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.

Slate’s misguided guide

Editorial assistant calls on Martin Delaney for her research

Duesberg view acknowledged as “popular”, though “pernicious”

Slate now looking for new “Explainer”, but why?

We trust you didn’t miss the authoritative Slate guide to AIDS Conspiracies last Wednesday,The AIDS Conspiracy Handbook: Jeremiah Wright’s paranoia, in context by Juliet Lapidos. Juliet Lapidos is a Slate editorial assistant, who relied on Martin Delaney of Project Inform and Michael Worobey of the University of Arizona for her information.

So why is there a large notice at the top of the Column, “We’re looking for a new Explainer—click here to apply for the job.”? This seems rather unfair. Does someone at Slate know more than they are letting on, and realize they need Explainers who have some idea which sources are worth using, and therefore rate Juliet as too naive for using Martin Delaney? Surely not.

delaneymartin.jpgDelaney is a leading HIV/AIDS activist whose brain has been taken over by the Meme for a long time now, though as we recall he was a critic of AZT until he found that his office equipment could be paid for by the makers of that revolting drug.

That was the first of many payments that since have helped fuel Project Inform, his $1.5 million operation dispensing conventional HIV/AIDS wisdom in San Francisco, otherwise known as Project Deform by observers who notice the camel humps that appear on the backs of those who take the protease inhibitors in HAART, the current drug regime that Delaney promotes while assiduously maligning Peter Duesberg as homophobic, a gratuitous calumny which is not supported by any good evidence whatsoever.

Anyhow, why should editorial assistant Juliet not keep the Explainer job now she has served the prejudices of John P. Moore et al so reliably? Moore evidently counts this piece of misguided guidance as a coup for his HIV/AIDS disinformation site, AIDS Truth, where he now lists it at the top of his news items putting HIV/AIDS critics in their place.

Duesberg view most popular

Here is the paragraph that probably pleases him most:

It’s Not a Virus

Among the most popular, and pernicious, conspiracy theories is that AIDS isn’t caused by a virus at all. Peter Duesberg, a biology professor at University of California-Berkeley, has argued that drugs and promiscuity are the principal causes of the disease in the United States. He attributes AIDS in Africa to malnutrition.

South African President Thabo Mbeki has voiced support for the so-called Duesberg hypothesis, and his health minister, Mantombazana Tshabalala-Msimang, has recommended treating AIDS with foodstuffs, like garlic, rather than pharmaceuticals.

That “pernicious” is probably what thrilled the leading macaque researcher at Weill-Cornell most. But “popular”? Is the Duesberg rejection of HIV as the cause of AIDS popular?

Surely Delaney and Moore must be unhappy at that sign that the Duesberg inspired paradigm debunkers are getting somewhere?

42 Responses to “Slate’s misguided guide”

  1. MacDonald Says:

    I hope the host has discovered how much ink and airtime HIV/AIDS dissidence has gotten from this single Rev. Wright incident. Bad attention is better than no intention.

    Predictably The strategy du jour seems to be to conflate scientific dissenters with “ideologues” an views that are not even remotely similar. lest it should mysteriously disappear form the site, I post below a recent exchange with a PEPFAR expert, who was obviously taken aback by informed Comments hehe. . . But please try the URL first although I have corrected at least a dozen hastily written mistakes and typos for the benefit of NAR’s readers:

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/03/21/rev-jeremiah-wright-and-pepfar-aids-complicity#comment-3653

    —————————

    AIDS Truth?

    Mr. Swenson,

    It may be obvious to you and Marysia by virtue of certain undisclosed “transmission routes” that HIV is a virus. However, I don’t think that entitles you to peddle pure ignorance and prejudice.

    Firstly, you use the term “denialists” to refer to those who question the official theory(ies) of AIDS, with which you are obviously no more familiar than with the “denialists” themselves.
    “Denialist” was a term invented to smear critics of all stripes and associate them with holocaust deniers in the public mind. What is your justification for using this inflammatory term when you can’t even explain their main positions?

    You write:

    “The “AIDS denialists”, people who believe that HIV does not cause AIDS, have been prolific in their attempts to offer different perspectives, some rooted in the beliefs that AIDS was deliberately spread, others believing it was simply an experiment gone awry. Still others believe the drugs (and profits drug companies are making from the disease) are more harmful than the disease itself.”

    Not a single word of this is correct apart from the first line. In fact, it looks like you can’t even tell the difference between HIV and AIDS. Pray tell, Mr. Expert on Reality and Facts, how can the “denialists” believe that HIV is harmless and at the same time that AIDS was deliberately spread? How exactly was AIDS deliberately spread if not by a virus? No wait, let me get you started on the right foot: define “AIDS”. Which criteria must be fulfilled to be diagnosed with AIDS?

    Marysia says higher prevalence of HIV and AIDS in South Africa is due to poverty and the migrant labor system. What do you think, Mr. Expert on Real Science and Real Solutions? I see you think that it’s due to Black superstition and conspiracy theories.

    “It’s a huge barrier to HIV prevention in black communities. There’s an issue around conspiracy theory and urban myths. Thus we have an epidemic raging out of control, and African Americans are being disproportionately impacted in every single sense.”

    Ok, let’s exercise our brains a little on that one shall we? Blacks are disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS because they believe they have been disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS. But how did they come to believe that if not by being disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS in the first place – that is, before their superstitions and conspiracy theories could have influenced the
    disproportionate spread of HIV/AIDS. So which came first, Mr. AIDStruth, the hen or the egg?

    Your favorite theory focuses on Afro-Americans, Marysia’s theory on South Africans. Marysia’s theory was completely different from yours; should we discard his/her theory since yours explains the African “epidemic” quite nicely as well?

    Before you start demonstrating your excellent grasp of the topic let me present the conundrum for you:

    The cultural, geo-political, cultural etc. differences are ALL PRESENT IN THE US STATISTICS! No need to bring in South Africa. Within EVERY SINGLE DEMOGRAPHIC SUBSTRATUM of the US population, BLACKS CONSISTENTLY test HIV positive FIVE TIMES MORE OFTEN than WHITES on average.

    If you don’t get it, you’re welcome to educate yourself here, http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/ Or post examples of some other infectious diseases that behave in the same way.

    PS. If this is all over your head, just compare the sober scientific tone on the sceptical, not
    “denialist”, site I’ve linked with the political smear jobs you find under the AIDStruth news items.

    Submitted by Brown on March 25, 2008 – 4:05pm.
    reply

    Your rant

    Thank you for your sober and scientific rant. Being HIV positive myself, I have a firm and intimate grasp of the facts about HIV and AIDS, their causal relationship and their spread. My point in the sentence you have a nit with, was that those who deny HIV causes AIDS and those who believe it is purposefully spread are in close relationship, all contributing to the delay of dealing with a very real pandemic. Far more importantly, these doubters, if you deny the denial-ist phrase, impede progress of government action. As we are currently witnessing in the PEPFAR debate, when advocates side with ideologues, there are already enough impediments to doing what is right.

    To your point of racial disparity of the disease, you are right. It is true of almost every disease. The disproportionate impact of the disparities of our health care system and racism, women and girls, or based on economic means as opposed to human need, is well documented. But again, where are the profiles in courage standing up to change those realities by changing our policies instead of simply using those facts to perpetuate the very causes of the disparity in the first place?

    Lastly, why do I use the term “AIDS deniers?” Because I also once worked at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and understand the dangers of Holocaust deniers. If the shoe fits, wear it.

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

    Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on March 26, 2008 – 7:39am.
    reply

    Civil Tone vs. Rant

    I recognize that you’ve answered in a slightly more civil tone than I’ve used, however, that in no way changes the fact that you’re spewing the kind of prejudice and ignorance I normally only encounter on the right-wing hate blogs.

    1. I don’t know if it was meant as an argument from authority but being HIV-positive means you have a personal stake in the issue, not that you have a firm grasp of it.

    2. Those who question (not “deny”) that HIV causes AIDS stand in no relationship whatsoever to those who think it is spread intentionally or, even broader, “ideologues” of any stripe you don’t approve of. You have exchanged a falsehood for a smear: guilt by far-fetched association.

    What you are doing is censoring intellectual debate concerning HIV and AIDS by lumping together scientific critique and religious fanatics. Are you also of the opinion we cannot critique the rationale behind the Iraq War because it endangers our troops? Or that we cannot inquire into the legality of government surveillance because it plays into the hands of terrorists?

    3. Unfortunately you missed the point about racial disparity. The disparity has been consistent all through the HIV era for all demographics. This means that for Blacks and Whites in similar social and financial situations Blacks still test positive far more often than Whites. Native American Indians are even poorer than Blacks and they do not test positive at anywhere near the same rates as Blacks. In fact, they are much closer to Whites.

    If you would have taken the trouble to go through the critiques of “Doubters” such as Peter Duesberg, the “Perth Group” and many others, you would have discovered that inexplicable, unforeseeable and highly embarrasing blunders, such as this:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003398.html

    or this:

    http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/C216549D-65B8-483D-8C84-D513A22900B6.asp

    are neither inexplicable, nor unforeseen by those you please to call “denialists”.

    But I guess you’re so intimately familiar with the topic that these things and hundreds more examples I could come up with, like the initial high dose AZT fiasco (You do remember the “incubation period” for HIV used to be a LOT shorter back in the good old AZT-80s don’t you?), will only serve to convince you that anybody who doesn’t believe in chemo-therapy for pregnant mothers and their babies must be a nazi. How about chemo as a pre-sex prophylactic, does that strike you as Serious and Responsible enough?

    Bonus question 1. Since you’re well into all aspects of these issues, perhaps you can tell us deniers what is the gold standard for the EIA/ELISA and Western Blot HIV tests – the tests I presume informed yourself that you are infected with an invincible, super-mutating, 100% lethal retrovirus which somehow jumped the species barrier right into the American population at the exact time our biotech revolution developed the tools to discover such things indirectly?

    Bonus question 2: How does HIV manage to kill cells at a higher rate than they can be regenerated?

    Submitted by Brown on March 27, 2008 – 3:11pm.
    reply

    Heckuva job Brownie …
    Sorry Brown, not interested in taking your tests, have spent more than enough time reading the HIV skeptics sites and watching their circular logic you tube videos. For me and many others it all boils down to this: The disease is real, we have seen too many die and prefer to spend our time working to prevent the spread of the disease than arguing with you. You can throw all the links and test questions you want up in your next rant, I’m going to continue trying to make sure we get the right prevention tools and education to the people who need them. If only all the energy spent trying to divert attention could instead be spent teaching people to practice safer sex, delay sexual debut, remain faithful to partners and getting services and education to populations that need them, we might make more progress.

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

    Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on March 27, 2008 – 3:46pm.
    reply

    The Mark of a Serious and Responsible Scientist

    You have placed yourself in excellent company Mr. Swenson.

    The Serious and Responsible AIDStruth website you link as the final authority on all matters HIV/AIDS remarkably assumes the exact same courageous stance as yourself: Slander individuals, misrepresent dissenting views, censor when possible. Here is part of their “Answering Denialists” manifesto:

    “We will not:

    Engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes.”

    But I shall spare you another rant, as you kindly call it, and bow out before the temptation to censor becomes too strong for you.

    Submitted by Brown on March 27, 2008 – 4:19pm.
    reply

  2. MacDonald Says:

    I will continue to post, since the guy has sort of given me an extra shot:

    Scientific Theory

    Brownie, my understanding of scientific theory (albeit a lay understanding) is that once the scientific community has reached certain conclusions they become accepted, until proven otherwise. What seems to be the case here is that the people on the outside of science with respect to HIV/AIDS just can’t accept the fact that they have been proven wrong, so they keep carping, thus distracting others from the real task at hand, preventing further spread of HIV. If you want to debate gravity or where exactly the four corners of the earth are, go right ahead. Just don’t confuse innocent people who need prevention and treatment in the meantime.

    Where do you stand on the theory that having sex with virgins will rid you of the AIDS virus? That was pretty widely believed in parts of Africa for years, perhaps even more than the theories you peddle. Should those beliefs also have equal weight?

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

    Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on March 27, 2008 – 4:36pm.

    My Beliefs

    First, I have given a different email address. This was because the old one for some reason wasn’t accepted, nothing to do with conspiracies (-:

    Secondly, If you knew anything about the theories I “peddle”, or if you’re not just trying to smear, you would of course know that I (rather those scientists whose points I argue) do not consider it likely there is such a thing as an “AIDS” virus. I do not believe an HIV-positive test result can be reversed by having sex, although it could posibly be reversed by moving to another country. Likewise, the “AIDS” one has in the US if one tests HIV-positive and has a CD4 count below 200 could reliably be cured merely by crossing the border to Canada. Does that sound like mumbo jumbo to you? Well it does to me too. The mystical reason is that the criteria for an HIV positive test and the definition of “AIDS” are not standardized the world over.

    As far as Africa goes, I think it likely that what we call AIDS is largely a renaming of old diseases. The problem would disappear with better living standards, sanitation, clean water, proper nutrition, effective treatment of endemic diseases such as TB and malaria and, especially in South Africa, reductions in pollution.

    I do not find the correlation between HIV and AIDS good enough to consider an HIV-positive test much more than a non-specific marker for some kind of challenge or accumulation of challenges and/or stressors to/of the immune system. The US statistics showing that Blacks are consistently much more likely to test positive than Whites across all demographics and during the whole HIV era, gives plausibility to the view that because of genetic differences Blacks are more likely to test positive.

    Thus an HIV-positive test is certainly cause for concern, but not an indication that one is infected with an “AIDS virus” that can only be combatted with DNA chain terminators, protease inhibitors, integrase inhibitors etc. all highly poisonous. I believe that for some “AIDS” defining
    diseases, some of these drugs may have some benefit if used judiciously, but that it is madness to give them to clinically healthy people on background of an HIV-positive result, high “viral load” count, that does not count live virus, or low CD4 counts independent of clinical symptoms.

    Submitted by Brown on March 27, 2008 – 5:24pm.

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    Excellent, MacDonald, excellent, and admirably patient. Worth repeating in bold:

    I do not believe an HIV-positive test result can be reversed by having sex, although it could possibly be reversed by moving to another country. Likewise, the “AIDS” one has in the US if one tests HIV-positive and has a CD4 count below 200 could reliably be cured merely by crossing the border to Canada. Does that sound like mumbo jumbo to you? Well it does to me too. The mystical reason is that the criteria for an HIV positive test and the definition of “AIDS” are not standardized the world over.

    As far as Africa goes, I think it likely that what we call AIDS is largely a renaming of old diseases. The problem would disappear with better living standards, sanitation, clean water, proper nutrition, effective treatment of endemic diseases such as TB and malaria and, especially in South Africa, reductions in pollution.

    I do not find the correlation between HIV and AIDS good enough to consider an HIV-positive test much more than a non-specific marker for some kind of challenge or accumulation of challenges and/or stressors to/of the immune system. The US statistics showing that Blacks are consistently much more likely to test positive than Whites across all demographics and during the whole HIV era, gives plausibility to the view that because of genetic differences Blacks are more likely to test positive.

    Thus an HIV-positive test is certainly cause for concern, but not an indication that one is infected with an “AIDS virus” that can only be combatted with DNA chain terminators, protease inhibitors, integrase inhibitors etc. all highly poisonous. I believe that for some “AIDS” defining
    diseases, some of these drugs may have some benefit if used judiciously, but that it is madness to give them to clinically healthy people on background of an HIV-positive result, high “viral load” count, that does not count live virus, or low CD4 counts independent of clinical symptoms.

    Great stuff, MacDonald, accurate and completely intelligible to outsiders not mentally paralyzed by the HIV=AIDS Meme. It is mystifying how you have the patience to deal with minds inhabited by the Meme who admit they have a lay understanding of the science yet swallow the present inconsistent fairy tale whole and lecture you on standing aside and making way for the bandwagon load of drugs passing by to African children.

    But As far as Africa goes, I think it likely that what we call AIDS is largely a renaming of old diseases. ?

    Why “largely”? Why “likely”? Is this your actual opinion despite this blog grinding this axe sharp as a razor over the past three years? We would suggest “certainly” instead of “likely” and “entirely” instead of “largely”. Less equivocation please, even though tactful. Or do you fantasize that by some miracle Gallo found a new disease to suit his career needs and lo and behold, it occurred in Africa when the researchers and activists finally got there?

    We seem to detect a certain diplomatic caution overtaking your normally brilliant brain MacDonald, possibly because you have been reading too much of Henry Bauer’s admirable site, which emphasizes how little we know about certain aspects of this ideology, which examination reveals to be more and more unscientific the more one peers into it.

    Perhaps you may imagine the outside possibility that maybe by some heavenly intervention Gallo did catch some ghostly cat by the tail as it passed by as invisibly as ionizing radiation ie some disease agent never hitherto encountered by man. Yes Henry Bauer is surely right in his skepticism about the HIV test real or imagined (as in “if we did test them they would be positive no doubt about it”) not mapping any sensible depiction of any supposed pandemic, but this extension of skepticism to the very existence of the Virus itself flies in the face of Peter Duesberg’s testimony to the contrary based on practicalities such as reliable supplies via Fedex from Montagnier to Gallo and now to any lab in the world, apparent to any “lay” mind, and simply begs that you be pigeonholed as a crackpate, even if close examination of the subtleties shows you have a considerable point.

    We suggest that you refer unscientific people also to this here mundane but earnest site as a guide to the politics of the field and some of the absurdities of its claims. The politics give a lot away – wait, I am joining you in your discreet touch – the politics give everything away. They are and always have been the only spoiler of good science in this area, we believe, whatever is revealed at the core of this theoretical tangle when it is finally scissored away.

    Perhaps only the most intelligent people should be referred to Henry’s site alone, which is of great interest to smart people but which is often high level stuff which sometimes may not be quite as simply expressed in newspaper terms and as accessible as this here collection of laborious repetitions by a lay mind of the core simplicities which lie at the heart of the matter and which tell any Meme free lay person that the inner Chinese box is empty. This is not to say that he is not very clear about the basic politics, of course, such as conflict of interest, etc.

    The important thing to get through to all may be as reductionist as simply that “censorship by threats and insults is not a weapon used or needed by good scientists who have a sound analysis of the science they purvey based on reason and evidence exposed for all to see.” You sent this arrow off to the heart of the matter up front, and one can only say, Well done.

    Once again your last three paragraphs are a brilliant summary of the kind of points that should be made about the science. What a sad thing that the Meme will probably block them from getting through into the brain of your correspondent.

    Congratulations. If the cause of truth in AIDS science had ten of your kind it probably would have prevailed ten years ago.

  4. MacDonald Says:

    TS, by saying there is no “AIDS” virus, I meant exactly that: no AIDS virus. I defined the position we can all agree on.

    You are right I could and should reference this blog as well. But basically I reference Duesberg and Perth for the main positions and main contributions, and Bauer for the very particular HIV statistics point, which is now a dissident bread and butter argument. Only on the rare occasions when the discussion continues, does a suitable opportunity present itself to reference NAR. Remember the first 2-3 stories a newcomer stumbles upon here could very well be about something completely different. That is not the case with my 3 primary references.

  5. MacDonald Says:

    The discussion continues with an additonal participant. I suppose the host prefers to have it all posted here rather than mere links?

    As you can see towards the end, NAR has now been referenced because we are moving into the area of pure politics. If Mr. Swenson checks out the link, he will see that the discussion is being double-posted, but I don’t suppose he, as a fellow blogger, will find that suspicious? Otherwise the host here might want to alert Mr. Swenson to the situation. If Mr.Swenson reads this, I will repeat for his benefit that the reasons for double-posting are two-fold

    1. Threads “infiltrated” by “denialists” have been know to mysteriously disappear from cyberspace.

    2. Iteration and summaries of main points are encouraged by the blog host.

    ———————-

    Well said, Mr. Brown……Well said. The bumbling incompetent unproven and ever conflicting “science” of believing HIV is the cause of AIDS is now going into its 26th unfruitful year.

    For further information for those willing to educate themselves, the March 2006 Harpers Article: “AIDS: OUT OF CONTROL, AND THE CORRUPTION OF MEDICAL SCIENCE”, can be found online.

    But woe to those religious heretics who question the HIV equals AIDS dogma. For no human ego, and certainly no over paid scientist or doctor, wants to ever admit he or she had erroneous beliefs!

    In defence of Reverend Wright, even though I believe him to be quite mistaken about HIV, it is certainly understandable why he would believe HIV were “invented” to do away with unwanted groups of people. Throughout modern history, there have certainly been those in our government, as well as in positions of power throughout the world, who sought the possible means of doing away with unwanted groups, indigenous peoples, religious groups, as well as population control. Genocide and Eugenics are nothing new. There is great evidence of this throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, beginning with smallpox infected blankets being given to American Indians. Nazi Germany clearly showed us that our parents or grandparents lived in a world of such thinking. Genocides in Europe, Africa, and elsewhere still confront mankind today. Even in the latter years of the former apartheid government of South Africa, there were those considering a full extermination of the blacks, in order to hold onto control of the country and its wealth.

    In looking at such facts, it is certainly understandable how Mr. Wright might come to believe AIDS were “created” for just such a situation.

    However, Mr. Wright, as well as the rest of the HIV believers, including Mr. Swenson, Marysia, and all others who yet blindly follow the belief that HIV is the cause of AIDS, continue to ignore the realities of those who are suffering actual illness and disease, and the obvious effects on their immune systems of lives lived in an emotional state of helpless hopelessness, intensely high stress, drugs both licit and illicit, poverty, malnutrition, the strain of population explosions throughout the continent of Africa (whose population just so happens to have doubled over the last 25 years to now nearly one billion people), and the humiliations of still current racism and colonialism, as well as religiously based homophobism and the rejection and shaming of gays that still deeply and excrutiatingly affects some gays in the western world.

    These are the facts and realities that are and have been and continue to be at the very core of the illnesses suffered by those who are stricken with failed immune systems. No simple pill nor any vaccine will cure any of these maladies.

    Yet, the HIV believers, and their viagra inspired belief that a pill is the answer to all of the hard questions, or that a simple pill will cure all of the worlds ills, are the single greatest barricade to confronting the very factual and very real reasons why millions of people yet get deathly sick and fail to heal, and fail to thrive.

    Yet even this is very understandable, as there have been wonderful advances in science, technology, and medicine. And it is understandable that fears of plagues are still deeply entrenched in the minds of man. Much of today’s germaphobia of HIV, Sars, BirdFlu, etc, is just a modern extension of it.

    But what is difficult to understand, is how 99 percent of the humans in the world can be so deluded by fear inspired falsehoods, and so unwilling or unable to empathize with gays being dispossessed by religions, families, and societies, or how so many can be unwilling or unable to empathize with the dispossessed starving downtrodden, poverty stricken masses. Yet all the while, blame an imaginary virus as the cause of the problem, and believe that a pill is the solution.

    Question: How is it that so very many are yet so oblivious to the very simple realities of life on this planet, as well as some of the very simple solutions to much of these problems?

    Answer: Human fear, human programming, human egos, and human greed.

    http://www.duesberg.com
    http://www.rethinkingaids.com
    http://www.hivskeptic.wordpress.com

    Submitted by Another take on it. on March 27, 2008 – 9:28pm.
    reply

    Common Ground, Not Just A Pill
    Dear Another Take On It …. I completely agree with you that poverty, malnutrition, colonialism parading now as global trade, racism and misogyny/machismo/patriarchy/homophobia all feed into the spread of disease. On those issues we agree. I’ll even go so far as to say the pill(s) are NOT and should never be the entire focus of any policy to combat AIDS. Education, prevention, strengthening the role of women, fair trade, nutrition, clean water, sound economies and an end to bigotry will get us closer to the end of AIDS than any pill. But for people already infected, fighting for all those good causes you mention, if the treatment works, and gives them more life with which to fight for those causes, which many HIV+ people around the world do, then why stand in the way? Why not extend the life of positive people that they too might see the changes in the world we agree are needed? The science is clear, for people diagnosed with what science agrees is HIV, the meds extend life. Period. Are they toxic, do they have side effects, should they be given only with strict medical supervision — the answer to all these is definitively yes. If you believe in bettering the world as you suggest then surely you want to see people diagnosed with whatever you choose to believe HIV is live to enjoy the fruits of your labor. Are there some people who can live a long time without meds, yes again, with proper medical supervision. The pills are not the answer, they are a means to an end to strengthen people that might otherwise already be dead so we can together fight for a better life for the next generation. And since you offered more links, I’d like to repeat mine for readers seeking the currently accepted scientific understanding of facts related to HIV/AIDS, found at AIDSTruth.org.

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

    Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on March 28, 2008 – 6:15am.
    reply

    Shifting Common Ground
    Mr. Swenson

    There should indeed be plenty of common ground for us to meet on. I would never advise anybody to stop taking medicine (s)he feels is helpful, and with which his/her doctor agrees. But do we not believe in informed consent? You say the science is clear, the HIV-drugs help those supposedly infected with HIV. How many MDs do you think are aware, never mind inform a clinically healthy patient with a positive HIV test and a high viral load/low CD4 count, of for example the peer-reviewed studies cited in this piece of dissident literature:

    “The short-lived “Lazarus effect.” AIDS drugs can be effective in the short term against some fungal, bacterial or parasitic infections, but down the road, they gradually destroy health and life. In the U.S., peer-reviewed studies now acknowledge that AIDS treatment drugs cause more illness and death among HIV positives than AIDS-defining diseases do. In a recent study published in the Journal of AIDS, “All four classes of antiretrovirals (ARVs) and all 19 FDA-approved ARVs have been directly or indirectly associated with life-threatening events and death.” A study published in 2002 showed that deaths attributable to ARVs “surpassed deaths due to advanced HIV.” Other studies have found that people on AIDS drugs are twice as likely to die from liver and kidney failure and heart attacks as from AIDS-defining diseases.

    The devastating effects of nevirapine. Nevirapine, commonly touted as a miracle drug for reducing mother-to-child transmission of HIV, causes liver failure and Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a rash that actually burns off layers of skin. The drug’s clinical studies in Uganda showed the opposite of reducing mother-to-child transmission and were so scandal ridden that nevirapine’s manufacturer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, withdrew its applications for nevirapine use by pregnant women in the U.S. and Canada. Because of this, nevirapine has never been approved for use among pregnant women in America, Canada, Europe or any First World nation. Several mothers died from nevirapine use in trials in the U.S. and Africa.

    Death by AZT. AZT, one of the main drugs promoted by the (RED) campaign, is one of the most toxic drugs ever approved for human use. It caused tens of thousands of premature deaths among the first generation of Western HIV positives who took it in the late 1980s. AZT is
    carcinogenic, mutagenic, brain damaging, and toxic to all cells in the human body, especially immune system cells. Researchers have found AZT to cause severe mitochondrial disorders, tumors, blood cancers, anemia, severe birth defects and other disorders.

    The tragedy of AZT for children. A Florida study found that rapid progression to AIDS-defining diseases was “three times more likely” in AZT-treated infants than in untreated ones. Many other studies have compounded this tragic finding. In 2000, British science writer Neville Hodgkinson wrote, “An Italian study examining 200 HIV-positive children found that, at three years old, children whose mothers took AZT in pregnancy were ‘significantly more likely’ to become seriously ill than babies of untreated mothers. They also had a higher death rate.”

    AZT’s admitted toxicity. The inventor of AZT, Professor Richard Beltz, has warned of AZT’s long-term toxicities. Referring to the media-besieged government of South Africa, he wrote to advocate (lawyer) and magistrate A. Brink:

    “I hope you succeed in convincing your government not to make AZT available.””

    Active links to some of the studies can be found at rethinkingaids.com (second link submitted above at the end of the Comment by “Another take on it”) where I have quoted from. And there is much, much more on the various dissident sites, all quoting official sources and peer-reviewed studies. Why should this not be allowed to be taken into account in the doctor’s office – by the patient him/herself?

    In Africa the situation is trickier: a villager who is told by the White Authority from Abroad that she and her baby are going to die if they don’t stop breastfeeding and start nevirapine immediately is unable to assess the situation, so this is all politics. Your article is about PEPFAR. The strong men behind PEPFAR want more treatment (more pills) less of other stuff. This is where our common ground is shrinking:

    ““U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), a practicing physician and Richard Burr (R-NC) today introduced legislation that would ensure the highest priority for U.S. global HIV/AIDS funding would be saving lives by providing treatment to those infected and eliminating baby AIDS by preventing the transmission of HIV from mother to child.”

    http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080312006354&newsLang=en

    And in case you want to say this does not exclude the improvements in general health the dissidents are calling for, here’s the basic idea:

    “I am concerned that many health programs in Asia, Africa, and the western hemisphere will be forced to shut down or greatly reduce operations under the president’s request,” said Congresswoman Lowey.

    While it increases funds for HIV/AIDS, Lowey notes that the president’s request cuts $251 million from 2008 levels for health programs she and others say complement HIV/AIDS efforts.”

    http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-03-11-voa92.cfm

    Are dissidents really equal to holocaust deniers for agreeing with the Congresswoman? Here’s what Tshabalala Msimang, the much maligned South African Minister of Health
    has to say:

    “However, South Africa’s health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who addressed the meeting yesterday, urged the EU not to focus on a single disease.

    “We have many diseases in Africa that somehow never get mentioned because we have become so one-disease focused,” she said.”

    http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=182523

    Is Msimang’s objection really that of a murderous woman in denial?

    For less technical discussions focusing on the politics of HIV/AIDS the interested reader can try:

    http://newaidsreview.com/blog/index.php

    Submitted by Brown on March 28, 2008 – 11:18am.

  6. yello Says:

    Interesting thread so far MacDonald.

  7. MacDonald Says:

    Yello,

    thanks for your contribution. Basically Mr. Swenson wanted out right away, but my quote from AIDStruth and talk about censorship apparently stung him, and so it continued a little longer with the appearance of “Another take”. Don’t expect him to answer anything else – that would only dignify and encourage the “denialists”.

    I don’t know if Mr. Swenson has “conflicts of interest”, it certainly looks that way, but what annoys me is these people, like Tara Smith, who suddenly become experts on “denialism” just because they’re able to parrot the li(n)es handed them on AIDStruth. orgy. The deal I am offering is basically “shill if you must, we’ve all gotta make a living and feel altruistic somehow, but leave US the f*** out of it, cuz somebody might just happen along and show you for the empty vessel you are”.

    Even Tara, the emptiest of all vessels, has cut down on her HIV/denialist posts because of this, or so I flatter myself .

    BTW if you want to have a look at the new low JP Macaque has sunk to, go to AIDStruth (would double his hits for the day but what the heck even denialists are altruists once in a while) and search out the news item for March 03.

    And yes, I’m Nessie in the Comments

  8. Truthseeker Says:

    Well done MacDonald, Yello, you are constructing a useful thread there. Crystal clear.

    but MacD re your previous comment that

    You are right I could and should reference this blog as well. But basically I reference Duesberg and Perth for the main positions and main contributions, and Bauer for the very particular HIV statistics point, which is now a dissident bread and butter argument. Only on the rare occasions when the discussion continues, does a suitable opportunity present itself to reference NAR. Remember the first 2-3 stories a newcomer stumbles upon here could very well be about something completely different. That is not the case with my 3 primary references.

    this shortchanges the purpose of this blog. Please bear in mind this blog contains all links to every dimensions of the HIV/AIDS issue, which you will see if you go to the right hand margin and examine the list of links to other sites, with important ones like Peter Duesberg’s starred for leading status. It is designed to support exactly what you try to do – reference the leading material such as Duesberg’s site and papers.

    This blog’s whole purpose is to cover the whole topic clearly for all comers and it does not specialise in technical discussions, as you say, and perhaps we should make this even clearer. The idea is to explain the science and the scientific literature that backs it to intelligent enquirers who might then see what is actually said in the studies and journals and compare it with the misleading claims made in the media by the high status advocates of HIV and their activist supporters.

    We aim to use the literature which few read to show the paradigm HIV=AIDS is not supported in the literature, in fact, it contradicts it, as over thirty books will attest (those are linked to in the right hand margin as well). This is what we aim to show everybody.

    This is a blog specifically designed to open the door to the science for all laymen and show that it is only the politics has distorted the conventional wisdom into an upside down version of reality, and that any intelligent layman can understand the issue. We exist specifically to bridge the gap between laymen and scientists and show that anyone can understand the main points, and that the technicalities are worthy of discussion only because they show often show very clearly that the prevailing belief is unacceptable, whereas the critics’ alternatives are totally credible.

    This blog is devoted to the idea that anyone intelligent can read and understand the scientific arguments on both sides, and however much the scientists and others like to use the technicalities as a smoke screen, they are not complex enough to hide the material from laymen who can think straight.

    Christine Maggiore’s book can be understood throughout by any layman from president to cab driver, and so, we would hope, can this blog.

    We only carry on technical discussions here because the ordinary paradoxes and irrationality of the paradigm is so obvious that the intelligent contributors here look for something better to chew on.

    This is a journalistic site dedicated to investigating and exposing to the ordinary reading public paradigms which do not match the science in the best journals but which are still being sold far beyond their date of expiration.

    Anyone who troubles to go back to earlier posts on HIV=AIDS will see that from the beginning all major points are dealt with one at a time in non technical terms, although some might feel the ironic and satirical humor is a little far out when treating such a serious topic.

    However, this blog appreciates the erudite comments contributed by knowledgeable commentators such as yourself since they serve to show the world that the critics of HIV=AIDS tend to be far more literate and knowledgeable and in general a cut above the donkeys that pull the paradigm cart.

    When newcomers see that racehorses and not donkeys are in this pasture they get a better impression than visiting certain other blogs where the braying of asses tends to raise a cacophony that leaves the new visitor a little baffled.

    We try to cover other topics because the subject of AIDS is so tiresome and distasteful to most normal people – try mentioning it to most women who are not nurses, or even if they are – that they won’t read very far into it even though we are rescuing human love and sex from the taint of very unromantic considerations visited upon it quite unjustly and also, here we are dealing with the behavior of scientists and not so much the appalling fate of believers in the current paradigm who are patients, whom we are trying to rescue.

    In general unconventional beliefs in science and elsewhere and their validity or otherwise is our topic, and not confined to one field. A wide perspective adds authority since it shows quite clearly the core problems of HIV=AIDs such as censorship and the rationalization of paradoxes and inconsistencies are political and shared across every academic field where senior people resist correction.

    That is why we try and cover other areas, which we feel adds to the force of the argument rather than subtracts from it, for the fact that the politics are typical of academic and scientific behavior is an important point to make to newcomers researching the area of HIV=AIDS, since it adds to the credibility of its critics who otherwise might be thought crackpots given the disrespect they get from the defenders and exploiters of the status quo who cannot answer their arguments effectively any other way.

  9. Truthseeker Says:

    Readers should go to RH RealityCheck blog:Rev. Wright and PEPFAR if they want to check out the original thread and maybe add to it. Eloquent indeed. Yello matches MacD in the sharpness and accuracy of his remarks. What a pity this effort is not displayed in lights at Times Square. You got off enough bunkerbusters to penetrate NIAID through six layers of bureaucracy.

    The discussion continues with an additonal participant. I suppose the host prefers to have it all posted here rather than mere links?

    Yes we like to rescue such good material in case it vanishes later, and also to make it clearer if necessary. But links as well, certainly.

    By the way, Scott Swenson sounds like a worthy thinker, and expresses himself well, or rather formulates the party line very admirably. A good demonstration of what happens when worthy thinkers forget to use their ability before they reach an important assumption, rather than after.

    But this is an excellent formulation of the reigning faith and its rationalization:

    Sorry Brown, not interested in taking your tests, have spent more than enough time reading the HIV skeptics sites and watching their circular logic you tube videos. For me and many others it all boils down to this: The disease is real, we have seen too many die and prefer to spend our time working to prevent the spread of the disease than arguing with you. You can throw all the links and test questions you want up in your next rant, I’m going to continue trying to make sure we get the right prevention tools and education to the people who need them. If only all the energy spent trying to divert attention could instead be spent teaching people to practice safer sex, delay sexual debut, remain faithful to partners and getting services and education to populations that need them, we might make more progress.

    The believers always seem to imagine that critics of the HIV-as-cause hypothesis/Meme are denying the reality of illness itself instead of denying its cause is correctly found. So then they feel free to call them deniers and compare them to Holocaust deniers. Why would that be? To deny the cause is not to deny the illness, unless both are one and the same. This merging of cause and illness in the minds of most is a tribute to the power of propaganda indeed.

    Once again it seems clear that the HIV=AIDS Meme is so entrenched that it remains an inviolable assumption even as people acknowledge the force of the reasons to doubt it.

    Once again, it seems like nothing but an authority/credibility fight, first and foremost, the only thing which will uproot a Meme. His following rationalization is remarkable for the same reason:

    I completely agree with you that poverty, malnutrition, colonialism parading now as global trade, racism and misogyny/machismo/patriarchy/homophobia all feed into the spread of disease. On those issues we agree. I’ll even go so far as to say the pill(s) are NOT and should never be the entire focus of any policy to combat AIDS. Education, prevention, strengthening the role of women, fair trade, nutrition, clean water, sound economies and an end to bigotry will get us closer to the end of AIDS than any pill. But for people already infected, fighting for all those good causes you mention, if the treatment works, and gives them more life with which to fight for those causes, which many HIV+ people around the world do, then why stand in the way? Why not extend the life of positive people that they too might see the changes in the world we agree are needed? The science is clear, for people diagnosed with what science agrees is HIV, the meds extend life. Period. Are they toxic, do they have side effects, should they be given only with strict medical supervision — the answer to all these is definitively yes. If you believe in bettering the world as you suggest then surely you want to see people diagnosed with whatever you choose to believe HIV is live to enjoy the fruits of your labor. Are there some people who can live a long time without meds, yes again, with proper medical supervision. The pills are not the answer, they are a means to an end to strengthen people that might otherwise already be dead so we can together fight for a better life for the next generation. And since you offered more links, I’d like to repeat mine for readers seeking the currently accepted scientific understanding of facts related to HIV/AIDS, found at AIDSTruth.org.

    Without the Meme, and its associated assumptions, he would choose a different position entirely. All this is rationalization of the popular assumption. Is this obvious to the uncommitted reader? Given your replies, surely it is.

    Frankly, it deserves to be put into bold again:

    However, Mr. Wright, as well as the rest of the HIV believers, including Mr. Swenson, Marysia, and all others who yet blindly follow the belief that HIV is the cause of AIDS, continue to ignore the realities of those who are suffering actual illness and disease, and the obvious effects on their immune systems of lives lived in an emotional state of helpless hopelessness, intensely high stress, drugs both licit and illicit, poverty, malnutrition, the strain of population explosions throughout the continent of Africa (whose population just so happens to have doubled over the last 25 years to now nearly one billion people), and the humiliations of still current racism and colonialism, as well as religiously based homophobism and the rejection and shaming of gays that still deeply and excrutiatingly affects some gays in the western world.

    These are the facts and realities that are and have been and continue to be at the very core of the illnesses suffered by those who are stricken with failed immune systems. No simple pill nor any vaccine will cure any of these maladies.

    Yet, the HIV believers, and their viagra inspired belief that a pill is the answer to all of the hard questions, or that a simple pill will cure all of the worlds ills, are the single greatest barricade to confronting the very factual and very real reasons why millions of people yet get deathly sick and fail to heal, and fail to thrive…..

    And here is the proof of my statement: There has been ABSOLUTELY NO placebo test of ABSOLUTELY ANY HIV DRUG, since 1987. Therefore it is absolutely NOT scientifically proven that any of the drugs have any effect at all other than the well proven toxic effects. It is nowhere in any scientific study shown that a mere sugar pill and appropriately treatment of the actual opportunistic infections would not do just as well or even better than any and all of the HAART drugs.

    To be absolutely honest, there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the hiv drugs are in any way, shape, or form, extending of life, and study after study clearly shows the opposite!

    Furthermore, studies have been highly corrupted by not showing who in the studies are drug addicts, not showing who were formerly dying of starvation, tb, malaria, etc, etc, etc, and also not showing WHAT ELSE they had been treated with to cure existing opportunistic infections. Therefore, every study to date has been highly corrupted, fast tracked through the FDA with most often absolutely no long term follow-up as is required by the fast track rules, as well as run and directed and paid for by the pharmacuetical company whose product was at stake.

    The ACTG studies are most often done and run by individuals who are also highly invested in the drug companies.

    About a year ago, I went to the local ACTG study center and asked 3 questions of the head nurse in charge of intake of “study volunteers”.

    1: Does the AVRC ACTG get paid by the pharmaceutical companies on a per patient/per drug/per study basis? (the reason I asked is because many “volunteers” are in more than one study and taking more than one drug)

    The answer was “YES”.

    2: What is the average pharma payment per patient/per study/per drug?

    The answer: “$3000 to 10,000 and UP”. (whatever in hell and up means!)

    3: Does the AVRC inform any of the study volunteers of the conflict of interest?

    Answer: “No they do not”.

    Scott, I’m glad you think the HIV/AIDS biz, is so pure of heart and so altruistic. A bit naive of you, don’t you think? What with the now more than 110 billions of dollars that have been unsceptically and unquestionably thrown at it for the last 25 years? What with 530 of the top directors and scientists at the NIH having been found 2 years ago of taking undisclosed cash and stock from big pharma? Including 2 million to the former director of all AIDS drug clinical trials?….

    The greatest demand of the majority of African HIV+ people
    isn’t drugs, its food. They need food, good nutritious food.
    Jeffrey Sachs visited many villages with people stated to be HIV+ and they always wanted food, not drugs, food!

    The insanity of current african HIV/AIDS preventive programs has condoms and ARVs passed out like party favours while blind to the starvation and deprivation around them.

    Tell me, how are these ARVs going to work with a malnourished, stressed population?

    Admirable, succinct and unanswerable – except if blocked by the viral meme HIV=AIDS which has now circled the world in a global pandemic where it renders even the best unable to entertain any alternative notion without brain surgery.

  10. yello Says:

    Thanks for the accolades from both of you.

    -MacDonald, I think the snake pit at Aetiology has done a rapid 180 since several more prominent folks in the know have ripped several new ones in the Mbeki thread. Now if Orac and ERV were subjected to the same sort of punishment…… >B-)

    Though I admit that SA Smith might crack into a sort of Sybil if she really grasped what her work furthers. I suspect that her “debate” with Gos is gonna return to bite her big time in the ass, pardon my blue french. (where is Gos anyways? writing up that book of his?)

    -TruthSeeker, I doubt I have started a new “thread”. It is a post, nothing more. Cathyvm has done far more intimate work in this field than I will _ever_ dream of.

  11. MacDonald Says:

    Cathy’s unexpected visit was pretty cool. She is a very valuable new expert source for those with genuine questions.

    I must have missed Tara’s showdown with Gos. She seems to be giving HIV a rest and instead turning into a general vaccine shill. Her latest,

    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2008/03/objection_to_vaccination_they.php

    is so pathetic I wonder how she can keep getting away with it. I once more print my Comment here lest it should disappear – and because it reveals how pathetic our favourite macaque researcher is as well:

    “Franklin,

    I see you’re of the opinion that the scientific proof that HIV causes AIDS is statistical analysis.

    Thank you for that clear admission.

    BTW, you’re lying. The experiment Duesberg suggests has not been carried out – and the “analysis” you link of decade old results is a joke that didn’t cause a ripple anywhere but in J.P. Moore’s pants.

    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2008/03/objection_to_vaccination_they.php#comment-805996

    And please lay off the self-injection childishness. The statistical link proving “scientifically” that HIV causes AIDS from accidental needle pricks (self-injection), is still non-existent, which is why J.P. touts every single tenuous case he can dig up. Just to give you an idea of how desperate he is, let me quote the final sentence of the article he has linked as proof of his point. Under the headline “Nurse contracted HIV from patient”:

    The Health Protection Agency said there had only been five reported cases of UK healthcare workers contracting HIV from patients, the last of which was in 1999.

    According to J.P. Moore’s triumphantly linked article, no more than five UK healthcare workers have contracted HIV, never mind AIDS, from a patient in 25 years – until one single glove-wearing nurse got pneumonia.

    The “statistical proof” hand-picked by y’all’s favourite source of AIDStruth is just mind-blowing.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7241951.stm

    PS. Tara, don’t you think it spreads unnecessary fear when a PhD can’t even get a simple word like “dihydroxygen monoxide” right? The only thing hurting the science of immunology more than this kind of ignorance is your incessant shooting at strawmen and softer than soft targets. In this case you have descended so low that even a few of your devoted followers are experiencing what might pass for embarrassment in ordinary people.

    People like you survive only by insulating themselves even more rigorously from real debate than they do from microbes.

    The failed Merck HIV trials is the vaccine story of the year. By what mystical editorial process does that continue to fly under your radar while a single typo or wrong word in scientifically irrelevant articles registers with such unfailing regularity?

    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2008/03/objection_to_vaccination_they.php#comment-811199

  12. Truthseeker Says:

    You guys are excelling yourselves. We must hurry and scoop up the Mbeki thread before it vanishes or implodes or somesuch.

    What I like about MacDonald’s suave contribution above is that it slams without descending from the high ground.

    Deft to the deaf.

  13. yello Says:

    “I must have missed Tara’s showdown with Gos.”

    No, Gos had a debate with SA Smith of ERV blog. He gave up after she kept crowing about her low salary. I would too, out of pity for such a Stephanopoulos analogue. Though I doubt there will ever be an admission of the facts outright.

    *Sighs* I saw the latest Scott Swenson has posted on his Pepfar thread. A conglomerate mess of anecedotes and out right falsehoods, all served up on a bloated meringue of emotional excess.

    I’m done with him, he’s starting to get shrill as his mind tries to stop the cracking.

  14. Truthseeker Says:

    Please link to tidbits you are referring to, thanks. The Mbeki page is now scooped for posterity. The good bits will be em-boldened.

    By the way, why is Tara’s pro vaccination post Objection to vaccination: they cause immunology – March 24, 2008 6:40 PM so silly? Have autism rates changed in the aftermath of excluding thimerosal? Vaccination was shown to be valid and eradicated smallpox, did it not? Is excessive vaccination damaging? Where do you object to her post (is it on the thread? If so please link). Or put another way, what points in the critical commentary do you agree with or should she have made herself? Which vaccines are on your scam list, apart from the most recent one, HPV, which seems to be questioned by many, after being scotched by Duesberg?

    I regret not making a post of that at the time, it should be one now.

    Of course, writing “dihydroxygen monoxide” (Tara) or “dihydroxy monoxide” (N Man O Rage) for dihydrogen monoxide seemed rather slapdash. But Tara simply crossed out the offending letters in her own post, and did not erase the error from the world. This seems very honorable to me.

  15. MacDonald Says:

    TS,

    Maybe you didn’t notice, but the entire point of Tara’s post was that someone had gotten a single semi-technical word wrong somwhere, which to Tara signalled utter ignorance. In pointing it out, she herself got a comparable word wrong, that’s the irony which really, really, really, really shouldn’t have escaped you.

    And if you don’t know the objections to many of the common vaccines, or the outright falsehoods the vaccine success stories are built on, please educate yourself. Giant though he may be, it’s not only the viruses or vaccines pointed to by Duesberg that are suspect:

    http://www.whale.to/vaccine/webmaster.html

  16. MacDonald Says:

    Yello, despair not ofany blog host. If you’d care to visit Mr Swenson’s blog once more, you will see that tit, as always, can be exhanged for tat in a generally eductaional and artistically satisfying manner.

  17. Cathyvm Says:

    I don’t know about ‘expert’ thanks MacDonald. I hate Tara’s blog. The establishment
    trolls on there aren’t fit to lick Peter Duesberg’s scientific shoes.
    I posted this:
    I’d like to lay down a challenge to all the self-confident science boffins
    on this site. I would happily be injected with HI virus if it were properly
    isolated and purified. I thought the whole system for testing and cross-matching
    blood was developed because of the well-recognised dangers of injecting foreign
    proteins into the bloodstream.
    If the virus could be isolated from an AIDS patient and cultured in normal (not
    leukaemic) human (in fact you could use mine) CD4 cells not toxified by phytohaemagglutinin
    (I soak and cook my kidney beans thoroughly to avoid this toxin, so I think
    it is reasonable not to want it injected directly into my bloodstream) and cultured
    for an appropriate time in a serum-free medium. Once these CD4 cell cultures
    have been centrifuged in the correct manner to remove all the other debris,
    and electron microscopy performed to confirm there is whole, viable HI virus
    in there I’m ready and waiting with my sleeve rolled up.
    Don’t wriggle out of this challenge by telling me HIV won’t infect normal, unadulterated
    CD4 cells because according to your theory it does exactly that in the normal
    human body. Neither can you evade this challenge by whining that it is "too
    hard" to culture healthy CD4 cells in vitro because that is patently nonsense
    – Sigma Aldrich have developed a wonderful product called Stemline
    T Cell Expansion Medium (Product Code S1694)
    .
    For the vaccine proponents, there are interesting admissions in the above document:
    "Serum (FBS). FBS often exhibits lot-to-lot variability and may potentially
    contain adventitious agents, viruses, or prions." – mmm, yummy.
    AND
    "Also, FBS cultured cells should only be administered to patients once,
    since subsequent administrations may cause "serum sickness"; the patient’s
    immune system may be sensitized to bovine serum proteins, which can be caused
    by minute quantities of bovine protein carried on the surface of cultured cells,
    not removable [my emphasis] even after repeated wash steps."
    What do they use to culture those vaccinations again? And what bits don’t wash
    off?

  18. Cathyvm Says:

    Two responses already – and one from the great Nobble hisself:

    Why go through all the trouble of culturing, contaminants and serum. I say just inject yourself with a plasmid encoding a confirmed pathogenic strain. Of course despite the ignorance displayed by most denialists, I don’t think you’ll have much luck finding a researcher would actually lack ethics enough to purposefully infect another person. And hey if you do find one, go for it and let me know how it turns out.

    Posted by: Poodle Stomper | March 30, 2008 7:42 PM

    https://www.aidsreagent.org/search_reagents.cfm
    Search for molecular clones, HIV-1, infectious.

    Surely there must be a “dissident” scientist who can access this program and order some plasmids.

    Posted by: Chris Noble | March 30, 2008 8:12 PM

    Chris thanks for the link – virus shopping huh? I quite fancied the HIV-1 group M subtype G but they only did them in Env and that is so not my colour. Now I did find HI virus purporting to be from Montagnier’s original patient (very odd given that he himself stated he hadn’t actually isolated it), but if it is whole virus, why hasn’t someone taken an EM photo of it yet? – I’d like to actually see what I’m getting. No, on balance and given that Sigma Aldrich themselves admit that FBS and other culture mediums are often contaminated with viruses and prions I think I’d rather risk a G-rated curry house in Calcutta. It’s a whole visualised virus or nothing for me – call me picky, but I wouldn’t buy a car without seeing it first.
    I also specified I didn’t want PHA-zapped PBMCs; now I know they can get those little babies out with recombinant HIV-Tat protein, but I make a point of avoiding the ingestion of anything lab-made until I’m confident your lot know your retrotransposons from your pantaloons and I’m far from this.
    I think as the recipient of this virus I should get to specify how it was produced and be able to actually see it first – that’s not unreasonable is it?

    Posted by: Cathy | March 30, 2008 9:39 PM

  19. MacDonald Says:

    LOL, Cathy. Believe me they have had this challenge served up in many shapes, flavours and colours – though few as amusing as yours. But you’ve just gotta love Dr-in-no-relevant-field. Noble: he knows exactly what you’re talking about, the real deal from uncultured plasma, and what are his first words? “Search under molecular clone

    Next we’ll ask them to visualise retroviruses in the blood of somebody with a viral load of, say, 2 million – not “HIV”, not even something exogenous, just something uniform, plentiful and retroviral looking, hehe. Anyway be warned, they WILL get nasty with you.

    There was an article a couple of years ago about a researcher making a 3D model of “HIV”. He had chosen 75 or so different “HIV”s as basis for his model. From one extreme to the other, the individual particles differed size-wise by three orders of magnitude. Nobody even batted an eye; this is perfectly ordinary stuff in HIV-land.

  20. Truthseeker Says:

    Maybe you didn’t notice, but the entire point of Tara’s post was that someone had gotten a single semi-technical word wrong somewhere, which to Tara signaled utter ignorance. In pointing it out, she herself got a comparable word wrong, that’s the irony which really, really, really, really shouldn’t have escaped you.

    This is the reason you object to her post, MacD? How silly. Let’s not spend too much time worrying about whether she or others are up to scratch technically, the only thing is whether she is right in parroting the established line or not. After all,,that it is exactly what she does in that very post, you say.

    The issue is whether vaccinations are overdone these days, and it is sad to see that as usual you are too knowledgeable to summarize your own thoughts on the matter, as in:

    And if you don’t know the objections to many of the common vaccines, or the outright falsehoods the vaccine success stories are built on, please educate yourself. Giant though he may be, it’s not only the viruses or vaccines pointed to by Duesberg that are suspect.

    Have to say, if this link is the best you can do, God help us, it says virtually nothing of any interest on the topic – http://www.whale.to/vaccine/webmaster.html.

    Perhaps you mistyped. The entire half page and its links smacks of disordered paranoid lay research which rejects established notions out of attitude rather than reason, and is simply the other extreme from the blind faith of the closeminded faithful.

    Thus on the linked page http://www.whale.to/b/hoax1.html “whale to” (what kind of signature is that?) repeats exactly the same quote from Robert Mendelssohn in less than a page:

    “The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization…..There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease.”–Dr Robert Mendelsohn MD

    As to the truth of that statement, one would have to take it under advisement. There is nothing in the tone or level of literacy in this “whale.to”‘s sketchy introduction to engender the slightest confidence in his ability to discriminate between good and bad science or medicine.

    But you may know more than we do because you have presumably read into this stuff. That is why we ask you questions as to what is your opinion and not just for references, which we can find all over the place.

    There is no doubt that vaccination is a proven principle since Jenner so let’s have some evidence as to where the line is between works and doesn’t work. Perhaps Houston can oblige.

    Meanwhile Cathyvm is feisty but repeats that we are missing an EM photo of the Virus. Last we looked there were dozens of examples in the literature.

    “but if it is whole virus, why hasn’t someone taken an EM photo of it yet? “

  21. MacDonald Says:

    TS, please let’s not get into the photos here; you are even more insufferable than Noble with his infectious molecular clones.

    The vaccine issue is complex. Ther are four main aspects; possible side-effects vs. possible benefits, good health and natural immunity vs. vaccine, vaccines against phantom viruses and phantom viral causes, HIV,Hep c, Pailloma etc., the fact that for almost all diseases in our part of the world, incidence and deaths had been decimated before the vaccine ever came along.

    Dig a little deeper on Whaleto. You can do it; you’re a journalist.

  22. MacDonald Says:

    Cathy, they are now playing their favourite game at Aetiology, which is “guess who”. They want to find out who you are, so they can start the ad hominem. Right now they are split between you being Gene Semon and Dr. Maniotis. Very flattering, but better ignore it. As I’ve said, they only need your identity for smearing purposes, same as right-wing politics. They think you’ve said that infectious virions can be teased out of uninfected cells using only Tat. That’s something Gene Semon would say.

  23. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks MacD, a cogent answer at last. Well, fine, all of that goes without saying, save for the last part (and the final challenge, which overlooks the time constraint on the journalist).

    So the idea is that no vaccine has ever eliminated a disease (Doc Mendelssohn of the 500 appearances on TV) (huh? smallpox? wasn’t that reduced to a test tube in some WMD centers on either side of the Cold Wall?), and the more interesting claim you have just made that all diseases were conquered by hygiene and human immunity before they used any vaccine to conquer them.

    Well we know that the reality of medicine and its effects is fuzzy but is it as fuzzy as that? We sincerely doubt that any disease was eradicated through hygiene and immunity alone, but gee, come to think of it, where is cholera in Manhattan these days? Or London?

    The impression you are giving is that all the issues to be debated are easy to resolve through first principles without any novel evidence at all, including the last point. But it doesn’t throw much light on whether current vaccinations are excessive and unnecessary.

    Once again, have you got anything on where to draw the line today? And what did you make of that remarkable mention in the Times story of mothers who were sending their children to measles parties to get measles? Hard to think that would be the way to go with some much more dangerous disease.

    The issue then becomes whether there is any disease which is dangerous to those with healthy immune systems. To suggest that there are none smacks of extremist thinking, but heck, it would be worth investigating and experimenting with, which is what these parents are doing for us now, an experiment which may have serious social costs if general immunity to diseases which are normally vaccinated against goes down.

    Presumably you are among those who expect us all to survive intact and do very well. But would you be prepared to deal with smallpox in the same way? If it were your child?

  24. Truthseeker Says:

    PS Good God, that page is better than I thought. MacD, please don’t tell me that you are about to make me a skeptic against all the victories of vaccination. Have to draw the line somewhere. Where is it? Give us the benefit of your thorough reading (we assume) of Mr Whale-to (as in “whale of a story”?).

    Of course, a man who doubts the very existence of the Virus may be subject to a teeny pinch of salt in all matters, some might argue, but we are willing to be led by someone better researched than we are, unless he is becoming an inveterate heretic in all matters, God forbid.

    Perhaps you could attach a note of something you do believe in, albeit perpetrated by the establishment, MacD. Where will you plant your flag?

  25. MacDonald Says:

    Hehe… I admit freely that I’m not sure where to plant the flag. The statistics and general information on vaccines is even more impenetrable than HIV/AIDS. Wth US HIV AIDS statistics being entirely unreliable, what is one to think about statistics from remote corners of the world stretching back for decades? The only thing half reliable are those graphs from places like Europe, the US, Australia showing precipitous drops in mortality, pre-vaccine era.

    The philosophy of the “natural health” community is that some childhood diseases, like measles are key in the build-up of a well-functioning adult immune-system. The minimal risks associated with most of these diseases in a First World country seem well worth running to someone like our own Christine Maggiore. Let’s not forget vaccines aren’t risk-free either, and nobody really knows what the accumulated long-term effects are. If I’m not much mistaken the much better educated Cathy could and might give you an earful about this at some point

    A few of the touted vaccine victories, notably Polio, are almost certainly complete scams, cover-ups for chemical poisoning or reclassification/redefinition of diseases.

    I’m not prepared to say all vaccines are junk, though most seem unnecessary. But, as Dr. Maniotis has attested, the history of vaccines is littered with mistakes and dead bodies. The failed Merck HIV trials simply continue that proud tradition.

    As for this question, “Perhaps you could attach a note of something you do believe in, albeit perpetrated by the establishment, MacD”, I’ll quote Dumbya-in-Chief when he was asked to name one of his mistakes:

    “ermmm…errr…mmmmmm…..eh…… I wish you would have given me that question in advance so I could have prepared an answer”.

  26. Truthseeker Says:

    Just posted this on Scott Swenson on Reproductive Health RHRealityCheck Rev. Wright and PEPFAR, AIDS Complicity, let’s see if it plays.

    You bemoan efforts to get prevention methods and education to people, and wow people with your theories, but what good is any of it to a young woman in Africa who today will be exposed to what I call HIV, what you call XYZ, because she cannot negotiate a sexual relationship with her husband who has contracted the virus? What do all your papers and links and rants do for her? Will her opinion and experience be the subject of scorn for you as mine is? Do only you know the truth?

    This kind of story is based on a false assumption that HIV positivity is transmitted between heterosexuals, which Nancy Padian’s study showed very conclusively (it was a large study over six years of discordant couples of which almost fifty used no precautions whatsoever) was negligible if not nil.

    In other words, whether African women can rule their husbands on not is not a factor in whether they themselves test positive or not, because we can be certain in every case that it was not transmitted to her by her husband, whether he visited Nairobi prostitutes along his truck route or not.

    But almost everybody is told and believes that HIV is transmitted in heterosexual sex, as if the study was the fantasy. Of course, Nancy Padian is trying to backpeddle from her fatal conclusion on AidsTruth since it is the most impolitic of findings, but it stands nonetheless.

    Mr Swenson, you are an intelligent man caught in a scheme initiated by Robert Gallo with a claim in 1984 that elicited knowing guffaws from insiders who knew him and his science (afterwards shown publicly by a federal investigation to be as bad as everyone thought) and you have used your mind to rationalize it in your own case. That is why on Science Guardian we count it as a meme that once it infects the mind of its victims never allows itself to be uprooted.

    One of the problems is that the brighter the person the better he/she is at rationalizing what continually emerges in the literature as a paradoxical and inconsistent fiction.

    Your very intelligence is catching you here. All that we can do is urge you to read the other side and see how the inconsistencies vanish if the claim is denied and other causes of AIDS are accepted in their own right as sufficient and necessary.

    But it is painful for all of us to read material which we initially judge as worthless because it doesn’t fit the mental frame we are already using. So you probably will continue to take the easy route and dismiss the HIV critique and rejection as dealt with and rejected by good scientists and good science.

    In fact, the best science is the review and rejection of HIV in the literature which has not been properly answered and refuted. In fact, there has not been a single answer attempted in the same elite journals. All of the scientific answers damning the critique have been delivered in other journals and on non-peer reviewed Web pages at the NIH CDC etc.

    Evasion and censorship and condemnation ad hominem add up to an overwhelming political case against the paradigm proponents as scientifically too vulnerable to be able to answer the critics head on.

    Thus both science and politics argue that the critics are right, however unusual this may be in science. In fact it is not that unusual. Almost every Nobel winner I talk to has a horror story of his in the early days his progressive correction of the prevailing belief in his/her field was resisted mightily by those perched on the status quo.

    It is standard in the academy in any field, in fact. So we can only urge you to save yourself by opening your mind to the possibility that you will find the same truth as Cathvm above.

    You cannot judge by your experience in finding benefit in the drugs, for there are good reasons why they might have a temporary beneficial effect on those whose have immune systems weakened from whatever reason and are therefore infested with parasites which are cleansed by such poisons. In the end the stats show that all die, as you seem to be aware, and which is shown by the fact that half the first year AIDS deaths in the US currently are from drug symptoms (liver and kidney rot) which are not on the extensive list of AIDS symptoms at all.

    All of this would be clear to you if the Times and other science writers and their coverage had not been intimidated and twisted for years by Anthony Fauci and his pr brigade at NIAID who in writing explicitly threatened investigative journalists and editors with expulsion from the NIH loop by which they live if they mentioned Peter Duesberg, the chief critic, whose scientific status was higher than any of his opponents and still is to all who value science and truth.

    Rather annoyingly his software doesn’t seem to display paragraphs though it promises to do so.

  27. Cathyvm Says:

    MacDonald you’re giving me “big head” syndrome – do you suppose it is viral in origin? I might need a vaccine for that. Yes, boy they are nasty over there; I limit my time there and only go when you guys pique my interest. In fact I’ve been posting on a number of health/science sites for the last year and have to say the overall tone of Tara’s site is more what I imagine would be expected on some pre-pubertal video game blogs – on other blogs/forums people are much more polite and respectful.
    Truthseeker I completely support what MacDonald says about vaccines – I’ve done a lot of research on this and thank the (insert deity) that I never did take the public health service up on my free HepB vaccine. I did note that a troll on Tara’s septic tank blog threw in anti-fertility vaccine, eugenics etc. comments as support for proof we are all “conspiracy theorists” when in fact the vaccine studies incorporating anti-hCG are available on Pubmed. It did happen – and the researchers published. As for “do vaccines confer immunity?” – here’s my earful: most modern vaccines have to incorporate adjuvants like aluminium and squalene and the like because the “attenuated”, “dismantled” or otherwise mangled virus does not elicit squat on its own. Having a high antibody titre does not actually confer any immunity whatsoever. You can have a high measles antibody titre and get the measles, or you can have no measurable antibody titre and be completely immune to measles. What you need for protection is B memory cells – the ones you only get from natural and not artificially created immunity. But vaccine studies invariably use this useless soft endpoint to prove they work. No, you don’t hear about cholera in Manhattan these days, but when did anyone last have a cholera vaccine?
    I believe whale.to is a site registered in Tonga by 2 English gentlemen. I think it is registered in Tonga so they can’t be traced. I traced them (anyway) but my lips are sealed (that and I can’t remember where I wrote it down). Yes some of the stuff is a bit woo, woo but it gives a good starting point in checking things out for myself.
    The establishment troglodytes can try and trace me all they like – I’ve done nothing for which I might be smeared – I’m essentially a nobody and I pretty much like it that way. I have written at PhD level, but that was making other people’s work look good, and the pay was rubbish, as was my salary as a managing editor at an international medical publisher. I don’t have a PhD, don’t do original research, and haven’t even been able to work at all for the last 18 months due to disability (hence the time to read and blog) so they can do their worst.

    I posted this back to Mr masculinity issues Elkmountainman:

    Elkmountainman I don’t have to have a PhD in scatology to know when shit stinks.
    I don’t have to be savvy with an EM to recognise the complete absence of a photo
    of a whole HI virus. You sound like you know one end of an EM from another – can
    you send me a picture? I didn’t claim the cells were “uninfected” –
    betraying your lack of reading skills – as the use of the word “dullingly”
    betrays your lack of English skills.
    Pray explain o savvy one how a virus knows whether it is in vitro or in
    vivo. Does it peer with its little eyes out of the CD4 cell in the petri dish
    and decide it doesn’t like the décor? No it has to be coaxed out with toxic
    PHA. Maybe AIDS is simply PHA disease? Their mothers were spliced with a raw kidney
    bean and the offspring inexplicably express endogenous PHA – allowing the shy
    HIV to be persuaded to leave the CD4 cell to go and infect another.
    Here is a reference to my comment about HIV-Tat. My, my – and I thought you lot
    kept up with the literature!
    1. Sahaf, B., et al., Culturing of human peripheral blood cells reveals unsuspected
    lymphocyte responses relevant to HIV disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2008.

    Sorry about the lack of formatting – different blogs require either html or plain text and sometimes it is a bit of a rectal pain.

  28. MacDonald Says:

    Cathy, I didn’t think you had a “big Name”, or even that it is possible to infect you with a big name/head virus, and such viruses certainly exist. Nevertheless, the kind of qualifications and experience you bring to the table are unique here, and although I’m definitely suffering from severe big-headedness with astronomical viral loads, one of the best ways of keeping up the illusion of wisdom is knowing when to defer and to whom.

    The guys at Aetiology will search through everything (they think) you or your pastor ever said to bring up against you and avoid the substantive issue. It doesn’t matter who you are. If you’re a nobody, they will use that against you. Anyway, not important: I didn’t know how well acquainted you were with the blog, so I thought you might have gotten confused by being called three different names all of a sudden, and having things attributed to you that you’ve never said.

    The point about vaccines: Whatever makes them work, they do seem to work and be pretty specific sometimes, don’t they? Is this all smoke and mirrors?

    The claim to have completely eradicated smallpox worldwide via vaccine is one of those things I have a hard time believing, even if the vaccines were manufactured in different ways back then.

    TS. I think poor Mr. Swenson is ready to bite off his tongue, close his blog and put a bullet in his brain right now LOL! That’ll teach him not to mess with The Denialists.

  29. Cathyvm Says:

    I posted this over 12 hours ago on Mr Swenson’s site and it didn’t end up on his blog. Is the personal level stuff, along with the general respectfulness getting to Mr Swenson’s meme?

    “Scott I’m glad nobody put a gun to your head to make you take your meds – you made the choice yourself.
    Y’ello you can cry with me anytime – these days I get to do it frequently. You see Scott, the issue of HIV-AIDS is no longer purely an academic issue for me. Here in NZ there is a little boy (and I’m sorry to say now his sister also) with guns to their heads in the form of a zealot paediatrician and the family court. Neither children have ever had an AIDS-defining illness. Both children, according to the pediatric HIV treatment guidelines are not actually in the “must treat” category either. The boy is as sick as a parrot on the meds and healthy when not taking them, and he has had a severe hypersensitivity reaction to Abacavir, but the paediatritian is unmoved. These children’s mother died 18 months ago from a severe reaction to HAART after less than 2 weeks “treatment”. The sister has now come under mandatory treatment because she is MILDLY anaemic – they both are. I’m 99.999% sure these kids have alpha-thalassaemia trait – not only does this make them likely to have tested false-positive to HIV in the first place, but also makes them far more susceptible to the bone marrow destruction caused by AZT. The paediatrician and the PCP have refused to do the DNA test to confirm this diagnosis, and we have not got access to any private testing.
    In what parallel universe is it okay to take two beautiful perfectly healthy children and destroy them with the same “medicines” that killed their mother. And imagine the anguish of this poor father (I don’t need to imagine it – I see it) that if he doesn’t make his children sick with the drugs the state will remove them and make them sick anyway. And when they are poisoned by the meds, the medical explanation will be that they died of AIDS and the health professionals can go home safe and smug in the knowledge that they have “done the thing right” rather than “done the right thing”.
    Cue the crying Y’ello.”

    I read this (again) and I want to cry all over again (and I am not generally a cry-baby). I am a nobody standing up to a seemingly indefensible “Spanish Inquisition” where the only crime these children have committed is to have a common African blood trait; one issue of which the zealot paediatrician seems unaware and unwilling to investigate. We have all been very humane and respectful towards Mr Swenson and this has obviously confused him. Why he didn’t post my second comment is anyone’s guess – too emotional perhaps?
    In all my years as a nurse I’d like to think I have always been a good and effective patient advocate – this HIV crap has given it a whole new dimension.

  30. Rezaf Says:

    Well, Cathy, I will join you too. When I read in the local news frontpage “Alcohol intake in teens correlates with HIV infection”, one thinks about what other correlations they will eventually come up with. I’d figure that when people are faced with doom (even if is not going to happen anywhere soon), they would fight for their lives no matter the outcome. Necessity is the mother of Ingenuity, no? I mean, for what good is a certified medical “doctor” if the man cannot fix my illnesses? What am I paying him for? Surely, I don’t pay him to fill me up with drugs and dismiss me as “doomed”. I would turn to another explanations and other possible solutions to my problems. Who knows, they might just work. A positive and fighting attitude can surely make some difference even in the most dire scenarios. But on the other hand, it is easier said than done.
    My short experience with aetiology-type characters has taught me that there’s not much point with being reasonable with crusaders. You may bombard them with the finest of logic and science, but they will still want to hack and slash and call you heretic. For the good of the AIDStruth pope.
    And if this paradigm is ever shifted, there’s a bigger one silently waiting: Cancer.

  31. MacDonald Says:

    Cathy,

    Have you tried changing the email address given and remembered to put the headline in the right field? I had a problem posting second time because the software didn’t like my mail address. Not that I think we should swarm Mr. Swenson anymore than we already have, but your mail deserves to be read on a blog where an HIV+ advocate tells his readers, “the meds work, no buts and ifs about it “.

  32. stevekj Says:

    Not that I like to hijack threads and go running off into the weeds, but I think it is nevertheless worthwhile to pipe up on the vaccination issue (as long as people are talking about HIV vaccines, it’s not completely off topic, right?) I have researched this issue extensively and have concluded that vaccinating my own children would be a mistake, so I can probably add something useful.

    First of all, I would not point the long-suffering blog host to whale.to as a definitive point of entry to the vaccination pros and cons. It is an entertaining and informative collection of bits and pieces, but somewhat poorly organized and hardly a way to get a definitive handle on what’s going on. Much better are http://www.nvic.org in the US and http://www.vran.org in Canada. These sites are not primarily slanted as rabidly anti-vaccine, the way whale.to is, so they are probably more likely to be taken seriously by those such as the erstwhile host who have not spent a lot of time on the issue yet.

    Secondly, as has been mentioned by MacD and I think others here, although perhaps not very clearly, the standard pro-vaccine arguments that vaccines wiped out smallpox and polio and are thus a 20th century medical miracle are actually a lot more PR than science. There are quite good arguments that neither polio nor smallpox are infectious diseases at all, at least not in a human-to-human transmission sense, and even better arguments that both were in significant decline well before vaccine campaigns were initiated. Smallpox is a particularly bad vaccine – the balance of evidence is that the smallpox vaccine caused a whole lot more cases of smallpox than it prevented. I currently think that polio is the same way, at least for the injected vaccine, while the oral one is merely ineffective and not so much actually harmful.

    Really these revelations should not be surprising to our dear host, well-steeped as he is in AIDS “science”. If you thought AIDS was badly distorted by an inappropriate allocation of profit, you should see what vaccine “science” has been up to for the last two hundred years!

    As far as drawing a line in the sand on where modern medicine has got it right and where it hasn’t, I would draw the line right in between prophylaxis and therapy, with a jog that takes it about halfway through the therapy section (between chemical therapy and surgical intervention, say). Of course that’s a bit of a generalization, as the sands are ever-shifting, as sands are wont to do, and so therefore is the line.

    Are vaccines a complete hoax? No they are not. To a certain extent, which is very difficult to measure accurately, and certainly not using the standard methods employed by the establishment, some of them can prevent the visible symptoms of some diseases with a certain degree of reliability. Where the theory falls down is in the difference between symptoms and diseases, the difference between temporary artificial and permanent natural immunity, and the importance to a developing immune system of acquiring and clearing certain standard diseases (measles being one of the most prominent examples, hence the far-from-misguided concept of “measles parties” – where do I sign up?). The other main problems with the theory are the dramatically overexaggerated risk to a healthy well-nourished child of catching any of the standard diseases, and the dramatically underreported risk of the vaccines, leading to an artificially skewed risk/benefit ratio.

    After you get past all those problems with the theory of vaccination, then you have to look at the practice, which is horrendous. The number of toxic biological and chemical components that most vaccines come with is staggering – and those are just the known ones. Most people have probably heard of the mercury problem, but then there’s the aluminium too. And since the microorganisms involved have to be grown in something, you get traces of whatever foreign proteins they are grown in, along with whatever other contaminants fall in during cultivation and processing. And now you want to inject all this directly into a child’s bloodstream, to interact in a variety of poorly-understood ways with their relatively undeveloped immune system, and other critical components like their gut, and their blood-brain barrier. WTF?

    The thing that really sends the whole issue over the edge of the debate and well into the realm of quackery is that there are no long-term safety studies of any vaccine. None. Whatsoever. My pediatrician verified this for me, which I thought was remarkably honest and forthright of her. This means that all vaccines are experimental therapies. The experiment is a huge one, but no one is doing any systematic long-term followup to see whether the outcome is good or bad. The sketchy evidence we do have, from repositories like the VAERS, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, in the U.S. (there is no such thing here in Canada) indicates that the experiment is a failure. But there’s way too much money involved to shut it down, just like the AIDS juggernaut.

    (My pediatrician’s best defense of her proposal to inject vaccines into my kids was “Well, they didn’t do me any harm, did they?” Great, thanks for that highly scientific bit of research. I am indeed well aware that almost none of the standard approved vaccines actually kill or permanently maim every single recipient. That’s not the information I need to know!)

  33. Cathyvm Says:

    Hilarious – they think I might be Andy or Semon – gosh my encephalosmugitis virus is proliferating out of control. IV mannitol STAT! Actually 500 mls oral mannitol via N/G tube followed by 12-18 litres alternating N/saline and Hartmann’s solution would probably do the aetiology lot the world of good. We used to call it a Herculean but I propose to re-christen the (long-banned) protocol the Defaeco-oro-memectomy. Then again, it might be dangerous removing something that comprises >90% of a person. They would probably all benefit from some chelation therapy too; all the heavy metal (plus He-La cells, Vero cells, nanobacteria, viruses and who knows what mutant DNA) they’ve been injecting themselves has undoubtedly contributed to their cognitive dysfunction. Perhaps vaccinations caused the HIV-AIDS meme epidemic? BTW they haven’t actually removed thimerosal from vaccines; merely lowered the amount to a level that doesn’t require they declare it on the label.

    I tried posting to Mr Swenson’s blog a second time with a different email address to no avail. Perhaps he doesn’t want to hear any more about real people being horribly murdered by health professionals.

    Rezaf I have often wondered why the ingenuity factor is so absent when people test HIV positive. Apart from a few notable exceptions the death sentence is generally accepted without question. I suspect there is very complicated psychology behind it. We need some anthropological input on the bone-pointing phenomenon. Admittedly there are some days I yearn to stick my recently over-sized head back in the sand and blind myself to the staggering ineptitude of modern science but it doesn’t usually last.

  34. MacDonald Says:

    Steve,

    Thank you very much for those links – and the support. Thereason for linking whale.to is that I’m a bit of a provocateur, so when introducing a new area of scepticism I alway go to the extreme positions on the spectrum. I find the fundamental questions materialize quicker that way.

    Cathy,

    I have now linked your post to Mr. Swenson, who is beginning to show a real lack of class, but I guess that was to be expected.

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/03/21/rev-jeremiah-wright-and-pepfar-aids-complicity#comment-3726

    Matt Irwin has already done the modern bone-pointing study for us. Have you seen it?

    http://www.polder.net/aids/data/mivoodoo.htm

  35. Cathyvm Says:

    Thanks MacDonald, funny coincidence – I actually recognised a lot of the papers Matt referenced from writing the studies on the health effects of the moth eradication campaign here. It was highly fascinating stuff. Odour perception and physical reactions are distributed along cultural rather than physiological lines; so too I suspect are other physical manifestations of “illness”.

    Mr Swenson has taken a definite whiney tone. Either he’s lying about the Navy study (why would his friends prevaricate over entering a trial with 50% chance of “life saving” drugs vs 0%?) or the study was conducted but never published. If it wasn’t published we all know why don’t we?

    This is my last post on aetiology – what a drab lot they are! I just couldn’t pass this one up.

    Congratulations Whelkmountainboy – you have demonstrated your devastating microcephaly for as long as your ignorant comment stays on this blog.

    “Indeed, the virion is too small for visualization by photographic techniques. Hence, no “photo” of the virion. Hence, the use of electron microscopy. By “Cathy’s” standards, atoms do not exist, either, since there is no “photo” of the whole atom.”

    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1974 Jan;71(1):1-5.
    Scanning transmission electron microscopy at high resolution.
    Wall J, Langmore J, Isaacson M, Crewe AV.
    We have shown that a scanning transmission electron microscope with a high brightness field emission source is capable of obtaining better than 3 A resolution using 30 to 40 keV electrons. Elastic dark field images of single atoms of uranium and mercury are shown which demonstrate this fact as determined by a modified Rayleigh criterion. Point-to-point micrograph resolution between 2.5 and 3.0 A is found in dark field images of micro-crystallites of uranium and thorium compounds. Furthermore, adequate contrast is available to observe single atoms as light as silver.

    AND

    Science. 1970 Jun 12;168(3937):1338-1340.
    Visibility of Single Atoms.
    Crewe AV, Wall J, Langmore J.
    Theoretical and experimental studies indicate that, with a high-resolution scanning electron microscope, it is now possible to obtain pictures of a single heavy atom resting on a thin carbon substrate.

    BTW an atom of silver is only ¼ nm in diameter as compared to the claimed 80nm for HI virus. If the Kruger-Dunning hat fits Whelky – you are certainly wearing it now.

  36. MacDonald Says:

    Cathy,

    Our scientific friends are playing the “you’re unscientifc because you said “photograph” (once, after having used the technically correct term in the initial post) game, because they want to stop our momentum as they say in politics.

    I LOVE word games, so I couldn’t help myself, I had to continue this one.

    I ‘m pretty sure Mr. Swenson is making things up as he goes along. Sure he had some Navy friends; sure there was some kind of test or trial of something sometime, and that’s where it ends. He was intimately involved on a personal level, and he can’t tell us the name of the study or the authors. He can’t tell us what “cocktails” were used, or how they managed to keep recruits in this experiment for 5 years with no reward etc. etc. But now I see an article has been devoted to Mr. Swenson by our host, so better move to the next thread. . .

  37. MacDonald Says:

    PS.

    Speaking of precise language, I said above the size of HIV differs by three orders of magnitude. Just as well I didn’t post that nonsense on Aetiology. Better let the author speak for himself:

    Our work on the structures of retroviruses has followed a very different path since these viruses do not approximate icosahedral symmetry (Fuller et al., 1997). Indeed the particle varies in diameter by more than 3.5 fold for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

    http://www.strubi.ox.ac.uk/fuller/index.php

    And here:

    He (Stephen Fuller) told the BBC: “You say can you show me the structure of the HIV virus and the question is which one. HIV is very variable. It varied in diameter by a factor of three.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4642940.stm

    So there, Cathy, goes your 80nm (-:

  38. Cathyvm Says:

    Wow, you’re onto something here MacDonald:
    “Cryo-electron-tomography of SIV provides a much richer source of data for determining the immunodeficiency virus spike structure.”
    Because the variably sized HI virus doesn’t have very many knobs at all (only dozens) compared to our cousin monkey virus, which has hundreds (making HIV rather a eunuch – Viagra anyone?). And they are studying SIV to determine the structure of the knobs. How do they know the knobs are the same?
    AND
    “The significance of this is that whereas most viruses have internal structures which define the size, in the HIV virus it is the membrane which defines the size.”
    Ahhh, like a small child it “grows into” its coat. Do they mean all other viruses or most? Are there other viruses out there that behave in this strange manner?
    Does this mean baby HIV is all sort of floppy while it waits for its internal structure to grow and fill out the envelope?
    AND
    http://www.physorg.com/news124116614.html
    We have an(other) explanation of why HIV doesn’t make many people sick – they are termed “elite controllers” and their CTLs have a stronger HIV binding capacity. So, they isolated the CTL T cell receptor gene sequences, then inserted them into “naïve” CD8 cells, injected (using a lentivirus as vector!!) them along with HIV into mice and presto the mice “virtually eliminated” the HIV!
    The actual Pubmed abstract states “We demonstrated that transduction with this lentiviral vector efficiently converted primary human CD8 lymphocytes into HIV-1-specific CTLs with potent in vitro and in vivo HIV-1-specific activity.”
    What do you suppose they mean by “potent”? Mary Shelley would be proud.

  39. MacDonald Says:

    Please read this classical study in the behaviour of the AIDStruth animal in its natural habitat on Aetiology. Incredibly, they are so used to these tactics that they even brag about it. First up is ElkMountainMan, the same “scientist” who tried to spread the lying rumours that Duesberg was distancing himself from Michael Geiger, then MEC’s response:

    “Soon, I am sure, one of our denialist friends will rise to the occasion and educate us on how a squalene- and mercury-free DNA injection boosts anti-SIV immunity, and on how full-length SIV DNA, injected with nothing but the buffer it’s resuspended in, can cause AIDS.

    Until then, I am left with nothing to do but retrieve my ugly pedant’s cap (which I tossed into the umbrella rack after Pat’s English lesson) and ponder the merits in the work of a professional “medical writer/researcher.”

    This yawn-inspiring task began with an email I received last night from someone apparently operating under the mistaken assumption that I was interested in learning the identity of “Cathy.” Attached was a Word document with the text of a May 14, 2007 opinion letter from a New Zealand publication called “Scoop,” playfully entitled, “Gardasil: The Mercky World of Anti-Cancer Vaccines.” The author, it was claimed, is the same Cathy who posted here of late.

    The letter-writer’s name, I soon found, is also present on David Crowe’s famous list of 2500 renouned scientists and doctors as a “medical writer/researcher.” Because of these impressive denialist credentials (and since she had recently criticized my admittedly middling English skills), I decided to read her “Scoop” op-ed.

    As I recently reminded Pat, it’s best to criticize the writing of others from a position of strength. Imagine my surprise, then, (assuming Cathy is, in fact, the “Scoop” Cathy) to find numerous errors in the first few paragraphs of the piece.

    In the letter, the author smears Gardasil as being a brand, “much like Coca Cola or MacDonalds”. “Coca-Cola” is of course hyphenated, and the fast-food giant with the golden arches is “McDonald’s” not “MacDonalds”.

    The writer asks, “Were Ministry of Health officials asleep when this one [Merck’s assertion that Gardasil protects against HPV-associated cancer] snuck under the radar?” Really, Cathy: “snuck”? In the Queen’s English, “sneaked” is the correct past tense and past participle of “sneak”. Some American English speakers use “snuck,” but, really: it’s substandard.

    Several sentences on: “Rather than rely the emotive (but no less important) anti-vaccine arguments this writer would like to bring a little logical perspective”. One can “relay” arguments or “rely on” arguments, but hardly “rely” them.

    (As for “logical perspective”, the article is fairly devoid of it. For example, the author writes that a genetic predisposition is needed for scc of the cervix, and that Gardasil is therefore useless. Not necessarily so. Eliminating one factor in disease could help lower incidence, even if that factor is not found in all disease or sufficient on its own to cause disease.)

    “Viral particles”, contrary to the author’s claim, are not found in Gardasil. Rather, “viral-like particles”, VLPs, shells of recombinant protein, are there.

    As for “adenomcarcinoma”–well, the author got that one right elsewhere. Still looks a bit silly, though, for a self-proclaimed “medical writer/researcher”.

    “A Medline search with the limit “randomised clinical trial” and the key word “Gardasil” returns nothing.” My search returns four hits from before the publication date of the “Scoop” article–two if we exclude the two NEJM reports from May 10, just a few days before the “Scoop” press date. We haven’t heard from mathematician Dr. Darin Brown recently, but I’m sure he could confirm that two is greater than zero.

    And so on. For reasons of time, language, and science, I couldn’t read more than the first half or so of this lengthy (and, I admit, extensively if “activistly” researched) article, but the density of errors was striking.

    I’m confident this op-ed is not representative of the no doubt excellent and voluminous work of the “medical writer/researcher” in question. In fact, if she doesn’t mind, I hope she will send us some references to her better pieces, which I am sure exist although my quick internet search was unable to turn them up.”

    Posted by: ElkMountainMan | April 3, 2008 6:48 PM

    “Pat, immediately after you had assured us that Sir Elkie’s English lesson was well taken you wrote “cought” in between a string of consonants. If that’s an allusion to the poor quality of your teacher’s teachings I shall not argue.

    Soon, I am sure, one of our denialist friends will rise to the occasion and educate us on how a squalene- and mercury-free DNA injection boosts anti-SIV immunity, and on how full-length SIV DNA, injected with nothing but the buffer it’s resuspended in, can cause AIDS. (EMM)

    Sir Elkie, tsktsktsk! Let me repeat it for you and your Poodle: you don’t have an animal model of AIDS. No matter how many diversions you come up with, or how often you change the topic, that’s the fact of the matter. Get over it.

    Now you claim that Cathy or her computer made a numerical mistake when googling “randomised trial gardasil”. Quite frankly Sir Elkie, I think most people would be more interested in who made this particular error, and how:

    In New Zealand, Merck seem rather more brazen than their US counterparts in the claims being made for Gardasil. On their website – gardasil.co.nz – information is provided for both patients and health professionals. Both are informed that HPV causes all cervical cancer. It appears that our cervixes (or our litigation laws) are different to those of the rest of the world! The information provided for doctors makes even more bizarre claims; “Gardasil is 100% effective in protecting your patients from diseases caused by HPV 16, 18, 6 and 11″ including cervical cancer!”

    Sir Elkie’s “defence” of this massive misinformation campaign was to point out that Cathy had used the word “snuck” in the next sentence. I’m sure Noble and Poodle were impressed.

    In reponse to this,

    Merck state repeatedly on their promotional material that cervical cancer is not heritable.

    Sir Elkie presented this argument from Cathy:

    For example, the author writes that a genetic predisposition is needed for scc of the cervix, and that Gardasil is therefore useless.

    This happens to be pure invention. A bald-faced lie. Ten out of ten on the classical smear test. Either that or Sir Elkie’s mytho-virus infection has advanced to the final stage. Cathy nowhere makes that argument.

    The result, for those of us who do not consider essential an “a” too many in “McDonald’s”, or one too few in “relay”, is that Sir Elkie’s most substantial critique of a long article,
    systematically exposing massive fraud and disinformation from vaccine-makers, was that his medline search had turned up two hits for “randomised trial Gardasil”, whereas Cathy claims she had none.

    This is such a perfect example of right-wing gutter politics-style smear, obfuscation and lies coming from an anonymous “scientist” that it deserves to be archived on Newaidsreview (hereby done).

    Speaking of NAR, Sir Elkie, this was submitted a couple of days ago – looks like Elks are wonderfully predictable animals:

    Cathy, they are now playing their favourite game at Aetiology, which is “guess who”. They want to find out who you are, so they can start the ad hominem (. . .) They will search through everything (they think) you or your pastor ever said to bring up against you and avoid the substantive issue. It doesn’t matter who you are. If you’re a nobody, they will use that against you.

    Now who’s “cought”?

    Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | April 4, 2008 5:01 AM

    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2008/03/objection_to_vaccination_they.php#comment-819134

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0705/S00287.htm

  40. Truthseeker Says:

    No sooner requested than done, MacD (the editing you requested).

    But possibly you could add a head and subhead to the above, could you? Admirers of your grasp of this particular paradigm squabble and its cast of grubby minor defenders need to have such as the tiny tots of daily errands and responsibilities elsewhere tug at their sleeves.

  41. Cathyvm Says:

    I think it is hilarious for whelkboy to spend so much time and effort “deconstructing” an article he didn’t even know I had actually written.
    Have these meme-infected twits nothing better to do? Ad hominem attacks are one thing but actually having to trawl the Internet to find things (or create) in order to criticise (when they don’t actually know who is who) is just too pathetic for words. I do hope these deluded individuals are not involved directly with the care of any patients because that is too frightening a thought to contemplate.
    I would like to think that this kind of behaviour speaks for itself and that anyone not already ‘brainsnatched” by the meme will see the lack of integrity, honesty and even common decency is all too obvious in the rabid defenders of this terribly flawed and genocidal paradigm.

  42. Truthseeker Says:

    The suspicion is that either they benefit in some concrete way ie money or connections or that they are Net nitwits without a life – Chris Noble being one of the latter, we believe, on the basis of no actual concrete evidence whatsoever, but who would waste his own and others’ time and lives in his fashion unless deluded psychologically as well as scientifically?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


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