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.

Obama’s Oahu spirit: too cool to handle scientific hot potato?

Calm, thoughtful, and a first class manager, is our Hawaiian Savior too elevated to achieve change outside the box in science?

In matter of HIV/AIDS, current likelihood of “change” seems zero

Why HIV debunkers who give up may be realistic, though we admire those who still fight on

Alongside this magnificent photo by Alex Brandon (AP) of his long armed body surfing style, Obama’s secret source of celestial calm was revealed in the Times’ Christmas Eve edition as drawing on the long perspective and communal spirit of Oahu, one of the Hawaiian islands where our Savior was born and partly raised

Our new leader’s mix of human irritability and divine poise is further evidence in our opinion of the Christlike semi-divinity of Mr Obama, as some of the article’s vocabulary made clear (to us, at least, as well perhaps to the normally sober reporter Jeff Zeleny). Note the reference to “divine and spiritual power”, “spirit” and the phenomenon attested to by Representative Abercrombie that even via television Mr Obama is able to exert magic powers which lower “the national pulse about 10 points.”

Here are a few quotes from the article, Obama’s Zen State, Well, It’s Hawaiian – President-elect Barack Obama, in August in Hawaii, where he spent formative years, has no plans to stop vacationing there. By JEFF ZELENY New York Times Published: December 24, 2008:

The mood of Mr. Obama, to many observers here in Hawaii, embodies the Aloha Spirit, a peaceful state of mind and a friendly attitude of acceptance of a variety of ideas and cultures. More than simply a laid-back vibe, many Hawaiians believe in a divine and spiritual power that provides a sustaining life energy.

“When Obama gets on television, the national pulse goes down about 10 points,” said Representative Neil Abercrombie, Democrat of Hawaii, who was close friends with Mr. Obama’s parents. “He has this incredibly calming effect. There’s no question in my mind it comes from Hawaii.”…

Mr. Obama is spending Christmas secluded in a compound of rental houses that he and his family are sharing with a group of friends from Chicago along the handsome beaches of Kailua, on the windward coast of Oahu. It seems a world away from the hustle of Honolulu, which is the face of Hawaii for many residents of the continental United States who have never traveled to this part of the world.

“He has more Hawaii in him than Chicago; he’s laid-back, cool and collected,” said Neil Kent, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa who has lived on the island for three decades. “It’s hard to express anger here. It’s a very small, enclosed environment in which you have to live with other people.”…

That is not to say, of course, that Mr. Obama did not occasionally grow agitated at his advisers, grimace when he was asked to sign one more autograph or openly scowl at reporters who sought to ask him questions during the campaign.

Even on the first full day of his Hawaiian vacation, as he walked onto a golf course in Waimanalo, he turned to a group of photographers and declared: “O.K. guys, come on. How many shots do you need?” The next day, aides said he was furious when paparazzi took a shot with a long zoom lens, showing the president-elect’s buff pectorals….

This summer, as Mr. Obama visited in London with David Cameron, the head of the British Conservative Party, he was overheard talking about how leaders need to take time away to think. Without downtime, Mr. Obama said, “you start making mistakes or you lose the big picture.”

So Mr. Obama intends to be here until Jan. 1, recharging the Aloha Spirit.

Anyone who still denies that the sudden appearance of the hitherto obscure Mr Obama in US and international politics smacks of divine intervention is swimming upstream toward Niagara Falls as far as we are concerned.

But is Obama too spiritually elevated?

Concern that spiritual purity may be a defect in the new President to be mounts in our offices, though. Is it possible that Mr Obama may be simply too good a man to catch up with the extreme extent of monetary corruption which has crept into various corners of our system over the last few decades?

Obviously the nuclear implosion of Wall Street as a hitherto expanding sector must have taught Obama just as well as everyone else less haloed that greed unleashed can be catastrophic in the realm of finance and in the economy at large, but is it possible that our new Leader can ever catch up with the sorry fact that vast infusions of monetary gain have achieved sizable distortions in the realm of science also, as in the particularly horrendous example of HIV/AIDS and its dysfunctional paradigm?

Judging by the alacrity with which Obama was drawn into posturing as enlightened prophet leading the way to HIV testing for all in Kenya when he visited there, when both he and Michelle were tested for HIV test positivity and luckily for them scored negative for what is mostly if not entirely an inherited status in the US (positivity is mostly transmitted mother to baby here), we reckon that even the thoughtful Obama is likely to be suckered into the political machinations of Anthony Fauci of NIAID, and continue to believe in the medical and political virtue of the entirely unreasonable current belief that HIV causes AIDS, as effectively as Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and George Bush and their staff advisers, who are so often drawn from the officials of the field.

We hope this is not true, We hope that Obama is clever enough to realize what is obvious in principle, which is that scientists are as likely as any other human group to lie and cheat their way to success unless their professional standards are properly enforced.

Why HIV critics won’t succeed, anyway, judging from Harpers experience

But then, what chances remain anyway of this godawful and damaging paradigm will be curbed by political means outside the field, let alone in it? Very little judging from what has happened so far. Celia Farber managed to cap her exemplary performance in this arena of stifled reporting over the last two decades by publishing an excellent article in Harpers two years ago, which laid out the situation very clearly for anyone who bothered to read it (see all references by searching our roll in the right hand margin).

Unfortunately nothing came of it, after Robert Gallo and his cohorts in the portion of the gay activist community who are too busy profiting from the situation to want to rescue their colleagues from self-immolation mounted a counter attack with a storm of letters and phone calls into Harpers mainly from Gallo to defend the indefensible belief by obscuring the science which shows it is faulty to the point of inanity if judged by reason and evidence.

The problem was that just at that point the august literary publication was handed over by Lewis Lapham the long time editor who had encouraged the contribution from the obdurate truth reporter Farber to a younger and presumably politically unseasoned editor who was apparently at first very keen on the piece and helped deliver it to term as an almost unchallengeable masterpiece wherein almost no fact could be gainsayed.

Punching feathers

Unfortunately the general tenor of the times in regard to HIV/AIDS and its concomitant attitudes and beliefs among the media as well as the gay community made the high level of reason and research projected by the article have no more effect than punching a huge pile of feathers.

Even worse, the completely ill-based general disapproval of any critique of the thinking and behavior of people involved in HIV/AIDS rescue resulted in such political stress on the young editor that he appears to have entirely abandoned support of his author and her work after briefly appearing on the radio about it. During the same year Harpers won praise for other work and in competing for prizes the HIV/AIDS stance was a liability that had to be set aside, one gathered.

Whatever the truth in that analysis, the fact is that Harpers did nothing in the end to stand by its seminal piece, which could have changed the political landscape of this festering issue and even led to the ultimate downfall of Anthony Fauci, Robert Gallo, David Baltimore, John Moore and others who falsely and presumably knowingly continue to promulgate a paradigm which cause illness and sometimes death rather than cures it.

The Aussies were even less help

The second indication that no success is likely for critics of HIV/AIDS was the remarkable court case in Adelaide where the unfortunate Chad Paranzee appealed against his conviction of endangering women by sleeping with them when he was HIV positive and did not tell them so.

Despite the fact that Robert Gallo appeared at the trial as a long distance witness enabled by Skype or the equivalent, and made a complete fool of himself and his science and the paradigm itself in the eyes of anyone who knew anything much about the field, nothing came of the hopes of HIV debunkers that finally a court of law would force confrontation with the absurd and long discredited paradigm and show the world of objective onlookers how hollow and poorly based the belief that HIV is the cause of immune dysfunction really is.

That is to say, how AIDS is nothing more than the relabeling of other complaints in the framework of a false belief that they are all “HIV/AIDS” caused by HIV, which in reality is nothing more than one example among many of a flimsy type of virus (a retrovirus) that has never been shown to cause any harm to anybody.

The unfortunate prisoner and victim of the HIV/AIDS version of a witchhunt saw his appeal fail and he is now languishing unjustly in jail, as innocent of actual wrongdoing as as any of the 220 or so US prisoners released to date by the Innocence Project.

Meanwhile the critics of HIV/AIDS soldier on in a hopeless cause, once again having lost a battle in a war which would have been won long ago in any science uncompromised by the vicious politics of HIV/AIDS and its distortions.

Obama probably too new to the game to pick up on science politics, other than the failure of Mbeki

What is the likelihood that our new political Savior who comes to rescue us from ideological claptrap and narrowminded poltical bias, Barack Obama, will be led to see what is going on in HIV/AIDS and do or want to do anything about it?

Even if he is in his wonky way led to detect what is wrong, it seems to us that he will have the discouraging example of the only other major political leader to steer him away from picking up this red hot political potato. Thabo Mbeki, the South African leader, took an interest in the allegations of a journalist to look into the situation at the turn of this century and was so impressed with the writings of Berkeley’s Peter Duesberg and his supporters in fighting this appalling hijacking of all kinds of diseases and moving then under the umbrella of a fantasy HIV/AIDS syndrome that he convened a special panel of HIV proponents and their critics before the AIDS Conference was held in Durban in 2000.

The outcome of the panel deliberations – which were not so much deliberate as farcical, as the empty handed defenders of the paradigm often literally slept their way through the proceedings – was clearly that HIV/AIDS could not effectively defend itself against its critics. But the proponents of this scientifically ridiculous belief mounted again another political counter attack, centered around a prima facie absurd statement of faith in the paradigm published over a full page of signatories in the New York Times.

This evidence of science conducted on the basis of faith against reason in the manner of the Vatican was in itself an admission that the paradigm was faulty, but since the field was run by politicians, activists and politicians among scientists and not by scientists pure and simple, the outside world did not get this clear implied message and Mbeki had to abandon his stance in the end, beset by gay activists in South Africa and any other enemies who wished to exploit this weakness in his political armory. Even on his deposing recently from the presidency of South Africa the coverage played up his resistance to Western convention in AIDS as the chief flaw in his political makeup, and a baffling flight from reason and good sense in an otherwise formidable politician.

With these examples in front of him, we confidently expect Barack Obama to do nothing at all to right the situation in AIDS and free it from the scientifically outrageous and politically and medically extremely harmful belief that its cause has anything to do with retroviruses, aside from the dangerous medications that are posited by this blatant scientific charade.

Indeed we expect him to continue the push for universal HIV testing according to the urging of Dr Fauci and the CDC, serving the interests of the AIDS research, medication and fund raising community which otherwise is presumably worried that in an age where deficits are soaring to stratospheric heights they might run short of customers and be further cut off from the federal trough as more people realize how wildly lop sided their emphasis on this disease really is (deaths supposedly from AIDS annually in the US, 18,000, against 829,000 from heart attacks and strokes and 565,000 from cancer, or 7.5 million worldwide), even if HIV had been proven or even reliably shown to cause AIDS, which it manifestly has not.

Daschle seals our prediction

The choice of Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle, consultant and semi-lobbyist to health care and pharmaceutical interests including Abbott Laboratories, Mylan Labs and the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, a trade group, for Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services places a heavy concrete slab on the grave of any hopeful expectations:

He was an advocate for the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill for FY 2004 (S. 1426) which substantially increased funding for the Peace Corps and foreign assistance to combat HIV/AIDS.

In 2002 President Bush first proposed a program that would provide $500 million to fight HIV and AIDS around the world. As a Senator at that time, Daschle requested Bush considered increasing the funding amount saying $500 million was “too little too late.”

As a Senator, Daschle co-sponsored Senate Resolution 119 (S. Res 119) emphasizing the growth of HIV/AIDS and the responsibility of the U.S. and other developed nations to act in the fight against the disease.

It is unclear if Daschle will oppose any increase in funding for abstinence-only programs. Experts feel that if any progress is to be made in HIV prevention, the Bush Administration’s policy of abstinence only must be overturned. The hope is that Daschle will play a big role in reversing that policy in favor of risk reduction. (AP)

Since Daschle did once sponsor a bill to expand accessibility to alternative medical approaches there is a glimmer of hope, perhaps, but we doubt it.

Educating people to understand what is really going on in HIV/AIDS, where very fine professional reviews in leading journals have long eviscerated the unproven paradigm on which conventional belief is based, and have never been effectively answered by rebuttal on the same level of peer review, is a rather long process. It not only involves reviewing a complex political situation, as well as many false scientific, official, media and Web rebuttals to the reviews, but also runs counter to an ingrained mainstream assumption which has had a quarter century to occupy virtually all discussion about AIDS.

HIV critics retiring from the fray

All in all, we completely understand those who up till now have battled courageously and determinedly for a public policy review of HIV/AIDS truthiness and its supposed scientific foundation, but who now have decided to place their energies elsewhere and admit political defeat.

The honor roll includes several of the wittiest and hitherto fiercest and most penetrating debunkers who are simply tired of having their names dragged through the mud of ignorance and poisonous character and job assassination practiced by HIV proponents in lieu of scientific argument:

Harvey Bialy, author of the enduringly brilliant Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS: A Scientific Life & Times of Peter H. Duesberg (North Atlantic, 2004), nothing less than a classic which, without compromising the highest standards of accuracy in stating scientific truths, exposed pages of equally precise anecdote which tells any laymen all they need to know about how rotten is the state of Denmark in both the AIDS and cancer paradigms and their politics.

Celia Farber, author of whose definitive analysis “Out Of Control: AIDS and the corruption of medical science” in Harper’s Magazine of March 2006 capped twenty years of relentless pursuit of the inconsistencies and absurdities – and ultimately catastrophic tragedy – of the HIV/AIDS paradigm and its advocates funded by misdirected public money and pharmaceutical companies, whose only reward so far for her exemplary investigative journalism has been political poison, rather than the Pulitzer, Peabody and Polk prizes she fully deserves.

A certain lawyer who for a time wrote one of the earliest and most witty blogs exposing the rascally and venal crowd of paradigm defenders inside science and out as either wolves or donkeys, before deciding that the welfare of his family was more important than trying to rescue the victims of HIV/AIDS thinking, especially since the group most decimated by the murderous misleading of the public in this regard are American gays who should know better without being told, but who with few exceptions remain blind to all the signs and deaf to all the reasons.

These reformist players and others in what is surely the scandal of the century in science have decided that in general they have said their piece, and no longer wish to encounter the stink extruded from the scientific and activist skunks in this field when they try to kick them out of the way of honest scientific thinking and sound public policy in their richly funded but grossly ill founded field of HIV/AIDS, are not in any way cowardly, but simply realistic.

That said, however, we have nothing but admiration for the many equally brave souls who soldier on regardless in a spirit of self sacrifice and truth seeking that as far as we are concerned, represents the best in human makeup. The honor roll includes:

David Crowe and his Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society site which carries the best ongoing news roll on the topic of the 22 year, always ongoing debate which the mainstream media resolutely ignore, as well as the latest books by leading critics in the field both scientific and lay, and an extensive library of journal and news articles.

Henry Bauer, professor and author of The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory”, and his blog, HIV/AIDS Skepticism:
Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS
, on which extensive discussion of the details of the bad science that underlies and emerges from the paradigm HIV=AIDS is conducted with contributions from Darin Brown, the mathematician who runs the AIDS Wiki.

Michael Geiger, a gay activist and board member of San Diego HEAL who has published fiery letters, reviews and reporting on the sins of HIV proponents, including a two page ad ““Gays, Straights, Blacks, Whites, Science, Medicine, Media: Have We All Been Deceived?”” in the July 17, 2008 edition of the San Diego Gay & Lesbian Times, and helped support the laboratory research of Peter Duesberg, the eminent biologist who first reviewed in elite journals and rejected the blatantly unconvincing 1984 proposal by Robert Gallo that HIV was a “probable” cause of the AIDS syndrome, for which professionalism Duesberg lost all support from colleagues for his research proposals at the NIH which till then had always been accepted (Geiger is also one of the three exemplary readers of this journal who have made a monetary contribution to its continuance).

Christine Maggiore, the strong minded mother who eventually resisted all attempts to browbeat her with HIV/AIDS thinking when she registered positive on an HIV test, though later not on others, who wrote a first rate account of the lack of credibility of the paradigm, her self-published ““What If Everything You Thought You Knew about AIDS Was Wrong?” , and who raised two healthy children entirely preserved from the HIV/AIDS superstition until one tragically suffered a fatal allergic reaction to the amoxicillin prescribed for an ear infection, when she was embroiled further in the poisonous counterattacks of lay, media and official paradigm promoters.

There are many others who deserve to be put on this honor roll also, for their courage to stand up for honest science in the face of public ignominy and ostracism, and sometimes the loss of their positions (there are three prominent cases of this disgraceful outcome). This is why today’s Science Guardian choice of quotation for the heading of the blog is as follows:

“Men truly pious and philosophical are led by their reasons to honor and love only what is true, and refuse to follow traditional opinions, when they are false.” – Justin the Christian martyr (scourged and beheaded for refusing to sacrifice to the gods, by command of Emperor Marcus Aurelius).

NOTE: Anyone who wishes to add their voice to urging President-elect Obama to take a new look at HIV/AIDS and its supposed scientific foundation on which its funding and drug medication are based should go to Change.

19 Responses to “Obama’s Oahu spirit: too cool to handle scientific hot potato?”

  1. MacDonald Says:

    Ihave only one question: how could you possibly resist a sub-header along the lines of “Dasche Dashes Hope”?

    But what has cowed your previous optimism, and blurred your privileged insight into the Divinity-Elect’s machinations?? We can only commend Barrack Oswami for his consistency in picking true and ttried establishment hacks for every position. No doubt according to a Grand Masonic Masterplan and a pinch of divine intervention, Oswami will now take Daschle’s expertise in pharma lobbying and use it to make Daschle expose all his own previous actions as those of a common shill.

    Did you not see how merely short-listing rendition-and-torture enthusiast John Brennan for the position as CIA Boss immediately made him wash his hands of all previous rendition-and-torture enthusiasm?

    Perhaps it would interest you to know that blogger Glen Greenwald was deemed as instrumental in getting Brennan off the CIA Boss short-list.

    Halleluja!

  2. MacDonald Says:

    That’s Daschle

  3. Dr. Hope Says:

    Hey TS, I don’t know where you have been, but you obviously missed that last week Obama named Harold Varmus to a science post and as one of the advisors to the president.

    The Fox has again been put back in charge of the hen house:

    “As an expert on retroviruses it was natural for Varmus to become engaged in research on human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the retrovirus that causes AIDS…..

    http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/MV/Views/Exhibit/narrative/aids.html

  4. Dr. Hope Says:

    By the way, Varmint, I mean Varmus, was the boob in charge who put the H-I into Human-Immunodificiency-Virus HIV.

  5. Dr. Hope Says:

    Seems I had it right the first time…..

    “Varmint” (occasionally “varmit”) is an American-English colloquialism. The term describes farm pests which raid farms as opposed to infest farms: mainly predators such as foxes and coyotes, sometimes even wolves; but also (to a lesser degree) herbivores and burrowing animals which directly damage crops and land. Although this is not a prevalent term in Standard Written English, it is a common descriptor for certain kinds of weapons and pest control situations (e.g., “varmint guns”, “varmint hunting”, “pesky varmint”).

  6. Dr. Hope Says:

    By the way, TS, do check out the discussions at:

    http://www.change.org/ideas/view/take_a_new_look_at_the_cause_of_aids

    The issue of investigating hiv has become the #2 issue in the general health category.

    Lets make it Number One on the entire site. It would be helpful if you did a post on it, as well as a nice post on Dr. Varmint.

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    Re Harold “Would you like to touch my Nobel? I can take it off my neck in a jiffy” Varmus, yes indeed, I missed the grotesquerie of his election to the inner sanctum of our new but perception-challenged Leader, thus preserving my very Happy Christmas from an aesthetic and philosophical skunk odor which would have spoiled our superbly slow cooked and juicy bird with its obligatory roast potatoes and rather fine Turkish wine (Kvaklidere 2005 from Ankara).

    One of the few fond memories which are the poor recompense for our self-immolation in fighting this losing battle for sense and science in HIV defined/AIDS is the spectacle of the wretched Varmus spending three evenings telling a packed audience at the New York public library about his brilliant career in biological research, wherein his explanation of how he had won the Nobel gong (from a committee now under investigation for taking pharma bribes, it may be noted) skimmed the surface so rapidly that one was persuaded that he actually felt unconscious shame.

    When we proceeded to the great man’s side after he stepped down from the dais to congratulate him on his performance and ask a question as to specific details of his celebrated achievement he immediately said “You must be a ‘Duesbergite'”.

  8. Michael Geiger Says:

    Truthseeker, thanks for the comps, but to be honest, there are more heros yet involved in the dissident fray than ever before. And they are at this point almost too numerous to name. And they are much more vocal then ever before are are spread out everywhere and in every country, state, city, and town in the world.

    Some early pioneers have indeed blazed their own original trails to the higher ground, and they too are nearly all still around, and are usually glad to discuss the issues when asked. And they are all still holding their own lamps up high and bright, and continue to light up the trails whereupon more and ever more are now following their footsteps. They have indeed said their piece, and said all they need to, and do indeed deserve to have a life that is not consumed solely by the current programmed ignorance of the day of our global societies.

    But, as you can see at the site change.org http://www.change.org/ideas/view/take_a_new_look_at_the_cause_of_aids , it is clear to see that there are now many more who are just finding their voices and who are joining together in an evergrowing chorus that demands civilized society see this issue of hiv/aids more clearly.

    I give my own respect and give full honors to all, each and every one of them, who also have stood up to, and continue to stand up and speak out against the tides of human ignorance. Thanks to them all who have spoken and continue to speak their own truths to the historically misled and unenlightened masses.

    .

  9. Truthseeker Says:

    Don’t want to rain on your parade. Michael, but change.org has no visible connection with the Obama lot, and its home page does not even mention the health arena. There are very few dissidents on the thread, and the likelihood of it getting any significant attention from the Obama people seems non existent. About as likely as a chorus of sparrow chicks being heard above the din of road drills.

    Still, it seems possible to vote the HIV/AIDS review into first place in the issues it lists in health reform, a success that might make a good reference. But to lead Obama in a new direction will take much much much more, even if he is ever made aware of the validity of HIV criticism. The vested interests amount to a vast empire fed by billions of dollars, establishing more infrastructure every month. What chance do a few thousand people have against such a monstrous tumor on the body politic? Even if Obama became a second Mbeki in this arena, what action could he really take? The problem is impenetrable to committee review if the committee is made up of politicians, impervious to court review by most judges and juries, and the number of academics who are capable of independently assessing the arguments seems pretty limited also.

    Obama might decide that it all looks very fishy, given the basics – the lack of good reason offered by Gallo et al to believe that HIV was the cause in the first place, the virtual impossibility that a new major illness should be caused by a retrovirus just at the very moment in history scientists discovered and began to study the species, the cheating and lying of the scientist responsible for launching the theory, the complete lack of progress with a vaccine that Fauci now says may never come, the fact that retroviruses typically don’t cause any harm to any host, the incompatibility of Western and African “AIDS”, etc etc etc- but there would be no action he could take apart from firing Dr Fauci from the directorship of NIAID, which would be impossible to justify politically without complete agreement that HIV was a dud after complete review by some committee, and again, who would make up that committee?

    The movement to reopen the case against HIV is dead unless something happens which is now hard to foresee, if it exists at all. The patient will have to live with the tumor, like Elephant Man.

    Just be glad you happen to know the truth, and save as many others as will listen, which is not too many, experience shows.

  10. Truthseeker Says:

    Some enlightened posters on the change.org thread – where do they come from? Laura Ogar for one. But Alas, perhaps they are the usual suspects in a different guise. It would be nice to see some new recruits as an indication of the expansion of the debate.

    I don’t think “population control” or “genocide” are part of the mix (too conspiracy-minded for me, thanks); rather I think Christine Maggiore put it quite well when she attributed the origins of the HIV=AIDS paradigm to “the unfortunate outcome of a desperate desire for medical answers that coincided with political concerns, research funding needs and drug company interests … influenced by widespread fear, an uncritical media and a new and powerful type of activism.”

    But at the heart of the fiasco is the shocking erosion of scientific standards and critical thinking which infects all government-based, pharma-funded research, and the complete lack of ability to perceive the observational bias which stems from obvious conflicts of interest, or even acknowledge that it might exist.

    I’ve often seen HIV-defenders accuse skeptics of raising the bar too high, when all that is being asked for is a return to the classical scientific method, as opposed to the shoddy, tunnel-vision “research” which has become the norm. But so widespread is the acceptance of this way of doing things that insisting on such obvious basics as controls and lack of financial interests is considered as silly as accepting only papers whose authors’ names begin with Z …

    For more on the ineptness and corruption endemic to HIV research, I recommend Rebecca Culshaw’s book “Science Sold Out.”

    Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/27/2008 @ 12:02PM PST
    Report

    Thank you Laura – I do think it is unfortunate that the term “conspiracy” and “conspiracy theory” have been mutated to mean that someone is a loony. Conspiracies do happen, have happened and will continue to happen. Making “conspiracy” a dirty word effectively keeps people from seriously looking into certain issues in this world… Even if there is a nasty conspiracy happening right in your face. For most people, saying that HIV is a scam lables them as a conspiracy theorist (nut) and shouldn’t be listened to. Very effective. Change the definition of terms and you change the whole perspective on a subject.

    I find it amazing how “kind” Christine is (giving the benefit of the doubt to certain people) after what she has been through… more power to her! She obviously does not want to become labeled as a conspiracy theorist. I really don’t care myself. I call it as I see it and reserve the right to change my mind upon the introduction of further information.

    Posted by David Collins on 12/27/2008 @ 12:33PM PST
    Report

    HIV / Aids isn’t a conspiracy; yes, there are countless individuals who in some way or another have sold their intellectual integrity for their place on the HIV food chain, but overall, it’s a headless monster, whose left hand doesn’t know what its right hand is doing…
    http://letterstotheempire.com

    Posted by Jason Hart on 12/27/2008 @ 01:42PM PST
    Report

    David: About conspiracies, I agree that flinging the “c” word at a person or idea has become a cheap-and-dirty way of discrediting them and shutting down discussion.

    But, to appropriate Spinal Tap, I think that sometimes it’s a fine line between stupid and evil (although I know which half of the line I’d put Robert Gallo on). As Albert Einstein said, “Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not so sure about the universe.”

    Posted by Laura Ogar on 12/27/2008 @ 02:46PM PST
    Report

    What is the psychology behind Bob Bolgger AKA Seth Kalichman’s pathetic spamming attempts with dreary passages from his nonentity of a book? Is it a blatant attempt to increase disappointing book sales or a disingenuous attempt to have this thread shut down, thereby avoiding any real debate in the most cowardly manner possible?
    Why the anonymity Seth if you’re posting your own soporific scribblings here? What does this kind of immature, “addicted child” behaviour demonstrate about your own psychopathology?
    As others have rightly pointed out, if the High Church of AIDS is set on such solid scientific foundations why the refusal, obfuscation and hysteria when it is suggested independent powers inspect said foundations? Well “Gallo Golem” Kalichman – run and hide because any day now someone’s going to wipe the “E” off the “Emet” on your ample forehead, and you like your precious, genocidal theory will crumble into dust.

    Posted by Cathy Thompson on 12/27/2008 @ 02:49PM PST
    Report

    I’m sorry but I still “believe” (I don’t KNOW) that there are people conspiring to hide the truth about HIV/AIDS because they stand to lose a LOT of money and/or reputation and career (or risk ending up in jail on criminal charges). Most of the people who carry out the wishes of the medical cabal are simply parroting and doing what their told without questions… There are plenty of drones willing to do the bidding of their masters.

    At any rate the subject is not “Conspiracy Theory” so let’s not get off track. Regardless of whether there is any organization behind the disinformation and untruths that are being told – they need to stop. We must also be careful of stating opinion as if it were fact. Some people are very good at that. Question everything and everyone no matter how confident they sound in their proclamations, what letters they put behind their names or how many people worship them.

    Posted by David Collins on 12/27/2008 @ 03:03PM PST
    Report

    Laura,

    If the idea of conspiracies is a bit much for you, I might suggest that you consider the concept of the headless conspiracy, or as I like to call them, “Carlin conspiracies”, in honor of the late George Carlin, who said, “You don’t need a formal conspiracy where interests converge.” (Carlin’s genius, in fact, was that he could make us look at this vast conspiracy that we call the modern world, and laugh our asses off at our own construct.)

    Because Carlin conspiracies typically involve large groups of people who are unaware that they are co-conspirators, two factors are required for a Carlin conspiracy to occur: 1) The masses must be willing to believe a specific lie; and 2) The masses must perceive a common vested interest — usually secret but not always — which makes them willing to believe that lie.

    One semi-recent example would be the Nazi Holocaust. After WWI, the German economy went to hell, and the Jews seemed to be just about the only ones able to maintain their wealth, so the German people were willing to let Hitler convince them that the Jews were evil, that they were genetically inferior, and that they’d murdered Christ (whom Hitler called “The greatest early warrior against the Jews,”) and ultimately they let Hitler convince them of these things because each had a secret wish to plunder the wealth of the Jewish community.

    Likewise, when the natives of the North American continent were massacred and their continent stolen, the millions of mostly European settlers who conspired, in perfect unison, to carry out the deed, did so in the false belief that the “Indians” were syphilitic, barbaric cannibals who ate babies in their Satanic rituals, and that the only way to “save” them from their evil ways was to convert them to Christianity, and those who would not convert must be killed. As to what secret motive we might have had for believing these things, take a look around the North American continent if you’re ever in the neighborhood — it’s a pretty sweet continent, ain’t it? Know how we got it? Well, we’ll tell you that God “blessed” us with it, but…

    And the thing to remember here is that in the above two examples, large groups of people acted in concert, almost as if they’d planned (conspired) the whole thing in advance.

    BUT — now, we’re starting to run out of room on this continent for our strip malls, so we’re eyeing Africa and licking our chops.

    You may not realize it, but Africa is the wealthiest continent on the globe — it’s got gold, oil, diamonds, vast mineral and natural resources. Not only this, but historically most of Africa’s resources have been the luxury items that the wealthy are willing to pay big bucks for — furs, ivory (the abovementioned gold and diamonds,) etc.

    So if Africa’s so wealthy, why are Africans so poor? Well, for centuries now, whenever any sort of civilized infrastructure would begin to pop up, our (referring specifically to American, Arabic, and European) governments and business interests would send in mercenaries to burn entire towns, slaughter babies, burn crops, and kill or disable (usually by amputation) any able-bodied men. This kept the Africans weak and unable to defend their continent as we plundered its riches.

    (This is another Carlin conspiracy, but I don’t want to get into it, because there are more relevant stories afoot.)

    Pause for question: What continent is said to be hardest hit by the AIDS “pandemic”? …And what do we want to do? Roll in with a bunch of condoms and start giving drugs whose side effects include diarrhea and nausea to a bunch of chronically undernourished people. (And 500 years from now, mark my words, we’ll be saying that God gave us Africa too.)

    AIDS started out as a Carlin conspiracy, which targeted gays, drug abusers, and the infirm. In the Reagan era, drug abusers were the social equivalent of terrorists in 2008. The infirm were considered a burden on the taxpayer by social conservatives of the Reagan era (especially hemophiliacs, who might well breed more hemophiliacs.) As for why gays might be targeted, why were gays targeted by the Nazis? Gays are just traditionally a target for persecution in any expanding empire — personally, I think it’s because they contribute no offspring to use as cannon fodder for the war machine, but it really doesn’t matter what I think, just that homosexuals are historically a frequent target of persecution.

    As to why they might have been targeted in the 1980s, there was a large segment of the American population who were already more than willing to believe that there was something inherently unhealthy about homosexuality, and that whatever it was, it was transmissible — probably sexually transmissible.

    In 1981, it had been less than a decade since the APA had removed homosexuality from its catalog of mental disorders, known as the DSM. Prior to this, it was widely believed that homosexuality was a contagious disease that was spread from grown men to young boys (because, of course, all homosexuals were pedophiles.) I actually have a copy of an old “educational” police video entitled “Boys Beware”, which warned of the dangers of befriending grown men who might be homosexual. Throughout the 1970s, Anita Bryant gave shrill speeches to anyone who would listen that all homosexuals were pedophiles, and that homosexuality was a contagious disease.

    And given that it had been less than a decade since the High Priests of Science had declared that homosexuality was no longer a disease, I have to believe that there was still a contingent of the scientific community who still held on to some remnant of the old beliefs.

    As dissidents, we often raise the question: Why did no one question this? The answer lies in what we were willing to believe, and at the time, we were willing to believe that homosexuality involved some sort of sexually transmitted disease unique to gays. The masses do not question what they are already willing to believe, particularly if they feel they have some vested interest in the lie.

    Today, we are told by the CDC that the average black person is 10X more likely than the average white person to get HIV and die of AIDS. Though no virus in history has ever picked its victims according to race, the masses swallow it because, by and large, we’re willing to believe that blacks are sexually profligate, that they are too ignorant to practice abstinence, monogamy, or to use condoms (as if whites do anything more than pay lip service to these practices), that they abuse IV drugs (as if whites don’t), that many black men are on the “down low” (as if whites don’t have the “closet”), etc. All of these beliefs are not only obviously ridiculous, they’re racist to boot, but we’re all willing to believe these things, and so we don’t question why HIV should pick its victims by race.

    (Incidentally, this was also the rationale at Tuskeegee in 1932. Another Carlin conspiracy, but I digress.)

    The bottom line is this: Yes, it is a genocidal conspiracy, but don’t look for the involvement of the Skull and Bones society, because this conspiracy wasn’t hatched in some star chamber by a shadowy group of white men with cigars. Want to know who the co-conspirators are? Step out onto a crowded street anywhere in America and throw a rock.

    — Gos

    Posted by Gos Blank on 12/27/2008 @ 03:03PM PST
    Report

    Fair enough. George Carlin was an enormous loss this year, for sure. He deserved to be on prime time every week.

  11. MacDonald Says:

    Seth Kalichman has now been recognized by the moderators on change.org for the shameless spammer he is, and most of his posts have been deleted.

    Thus fared the celebrated, well-funded and well-published, but not so well-read AIDStruth hero in debate on a level playing field. Destroyed by Gos et al in the first round, disqualified for partly pseudonymous spamming in the second. Remember this is from a supposedly grown-up psychologist with editorial, educational, scientific and ethical responsibilities. Add to that, the self-promoting nothings he has posted here and on his equally self-promoting sister blog to Todd Deshong’s “Fun With AIDS” sandbox. and what is there to say but bravo Dr. Kalichman. Bravo.

  12. Truthseeker Says:

    MacDonald, your silence is worrying on the topic of the tipping point and ultimate success of the effort to correct the baseless and dangerous scientific paradigm HIV defines/AIDS. Have you no pathway through in mind in answer to my trolling Comment above? If not, anyone? Is the cause really hopeless? Are the retirees right? Anyone?

    Is change impossible? What are we asking for on Change.org? Who will review the cause of AIDS, and what will be the action taken if the review committee or ombudsman concludes that Robert Gallo and Anthony Fauci have misled us, and that Peter Duesberg is as right as he is ethical, professional and responsible to the public that used to pay him?

    NOTICE TO ALL: ALERT! We have for the moment lost all power to edit Comments, so please check spelling etc before posting.

  13. Cathyvm Says:

    I think it’s a good sign that Seth’s pathetic attempts at self-promotion have been deleted. It shows that the people at change.org are at least taking some notice.
    It’s difficult to know where a tipping point might be; most of what has passed for medicine over the last 30 years is tied up with powerful vested interests – not just HIV-AIDS. It requires whoever investigates this to be a modern medicine sceptic in general. Perhaps Prince Charles would offer his services?

  14. Michael Geiger Says:

    Truthseeker,

    You said, and I quote: “There are very few dissidents on the thread, and the likelihood of it getting any significant attention from the Obama people seems non existent. About as likely as a chorus of sparrow chicks being heard above the din of road drills”.

    I would like to point out to you that your Negative Nellie, “lay down and die” attitudes are not at all helpful to any of us, and are absolutely completely corrosive to the cause.

    And your “not so optimistic” complete pessimism about accomplishing any given goal is EXACTLY what has kept all of the dissidents under water for 25 years, that you yourself have so often and unthinkingly added to.

    So I sincerely hope you will stick your “not so optimistic” pessimism where it belongs.

    One can NOT hit their mark without having an established target.

    Nothing has ever been accomplished anywhere in all of human history without full determination and full intention to accomplish the goal, regardless of the difficulties.

    So I hope you will get off your complacent ass and instead of poisoning your readers with your own indelible negativity, come up instead with something contributory to MAKING THE DISSIDENT ISSUE NUMBER ONE ON THE SITE.

    Otherwise, if you yourself are unable to find the energy, or are unwilling to assist us by contributing to our stated goal, then it would likely be more helpful to the dissident cause if you were to just shut up about it completely.

  15. Michael Geiger Says:

    No Excuses. SIGN UP and VOTE. Make the issue Number One on the Change.org site under the general health category, and it will be fully featured on their front page and the issue will be visible to many thousands more.

    Get off your asses and do it now.

    http://www.change.org/ideas/view/take_a_new_look_at_the_cause_of_aids

  16. Michael Geiger Says:

    By the way, TS, I do love you dearly, BUT, just like any belief, negativity is contagious, and is self fullfilling in manifestation. If there is anything we can and should learn from the entire HIV/AIDS episode, it is this.

    I hope that you understand how such seemingly innocuous statements from those that we respect, such as yourself, can infect many of us with a predetermined belief in our own defeat, and end up causing that very defeat.

    Just like if someone believes they require lifelong aids drugs or they will sicken and die, they will.

    If someone believes they can’t swim, then they certainly will never jump into the water to even try. And without trying, they will never learn to swim.

    All of these beliefs become just another Self Fullfilling Prophecy.

    We Dissidents will NOT be able to overturn this paradigm, until and unless we first BELIEVE we can, followed by BELIEVING WE WILL, and fully intending, come whatever may, to do so.

  17. Michael Geiger Says:

    And may I remind you, TS, just how far we have come in just the last short couple of years?

    Several more websites gaining prominence, including your own.

    Celia’s Nuclear Bomb landing on the NIH in the form of her article in Harpers.

    Liams exposure of the ICC scandal.

    Adverts and stories in the independent and college and gay media.

    Ever increasing coverage on radio, tv, magazines, and the net.

    Dozens of YouTube videos.

    Several more books written and released.

    All discussion of hiv as the cause of aids shut down on major science websites.

    Thousands upon thousands more now aware that hiv/aids is a bankrupt paradigm.

    Exposure of the dissident issues being put into many articles in the worldwide press.

    The Semmelweis Awards.

    More and more learning about it every day.

    And On, and On and On and On we go steadily forward.

    Just like a baby learning to walk on its wobbly little legs, it puts out a left foot and falls down. It stands again and puts out a left foot followed by a right foot and it stands. It puts out a left followed by the right followed again by the left, and soon, it walks, and soon thereafter, it runs ever faster until it matures.

    So lets keep walking, TS, because the next thing you know, it is a fully grown marathon winning runner whose very name is a household word.

    That, eventually, though I do not know when, is indeed our collective future as regards exposing the hiv/aids paradigm as bankrupt nonsense.

  18. Truthseeker Says:

    Michael, it would be more convincing if you didn’t get so upset at the suggestion that dissidents in HIV/AIDS aren’t getting anywhere against the fortress of vested interest, since it only suggests that you fear that the point is valid. Whether the future will be any different no one can know, but there has to be a tipping point, and there has to be a way in which it can tip.
    Nothing you have listed suggests such a thing, and nor does it suggest that the accumulation of arrows fired into the fort have hit anyone important. Can you name anyone at all who has been defeated by a dissident incursion? Most of your listed triumphs are exaggerations. Where is the path through the defenses of the status quo?

    Now Christine Maggiore is reported to have died by the Los Angeles Times. A fairly long list could be made of this kind of bad luck constantly suffered by the reformers in HIV/AIDS, including the deaths of Serge Lang and Eliza Jane, and now Christine Maggiore for God’s sake.

    To deal with such setbacks and drive through the sixteen foot thick walls of the castle will take more than boosterism and calling realism bad coaching. It will take hard thinking and cunning, based on a careful assessment of where the cracks are. We weren’t suggesting that people should give up, merely that they should recognize the fight is a tough one, a very tough one indeed. It will not be won through blind enthusiasm, that’s for sure, or any kind of emotional support for those flagging in their dterminatin to speak out against this evil empire, which certainly doesn’t include us.

    The time for that kind of rallying the troops for another assault over the top into machine gun fire is over. Dissidents will have to think very hard to win ground, even in baby steps. Frontal assault won’t do it, that’s for sure.

  19. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS, I’ve said this before. If we don’t look at the “incomplete” human genome project and those HIV paradigm critics outside the “club”, what exactly is it that will push “science guardians” into an ascendant mode?

    A great victory of the truthiness attack dogs IMO is to contain “middle ground” critics writing about current research findings on HERVs, which have become eerily reminiscent of the 1980 to 85 HTLV papers.

    But the point is to get beyond “harmless passenger” and reach the light of “function”; satisfy innate human curiosity: wtf is going on here?

    The “tipping point” will come by acknowledging all those messy technical papers that cause “retirees” apparently to glaze over. I get the point, enough is enough, but the job on the science side is NOT FINISHED.

    I think it’s not about charges into “machine gun fire”, but the hard work of getting out the entire record on retroviral research, 1970 to present. And how that record tracks with the politics of cancer and other chronic diseases that correlate with various contaminated environments.

    Of course the “fortress of vested interest” compromises just about everything in medicine that has to do with “aids-like” diseases, especially when suggestive evidence leads to a powerful industry. Physicians take serious economic risks when perceived as being “overzealous advocates” for a certain type of patients – the war on altmed conspiracy :o)

    So who are the troops? I think in line with the points Michael G made. When it comes to chronic illness, there’s a growing realization among ordinary people that MDs are not really doing thorough evidence-based differential diagnoses. (There’s no time or “economic incentive” apologists say. Or a general handwaving: physicians simply can’t pinpoint toxins and their effects.)

    ****

    It has been put before us by Dr Maniotis: what (retro)genomic processes contribute to the “molecular signature” of “HIV”? That question can be answered thanks to the tons of HIV/HERV papers. Reviews of functional assays involving the transcription of so-called retroviral genes, each and every one of them, need to adequately interpret techno blah blah and most importantly, grab the reader’s attention.

    Quite a challenge, but after all is said and done, worth it AND exciting.

    ****

    Thanks to our plummeting economy perhaps “precise failures” within institutionalized medicine and their adverse effects on “health-care” costs and patient “insurability” will no longer be ignored.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 300 access attempts in the last 7 days.