Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.


Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

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

Press and paradigm guards piling on Perth duo

But legal eagles should spot the lie of the land

The Aussie press, having labeled the Perth duo “self styled experts”, is now quoting local paradigm guards as saying their claims are “insane”, old hat and disproven years ago, and certainly not the opinion of the Perth hospital where Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos works, nor of an associate professor in epidemiology at the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research.

Well, of course not. Let’s hope the judge can see that this is inevitable. All paradigms are supported by the generals and the army of mainstream believers before they are overthrown. That’s what future Nobel prize winners have to contend with in almost every case. The issue is whether this is a paradigm that hold less water than a colander, or something that can be defended by pointing to the literature.

Given Peter Duesberg’s extensive and unrefuted critique over two decades, the choice is pretty clear for any outsider who reads the material, who unlike the faithful doesn’t have to vouchsafe “HIV is the virus that causes AIDS through sex” as a necessary oath to win community patronage.

Presumably legal minds are likely to appreciate this is possible, and to discern the politics behind the pronouncements that disparage and dismiss the Perth arguments out of hand.

Doubts on HIV’s existence ‘insane’

Clara Pirani, Medical reporter
27 October 2006

AIDS experts have labelled claims by a Perth researcher that HIV does not exist as outrageous and dangerous nonsense.

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, a medical engineer at Royal Perth Hospital, said on Wednesday that HIV was not a retrovirus and could not be transmitted by sexual intercourse.

At a leave-to-appeal hearing on behalf of Andre Chad Parenzee – an HIV-positive man convicted of endangering the lives of three girlfriends and sentenced to 15 years in prison – Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos said the existence of HIV had yet to be proved. She is a founder of the Perth Group of researchers who argue AIDS is not linked to HIV.

Andrew Grulich, associate professor in epidemiology at the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, described the group’s claims as “insane”.

“They have a very long and convoluted argument that has been comprehensively disproved many times,” he said.

A spokeswoman for the Royal Perth Hospital said yesterday that the hospital did not share the views of Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos. She said Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos did not work in HIV research or with AIDS patients.

Professor Grulich said the evidence that HIV exists was irrefutable. “How did the death rate from HIV and AIDS drop from 1000 a year to less than 200 a year in the space of one to two years when those drugs were introduced, unless there is a virus that these drugs are targeting?” he said.

“What they say is outrageous and quite dangerous because it encourages people to not be concerned about transmission.”

Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos said the techniques used by Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo, the scientists who discovered HIV in 1983, were flawed.

However, David Harrich, a molecular virologist from the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, said their techniques had been re-tested and verified many times since 1983.

Coverage is expanding, and giving the Perth experts a fair shake: Accused denies existence of HIV

The Australian —” SA
Accused denies existence of HIV
Jeremy Roberts
October 26, 2006
AN HIV-positive man convicted of endangering the lives of three girlfriends is attempting to turn conventional science on its head by denying the existence of the virus that leads to AIDS.

Andre Chad Parenzee was convicted in February of endangering the lives of three women and faces 15 years in prison. One of the women now has HIV.

This week, he enlisted the expert evidence of two self-styled researchers – both members of the so-called Perth Group – who have used the witness stand to attack the “HIV myth”.

In what is believed to be an international legal and medical first, South Australian Supreme Court judge John Sulan has set aside two weeks effectively to put HIV on trial.

Prosecutors have prepared several expert witnesses to shore up more than two decades of global research – which underpins public health and safe sex campaigns – that HIV causes AIDS and is contracted through unprotected sex.

Prosecutors objected in this week’s leave-to-appeal hearing to Parenzee’s witnesses’ status as “experts” but Justice Sulan said he would address the objection after their evidence was heard.

The court heard argument from Parenzee’s counsel, Kevin Borick, who is working pro bono, that his client’s conviction cannot stand if HIV is based on flimsy science.

His expert witnesses received no money for their appearance this week, but their airfares from Perth were paid for by Parenzee’s mother.

Perth-based medical physicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, who has a Bachelor of Science and works as a medical engineer at Royal Perth Hospital, told the court that HIV was mistakenly identified by a French scientific team in 1983, which was headed by Luc Montagnier.

In a 50-page Powerpoint presentation, Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos said AIDS had nothing to do with HIV, which – if it existed at all – was not a retrovirus and not transmitted between people by sexual intercourse.

Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos argued that HIV had never been isolated, and was only identified in 1983 by a process called “reverse transcription”, which is said to create retroviruses.

She said the reverse transcription observed by Dr Montagnier in 1983, the so-called “discovery of HIV”, was not specific to HIV.

She said the main risk factors for getting AIDS remained the passive role in anal intercourse, and intravenous drug use.

Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos claimed AIDS was caused by prolonged exposure to semen, which oxidised cells, degrading them and led to numerous other serious illnesses – the AIDS-related illnesses – which end in death.

Secondly, she cited numerous scientific papers that concluded that vaginal sex did not transmit HIV.

Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos cited a 1997 published paper by University of California researcher Nancy Padian that calculated the risk of a male transmitting HIV to a female at 0.0009 per cent, for each act of vaginal intercourse.

According to the Padian paper, a man would have to have sex with his wife three times a week for 27.4 years to expose her to a 95 per cent risk of passing on HIV.

Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos’s colleague at the Perth Group, Val Turner, testified that the testing of HIV was “indirect” – it measured the presence of proteins and antibodies in blood assumed to be triggered by HIV.

Mr Turner said there was no test to directly detect HIV.

20 Responses to “Press and paradigm guards piling on Perth duo”

  1. Dave Says:


    Bob: Hey, Joe, did you know the moon is made of cheese?

    Joe: You’re insane


    Bob: Hey, Dave, did you know the moon is made of cheese?

    Dave: Interesting claim. Can I ask a few questions?

    1. Have you been to the moon? If so, did you bring back a sample that I can see?

    2. Do Buzz Aldrin, Neal Armstrong (folks that have been to the moon) also think it’s made of cheese?

    3. Are there any good photos anywere showing us it’s made of cheese?

    4. Any good peer-reviewed papers demonstrating its cheese-worthiness?

    5. If it is cheese, wouldn’t it get moldy over time?

    6. Are there any other celestial bodies that are also made of cheese? How about the moons of Jupiter?

    7. Cheese is usually made from milk– are there any cows in space?

    8. Nothing personal, but do you know of any smart astro-geologists that I could read who may disagree with you on this interesting topic?

    etc, etc,etc — you get the drill.

    With AIDS, you always get the former, not the latter. They dismiss critiques (it’s insane) or they merely proclaim it’s already been proven umpteen times (without citing any papers). But they don’t address the issue.

    In the entire, peer-reviewed literature on AIDS, I’ve found only 1 neutral paper (not by a Duesberg acolyte, nor an AIDS apologist), who honestly noted the biochemical problems with HIV. I quote:

    A surprisingly low number of T cells are infected with HIV in AIDS(1), and immunosuppression occurs prior to depletion of CD4 cells(2). Furthermore, immunity against HIV does not protect against AIDS; AIDS patients have high quantities of anti-HIV antibodies in their sera (3) and generate a strong anti-HIV cytotoxic T-cell response (4) but are not protected. In fact, people tend to become seriously ill only after they make anti-HIV antibodies. In spite of intensive research, a detailed mechanism explaining T-cell depletion in vivo, only on the basis of HIV infection, has not been characterized.”

    (Hoffman et al, PNAS, 88:3060-3064 (1991).)

    Aside from this fellow Hoffman, AIDS Inc has created a phalanx of mental eunuchs, who rarely ask intelligent questions, or exhibit even a hint of intellectual curiousity towards, what I find to be, a fascinating issue.

    I didn’t think there were so many sheep in the scientific community.

  2. nohivmeds Says:

    What is really interesting and great about that Hoffman et al. quote is that they are expressing uncertainty regarding the connection between HIV and AIDS.

    In general, I believe that in the HIV debates, both the establishment and the dissidents have expressed their opinions with too much certainty. Thus, they become extremely polarizied.

    If all parties acted in accordance with good scientific thought (like Hoffman et al.), which always allows room for error in conclusions, we would see much more uncertainty expressed. Hypotheses on HIV/AIDS would be considered “tentative” rather than “definitive.” Both sides in this debate seem to have lost that important scientific attitutude.

  3. Gene Semon Says:

    As one who respects your dilemma, nohivmeds, may I point out that certainty will never be removed from the

    minds of “responsible” journalists and technicians posing as scientists, despite your fervent plea. This certainty is now congruent with their professional identities, so wily is the HIV meme that insidiously hijacked their reasoning faculties. Its nine heads are obviously capable of producing a state of clarity that can only be envied by religious aspirants.

    Bob, Tony and David said it, that settles it.

    As far as the other side? History has produced a few certainties you should consider:

    —œAlthough no one knows why the death of the T4 (CD4) cell should depend on the molecule that defines it, some suggestive findings make it possible to formulate a hypothesis. The killing depends not only on the T4 molecule but also on the viral envelope. (Envelope glycoprotein has an important role in HTLV-III—™s entry to its host and also in the death of the host cell.) . . .(L)ike entry to the cell, its death may depend on an interaction between the viral envelope (glycoprotein) and the cell membrane. Perhaps that interaction (which takes place as the virus particle buds from the cell) punches a hole in the membrane. Because the virus buds in a mass of particles, the cell cannot repair the holes as fast as they are made; its contents leak out and it dies.—? (Robert Gallo, The AIDS Virus, Scientific American, [Jan 1987] V256, No. 1, 46,)

    —œIncluded in (Peter Duesberg—™s) criticism back in 1987 were the following crucial points that stand against the hypothesis and that remain completely unanswered by the scientific orthodoxy in charge of AIDS research:

    1. There is HIV infection and low or no risk of AIDS; therefore, something other than HIV must be involved.

    2. The long latent period between infection and clinical disease is inconsistent with the short generation time of retroviruses which is only 2448 hours and with everything known about experimental retroviral disease. AIDS remains as the only claimed retroviral disease outside of the laboratory!

    3. The levels of actual HIV found in the blood of AIDS patients is too low to account for observed loss of immune function.

    4. There is no animal model for AIDS.

    5. HIV is not directly cytocidal; it does not kill T cells.

    —œThe last point is of special interest since, in 1995, eight years later, we find in Nature, arguably the leading science weekly journal in the world, the commentary that, at the same time (a) confirms Peter Duesbereg’s contention (point number 5, above) that the evidence could never have supported direct viral killing; and (b) shifts the standard hypothesis around 180 degrees. The Nature commentary, in an article dealing with HIV, said that: —˜… an intrinsic cytopathic effect of the virus is no longer credible.—™ (Wain-Hobson, S. Nature, 373: 102, 1995).

    —œWhat very few people realize, including most professors of molecular biology that I know, is that this shift has occurred: that the orthodox view of HIV as a direct killer of human immune cells has been thrown out.—? Richard C. Strohman UC Berkeley May 1995 ‘Infectious AIDS; Have we been misled’ (preface book) (1995) http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rsforword.htm

    Note comments of retrovirologist Wain-Hobson, another non-acolyte of Duesberg.

    Now, before Chris gets all excited, are the 5 predictions based on current Houdini IV theory? I am certain they are not.

  4. Bialyzebub Says:

    Thanks Gene. I know you will recall how our pal Bialy points out in his terrible book, and in the Genetica supplement publication — Those papers so confounded poor “Simple Simon” (that is what Luc called him over a cuppa or quatre in Pretoria in 2000) that his news &views comment was as confused and contradcitory as had it been written by one of the moron crew who pretend that they have any knowledge or experience of what biology is or how it is carried out that like to masturbate here….speaking of which




    I bet CN or TRRLL can explain it better than the Harvard docs, or Dr. Gallo for that matter. I couldn’t quite follow their explanations, but it all sounded very convincing.

  5. pat Says:

    OMG, HIV auto-innocculation. Ok know I’m convinced this is a puritanical conspiracy.

  6. Martin Kessler Says:

    In a court of law, the attourney on either side does their best to destroy the credibilty of the expert witness on the other side. As long as the Perth group can maintain their credibilty and not spooked by the prosecuting attourney, they may have a chance. This will involve a great deal of education of the court – something that they may be unwilling to undertake. The recent evolution trial in Pennsylvania was a piece of cake compared to this.

  7. noreen martin Says:

    Nice video documentary on google entitle, AIDS FACT OR FRAUD, which explains this mess quite nicely!

  8. Truthseeker Says:

    Oops. Forgot to post on that, Noreen, but intend to. Any comments here welcome. Amazing how hard it is to find two hours to look at a video on the computer screen, sad to say. But no doubt those to whom it is new will lap all of it up. And they are the important audience.

  9. Marcel Says:


    Just thought I’d point out that, already, the media are settling into their usual propaganda role. I noticed that one story said that Eleni had a “B.A.” degree. While this is true, it’s also true that Kary Mullis and Peter Duesberg have B.A. degrees. Eleni also happens to have a M.Sc. degree, but they didn’t mention that.

    The same story, as I recall, referred to Val Turner as “Mr. Turner.” Val is of course an MD. The press are doing the same thing they did to Matthias Rath in South Africa, i.e., withholding a dissident’s credentials from readers. In SA, they even went so far as to mischaracterize the name of Rath’s foundation, calling it the “Rath Foundation” when it is actually called the “Dr. Rath Foundation.” Anything to keep their readers from finding out that the man the entire SA media called a “vitamin entrepreneur” and a “vitamin salesman” was actually a qualified physician with many publications in scientific journals.

    Others have already noticed that the media are doing things like putting “experts” in quotes in order to cast doubt on Val’s and Eleni’s credentials. Standard propaganda technique, about as far from classical journalism as it’s possible to be.

    Okay, now, it’s easy to predict what the prosecutors are going to do. They are going to say to Eleni, “and you are not even a PhD, are you? Why should anyone listen to you when we have thousands of PhDs and MDs who dispute you?”

    The fact is, we really ought to get some of the other Perthians to testify, the ones with better credentials, like Papadimitriou and Maniotis, who are PhDs (Papadimitriou is actually an MD AND a PhD as well as a professor). Eleni’s lowly M.Sc. is a real liability. I mentioned to Val a few years ago that Eleni really should get a PhD, as the public unfortunately associates academic rank with rightness and wrongness of one’s ideas.

    Then the prosecutors will say to Val, “and you, Dr. Turner…are an emergency room physician. You have no expertise in virology…”

    Not that it matters. I’m sure the covert Octopus comprising the Medical Mafia, CIA, NSC, CFR, and the rest of the behind the scenes powers that be with unlimited power and zero accountability, are already turning the gears to fix the verdict in this appeal. It don’t take much…a simple threat (or bribe, or both) to the judge will probably suffice.

    Obviously, such behind the scenes stuff took place in Kim’s attempted legal proceedings, which explains why her lawyers kept fleeing the coop like scared chickens.

    So…I’m sure that Kevin Borick is already aware of the credentials issue of his two star witnesses, and hopefully will bolster them with some people whose credentials are more impeccable. We have lots of such people, including De Harven, who can testify that Hiv doesn’t exist.

    I’m sure that Eleni is probably the best talker of them all, but credentials are important too, and we need them to bring on someone who is unimpeachable academically.


    And how can I omit UPI’s reported description of Eleni and Val as “self-styled scientific researchers.”

    Journalism is supposed to use neutral, emotionless reporting words, not words brimming over with prejudice and disdain. But they never do anymore on issues of importance to the power elite.

    Now I hope I don’t have to argue with anyone anymore when I say that the media are just a huge propaganda op. This should be obvious to all. (except TS, who still fails to recognize that the media lie about all issues that affect the interests of the global elite, and not just Aids)

  10. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    I’m sure that Eleni is probably the best talker of them all, but credentials are important too, and we need them to bring on someone who is unimpeachable academically.

    Legal challenge to the existence of HIV is the topic, right NAR ? So what do others say ?

    Duesberg Defends Challenges to the Existence of HIV:

    However, the Papadopulos-Lanka challenge, that HIV does not exist, fails to explain

    (i) why virtually all people who contain HIV DNA also contain antibodies against Montagnier”s HIV strain -the global standard of all “HIV tests”- and

    (ii) why most, but certainly not all people who lack HIV DNA contain no such antibodies.

    I will argue that HIV exists, and has been properly identified as a unique retrovirus on the grounds that

    (i) it has been isolated – even from its own virion structure – in the form of an infectious, molecularly cloned HIV DNA that is able to induce the synthesis of a reverse transcriptase containing virion, and

    (ii) that HIV-specific, viral DNA can be identified only in infected, but not in uninfected human cells.

    The existence of an unique retrovirus HIV provides a plausible explanation for the good (not perfect) correlation between the existence of HIV DNA and antibodies against it in thousands of people that have been subjected to both tests.

    The Papadopulos-Lanka challenge fails to explain this correlation.

    In conclusion, HIV has been isolated by the most rigorous method science has to offer—?.

    Peter Duesberg

  11. Gene Semon Says:

    But Yossarian, what if eveybody thought like Peter Duesberg?

  12. nohivmeds Says:

    Yo Yossarin. Thank you for that reminder, and Gene too — the testimony heard will represent the Perth Groups critique only — there are other critiques. Several, including Duesberg’s. One legal strategy might have been to show the plethora of alternative conceptions that currenty exist, rather than yolking and entire case to a single critique.

  13. trrll Says:

    —œThe last point is of special interest since, in 1995, eight years later, we find in Nature, arguably the leading science weekly journal in the world, the commentary that, at the same time (a) confirms Peter Duesbereg’s contention (point number 5, above) that the evidence could never have supported direct viral killing; and (b) shifts the standard hypothesis around 180 degrees. The Nature commentary, in an article dealing with HIV, said that: —˜… an intrinsic cytopathic effect of the virus is no longer credible.—™ (Wain-Hobson, S. Nature, 373: 102, 1995)….Note comments of retrovirologist Wain-Hobson, another non-acolyte of Duesberg.

    The choice of the Wain-Hobson quote is decidedly odd, verging on deceptive. Here is the quote in its original context.

    As an intrinsic cytopathic effect of the virus is no longer credible, the immune system is the obvious answer

    In other words, Wain-Hobson is not suggesting that HIV does not kill CD4+ cells (indeed, he states elsewhere in the same article),

    With so much virus and so many infected cells around, the AIDS-without-HIV hypotheses can be definitively sidelined.

    So far from questioning whether AIDS is responsible for depletion of CD4 cells, he is quibbling about the extent to which it does so by direct killing and the extent to which it does so by provoking attacks by the immune system on its own cells. The title of the article, by the way, is “Viral Mayhem.” He goes on to talk about the necessity for combination therapy with antiviral drugs “at all stages of the disease.”

  14. YossariansGhostbuster Says:


    Could you wait just a darn minute, hold on to your peer reviewed articles for just a short time, please. Dialogue in session.

    Like, Yossarian ain’t no genius. We’re just talking about a dude in australia where the appeals judge has to decide if he has to spend the next 15 years in jail following his conviction for passing on hiv to his amourous partners and whether or not his dumbass attorneys have any validity in defending him with the notion that hiv doesn’t exist versus an apparently dumbass aussie law.

    Can we stick to that for now ?

    So please don’t hijack the thread just yet, ok, trrll.

  15. kyle Says:

    The reason we could only put one view ,is that witness’s will have to testify in court.To fly people in from around the world is very expensive, if we could raise money, that is exactly what we would do.

    We have very little money.

    In reply to ghostbuster, only one of his three partners has tested positive.

  16. nohivmeds Says:

    Hi Kyle,

    I can understand the financial constraints, yet I wonder — here is a perhaps very important legal proceeding — could Peter Duesberg somehow raise the necessary funds to fly to Australia? Could Etienne deHarven? I wish they had/would. It would be most excellent to see all divergent viewpoints represented. Root-Bernstein too. Everyone. In a sense, the job is to cast “reasonable doubt” on the necessary connection between a positive antibody test and death from an immunodeficiency. The diversity of views on this issue is often difficult here on this blog, but might actually be a strength in court.

  17. trrll Says:


    So please don’t hijack the thread just yet, ok, trrll.

    If you guys don’t want my opinion, you probably should be more careful about invoking my name:


    I bet CN or TRRLL can explain it better than the Harvard docs, or Dr. Gallo for that matter. I couldn’t quite follow their explanations, but it all sounded very convincing.

  18. YossariansGhostbuster Says:


    You got it and only a wee little bit wrong. The resident genius on this particular post is bialyzebub aka Otis aka George aka Michael David aka Kafka’s Ghost aka Eccles and only who knows what other fake transdimensional non-beings he can invent, all of course in the majic name of bioscience. Just don’t call him Harvey or challenge his molecular credentials. You could of course be filtered out at BarnesWorld along with Bialysebub and Eccles and a few others.

    This post as considerd by Kyle speaks to the subject matter re: the found guilty in australia who is trying to appeal a conviction for violating the law regarding sexual transmission of the hiv virus to one of three proported amours. The case of course doesn’t involve the pathogenicity of hiv, only the transmission thereof, presumably. To that regard P Duesberg will be of no help as the perthies refuse to believe that hiv exists. And of course, Bialysebub is merely interested in exploiting new thinker remedies and has proposed masturbatory diarrheatorical comments at Barnes World as in Comments to this thread are closed.

    This of course is only a long way to tell Kyle, that he ought not rely on any supportive help from NAR or Bialysebub or Gene Semon who are playing other internet science paper gotcha games.. Even reading Oncogenes will not help Kyles friend. nor will slamming Fauci,or Gallo or Baltimore whomever those might be.

    Tis interesting, tis it not that when the rubber meets the road in the clinical settings or in the court rooms, the bialys of the world seemingly disappear behind their papers and computer screens.

    So Kyle, let us hope your friend has good attorneys to prove the conviction is without merit and the law unjust.

    I take my leave, trrll

  19. kyle Says:

    Actually he was charged with recklessly endangering the life of another person by not telling them he was HIV pos.

  20. Otis Says:

    McK ack ack aka ack ack ack and aka who and what so evers,

    You forgot MacDonald, Lise, Michael, Dr. Knobless, Undergrad Gal/Guy, DT, TRRLL, TS, McK, German Guest, ojukwu, and a few others…maybe, but me and Bialy is different people and me and Hank banned your sorry ass from ever again posting at YBYL because you are a moron, and if left to your own devices would pollute the new online anti-Nature (check its very rapidly rising Alexa please) with the same crap you do NAR.

    BTW…the only reason I am taking this opportunity to rub your drunken Irish nose in this is that this morning we published another previously unpublished part of the chronicles of Farber and Fishbein.

    It is pretty heavy, even if me and Hank and Bialy, and Duesberg and MOTYR and a few others who saw it in proof do so say.

    It can be read HERE with a single click, that I will be recorded by my macros, and at the end of the day I can know exactly how many readers of this page take my really good advice.

    Bye till the next time.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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