave up trying to demonstrate his ideas to a scientific audience long ago.

  18. Truthseeker Says:

    Thank you for that, Chris. It would be nice if you could get your facts on what is going on here accurate at least – we didn’t say there was no difference between the two concepts, incidence and prevalence, we asked what difference the difference made in this context to what we were discussing?The intent was to point out that you have a habit of introducing irrelevant points, but you seem to have missed it. You also seem to have missed the point of the previous comment, which was to wrap the exchange. Please bear in mind that we are totally bowled over by your extraordinary acute analysis, which proves to your satisfaction that Duesberg is peddling pseudoscience, and that the peer reviewers and the editors of the Journal of Biosciences have overlooked it. You need say no more to us, but we urge you to contact them with your findings, not for your personal glory of course, but simply to serve science. Go to the Web site of the Indian Academy of Sciences, where you will find the name and email address of the person to contact with your important contribution.When you get your answer we would like to hear about it.

  19. mark Says:

    AIDS and HIV statistics baffle everyone, as is evidenced by last week’s reporting of HIV infections in India:” The National AIDS Control Organization announced 28,000 new cases of HIV infections in 2004 compared with 520,000 in 2003. “http://www.outinamerica.com/Home/News.asp?articleId=8807 Quite a difference! In fact, it borders on unbelievable. If their estimates based on antenal surveys are so off the orthodox should admit defeat on estimates and rely on their so-called diagnosis!

  20. German Guest Says:

    As the discussion in this thread continues, I’d like to add something to my post about the decision of the german court “Landgericht Dortmund”.

    I am not convinced by the theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS. There were so many studies published during the last two years that question the benefits of HAART and that challenge the HIV/AIDS-model. Links to those studies can be found via Pubmed or aidsmythexposed. I already could mention enough of those studies to let the whole Toronto AIDS conference go up in smoke.

    Most dissenters are not scientists but ordinary people who feel there’s something wrong with the mainstream in media and science. They do not take part in the discussion here but keep an eye on blogs and forums to inform themselves.

    However, dissenters should prove any of their arguments back and forth in order to be and stay credible. In this context the German court’s decision should not be quoted, because it did not rule, that HIV has not been isolated.

  21. Truthseeker Says:

    We have added a note to the post: [This may be a misunderstanding – see Comments. Ed.] We agree that misinformation should not be repeated by this site, since there is quite enough of that on the pro paradigm sites, in particular the highly misleading AIDSTruth.org site of John P. Moore of Cornell, and friends. Unfortunately, as noted above, author Stephen Davis insisted that his statement remain, even though he realized it might be incorrect, until it was specifically disproved.

  22. Chris Noble Says:

    May be a misunderstanding?I go to the trouble of providing the court document in question and it still isn’t specifically disproved?Stephen Davis still clings to his fantastical idea that a German High Court ruled that HIV had not been isolated. Bizarre! I go to the trouble of actually reading the citations that Duesberg gives for his magic 1 million figure and somehow “truthseeker” still believes that Duesberg is somehow correct.All I can say is that I hope your “rethinking” brings you the solace that you desire.

  23. Truthseeker Says:

    Stephen Davis still clings to his fantastical idea that a German High Court ruled that HIV had not been isolated. Bizarre! We agree, but it is surely polite to call it a misunderstanding. As to Duesberg, we urged you to contact the editors of the Journal of Biosciences and let them know your finding. We hope that you will let us know their response.

  24. Chris Noble Says:

    As to Duesberg, we urged you to contact the editors of the Journal of Biosciences and let them know your finding. We hope that you will let us know their response.

    I urge you to contact the editors of Nature, Science etc and inform them of your acute analysis of the papers contained in them. I suspect they will rapidly get the impression that you are a) ignorant of the science and b) credulous of Duesberg’s dogma.99.999999…% of scientists recognise Duesberg’s articles for what it is. The people that take it seriously are on the whole lay-people. If the Journal of Biosciences added corrections to the article or even retracted the article then Duesberg acolytes would probably see this as censorship and a sign that the “orthodoxy” was scared about the “truth” getting out. I am interested in whether you as a Duesberg supporter would bother to a) look at the data that Duesberg cites and b) recognise that it doesn’t say what he says.This is just the same as my curiosity as to whether Stephen Davis would admit to being wrong.In both cases the outcome was both predictable and depressing.

  25. German Guest Says:

    @ Chris Noble:”99.999999…% of scientists recognise Duesberg’s articles for what it is.”Where did you find this? Any references? Is there any scientific evidence for this number?In regard to the remaining 0.0000001 % I’d like to mention the following articles:_______________________2006:”In our institution, mortality from severe PCP requiring admission to the ICU fell, from 71% before mid-1996 to 34% subsequently, despite the fact that no patient received HAART prior to or during admission to the ICU. These survival figures are similar to those reported by Morris et al [28]. In our study the observed improvedsurvival cannot be ascribed to HAART.”pubmed arcticle_______________________2006:”Increasing incidence of Pneumocystis pneumonia (AIDS-defining) in patients without HIV”pubmed article_______________________2002:Analyses of diseases and factors associated with PCP in HIV-negative patients:cytotoxic drugs, longterm corticotherapy, inflammatory diseases, hematologic malignanciespubmed article_______________________2006:”We report that methamphetamine (meth) may act as cofactor in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 pathogenesis by increasing dendritic cell (DC)-specific intercellular adhesion molecule-3 (ICAM-3) grabbing non-integrin (DC-SIGN) expression on DCs”Journal of NeuroImmune Pharmacology_______________________2006:”The documented evidence that illicit drugs alter antimicrobial activity in vivo and in vitro, indicates that their use presents a potential risk of decreased resistance to infections in humans. The studies […] suggest that illicit drugs act, at least, as cofactors that can increase the severity of infection by microbial agents by altering host resistance.Because epidemiological data suggest that HIV-positivedrug abusers progress to symptomatic AIDS more rapidlythan those who do not use drugs, additional longitudinalstudies addressing the enhancement of disease in immunocompromised individuals are warranted.”Journal of NeuroImmune Pharmacology_______________________I suppose this issue is a little bit more complex and contentious than it appears to be from Chris Nobles point of view. Of course, Duesberg is the mastermind on this topic. But an increasing amount of evidence from a number of new scientific studies supports his theory.

  26. Schwartz Says:

    It’s not Pseudoscience, Peter, but your interpretation of the data is idiotic and self serving.

  27. German Guest Says:

    I’m not Peter! I belong to the lay-audience that’s trying to make sense. Of course, I didn’t expect any useful comments from HIV=AIDS proponents.

  28. Truthseeker Says:

    If the Journal of Biosciences added corrections to the article or even retracted the article then Duesberg acolytes would probably see this as censorship and a sign that the “orthodoxy” was scared about the “truth” getting out. Well, let’s see. Write to the editors, and let them know what you have found. Would you like our help? Just post your draft here, and we will make sure that it is intelligible, and spelled correctly. It will be interesting to see if these gatekeepers of science have any excuse to offer for their oversight, and whether they are prepared to correct it.

  29. pat Says:

    About Aetiology blog. Nobody has been “banned” but it seems that at least my posts get filtered. At least half never make it through the spam filter and I am certain that Tara is quite happy to leave things the way they are:

    Hi Patrick,

    I’m not sure why they’re getting caught. We’ve been having problems with an overzealous spam filter, but it seems to be singling you out. It may be your IP address, if it’s shared by someone who’s previously been designated as a spammer; that’s the only reason I can come up with. I’ve been
    approving them as I see them but I’m rarely online over the weekend (I schedule posts to appear, but I try not to set foot in the office). I’ve approved the new ones.

    Tara

    On 7/29/06, you wrote:
    >
    > I have been attempting to make a few replies, some of them to you. I have repeatedly sent them but few of my posts seem to get through. Could you see what is causing the hold up. I hope it has nothing to do with hard feelings 😉
    > Sincerely,
    > Patrick Moore

    We’re not banned, only conveniently forgotten.

  30. Chris Noble Says:

    Thank you for your kind offer of help, Truthseeker.I might indeed prepare something to refute the mythical flat graph nonsense. I have after all gone to the trouble of looking up the citations that Duesberg gives for it – something that you have not done.I find your implied assertion that peer-review works perfectly for Duesberg but in the case of every other scientist it fails quite bizarre.If you really think that Gallo’s 1984 paper proves that HIV does not cause AIDS then why don’t you write to Science and correct them?

  31. Truthseeker Says:

    Our offer stands.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 167 access attempts in the last 7 days.