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.

Why gays love their ARVs


GMHC provides opportunity to speak to gays about their meds

The art is therapy, the science is a mystery, and psychology rules

Last night GMHC in New York City celebrated “the first 25 years of the fight against AIDS” with an art opening – a show of the art of gay men with AIDS, giving us another opportunity to meet more gay men with HIV that are “on the meds”, and talk to them about their experience and their thoughts about their predicament.

As it happened on the way there we passed this huge ad on the 51st Street subway platform for what we were told later was the most popular ARV medication at present, Truvada. If you enlarge it (two clicks for maximum size) you will be able to read the anti gay graffiti (mild) and also the impressive list of horrible side effects risked by those who take it.

Truvada’s dangerous success

The extraordinary ability of the drug industry to announce such a grotesque list of expected side effects without impairing the willingness of the patient who reads the ad to swallow the pills is reminiscent of the tobacco industry, and its labelling of cigarette packs as deadly without much effect on consumption, or the TV ads for drugs with innumerable unpleasantnesses attached.

The fact that gay men can take these drugs without investigating their fundamental rationale is the mystery we wanted to solve in a few more friendly chats with the subjects. Presumably their confidence in the meds is a tribute to their trust in the medical profession, in HIV∫AIDS science, and the pharmaceutical industry, which seems odd, since gay activists distrust the latter on the grounds that they love profits more than patients.

There is also the point that these days almost everybody double checks the knowledge of their physicians by searching the Web, since they suspect probably correctly that by the time the docs have seen their patients and worked out how to get paid by filling in forms in triplicate they have little if any time to skim more than the latest headlines in JAMA and the NEJ. Exactly why the gay patients on the meds do not read the copious intelligent material on the Web questioning the drugs and their theoretical relevance to immune system dysfunction, or do not take it seriously, is also a mystery, at this stage, when some 24 books have been written and so much activity has been seen on the Web in the last two years.

This is an closeup photo which will enlarge to readability if you click it once or twice, whereupon you can see the full list, which includes so many stated risks, that as far as we are concerned they would, if we read them, prompt us instinctively to throw the stuff with great alacrity into the nearest garbage can and wash our hands of the whole pack of doctors and health workers who peddled such dangerous substances as cures for anything at all, since the potential cost is clearly not worth it if there is the slightest doubt that it does anything less than save your life for sure, and such a list of detrimental impacts by itself raises overwhelming doubt that there can be any wise rationale behind it, even if we knew nothing about the literature which rejects HIV:

Buildup of acid in the blood leading to nausea and muscle weakness, a medical emergency which may need hospital treatment immediately;

Serious liver problems with liver enlargement and fat in the liver, turning the skin and whites of the eyes yellow;

Flareup of Hepatitis B virus;

Kidney problems;

Possible bone damage;

Changes in body fat distribution (ie ravaged face, neck humps, fat on belly;

Dizziness;

Diarrhea

Vomiting

Headache,

Abdominal pain

Depression,

Rash,

Gas,

Skin disoloration (spots and freckles).

Plus, watch out if you are taking other ARVs, your health care provider may need to adjust your therapy and follow you more closely.

Reviewing this forbidding list of the crippling effects you risk by taking this chemotherapy, one had to wonder anew how it is that anyone carry on taking the pills for long without encountering problems severe enough to stop, or at least to prompt one to doublecheck the necessity of carrying on. But as we understand it, patients fervently believe in the efficacy of the regimen, as if it were some kind of manna from heaven, or wafer of communion in the church of the blessed paradigm.

We hoped to find out some indication of the roots of this irrationality at the show opening party, which was held for the thirty or more painters and photographers with HIV that were invited by GMHC and the Ryan Chelsea Clinton Community Health Center to contribute works.

Searching for rationality

Entering the Ryan Chelsea Clinton Community Health Center after navigating round a block long white limo parked outside, we found Everett Faulkner, a tall, good looking older African American standing against the wall nursing a soft drink, who turned out to be one of the two photographers whose work had been chosen for the show. His photo was that of a train engine he had found in the Danbury Train Museum, a splendid streamlined monster which loomed impressively over his camera lens, a beautiful artefact from an earlier age when rail engineering was aesthetic as well as practical.

We chatted to Everett about his picture, which he said was one of many he has taken as a freelance photographer of trains, landscapes, and other topics; he listed a few, and we noticed that none of them involved people. Clearly, Everett was an independent by nature. So we asked him whether he was on the meds, and how he felt. He told us amiably he has been on them since 1999, and he felt fine, he hadn’t suffered major symptoms, and he counted himself “lucky”. We asked him whether he had tried giving up taking them, and he said he had found that when he went off them for a short time, he felt worse, so he had returned to using the drugs. The only thing he complained about was fatigue, which meant he wasn’t able to stand for very long.

Had he ever heard of people questioning the whole rationale of the drugs, we asked. He said he had but he hadn’t really looked into it himself. We found ourself telling him what we thought – that we wouldn’t trust the scientists who peddled the paradigm with our wallet, and that we saw that the idealists who sacrificed gain to hold on to their view were the critics, who were penalized and censored. Not surprisingly, perhaps, we found him only mildly interested in what we said, but not overly curious – after seven years of taking the drugs, it didn’t seem that he could easily entertain the idea that he might have been misled, and it wasn’t something that caught his imagination.

We took a picture of him with one of the two curators of the art show, Michi Yamaguci, who said he liked Everett’s work, and then went to examine the art, which turned out to be mostly untalented daubs, serving self expression and presumably comforting to the patients, but with little or no artistic value. Were we wrong to conclude that the general intelligence of the artists was not that high? It is hard to be intelligent when ill, because it takes the edge off the mind and the psyche, and many of the artists and others present were noticeably sweaty faced. Moreover, we have to report we recognized that peculiar sense of detecting germs when talking to some people that we recall from past exposures to AIDS patients taking medications.

But anyway, there was another good photographer, who had two works in the exhibition, a night shot of a silhouetted urban skyline, and a picture of a little girl staring into his camera with particularly open gaze.

That author, Mitchell Stout, posed with both works and afterwards we struck up a conversation with him too along the same lines. He said he had been taking the meds religiously for some years, but he also counted himself “lucky” because he hadn’t suffered terribly bad effects, except gas. Had he ever taken a drug holiday? Yes, once, for three weeks. He hadn’t felt any ill effects from it. So why did he go back on the drugs? It seemed he was simply being a dutiful patient. We asked why he didn’t just stop and see what happened? “Oh I am not a lab rat!”, he said indignantly. Anyhow, he earnestly assured us, the virus is extremely cunning, and you never knew what it might do next. We suggested that maybe given the criticism of the validity of the drugs, perhaps he might consider it. “Oh no”, he said, “You’re talking to the wrong person here! Excuse me, I have to go find someone.”

The impression we got was that taking the drugs was rooted in his life as some part of his identity now, and the idea of any change was disturbing to him. He gave us the impression that any idea that he had been doing the wrong thing for years was a matter of challenging his life philosophy. The troubled science was clearly a subject which he was simply not equipped to handle.

At this point we gave up our investigation, deciding that these glimpses of the deep rooted nature of the meds as part of a philosophy and culture were enough to suggest that seeking to provoke any independent thought on the part of these recipients of GMHC patronage was a waste of time by definition. Their meds were part of a complex cultural system, a gay mentality that incorporated the whole ethos as part of gay identity, at least in these circles. It seemed to go far deeper than the gay politics we had imagined, the Don’t Blame Us, Blame the Virus ethos, which has always seemed too weak to sustain HIV and lethal drugs as sacred. We left, after checking in with the GMHC media representative, and getting on his email list for future events.

As the Comments on this blog will show, this very topic then came up without any prompting by us today on the thread under the Buy a red nano, save an African life post. One comment in particular from Dan seemed to mirror our sense of what was involved in talking to the GMHC artists.

The intertwining of “AIDS” to our identity runs so deep for so many gay men, that they cannot even imagine a world without “AIDS”. It’s ours. We own it. Don’t you truthseeker, a heterosexual, even try to take away this most basic, fundamental part of our character/identity.

Thinking over our talks with the GMHC artists this matches precisely the impression we got. It also explains so much other stuff to do with gays’ trust in their doctors on this life threatening subject. Why do grown men docilely accept the Kool Aid of ARV’s from the hands of their physicians, led as they are by Dr Fauci and the pharmas, but criticized so powerfully and without refutation by distinguished scientists and experienced commentators on the Web and in books, not to mention journals? Why do they do this so meekly even when their very lives are at stake? Why, when activism is the very hallmark of gay AIDS on every other basis – such as wrenching drugs from the hands of researchers before trials have been completed?

For this writer it all harks back to the experience he had long ago at the San Francisco AIDS conference of 1989, when a writer for Vanity Fair, a sophisticated urbanite capable of writing worldly pieces on the most demanding topics, was told of the validity of the critique of HIV∫AIDS and advised to research it for himself, since he was HIV positive and taking meds, at that time meaning AZT, at much higher and more lethal doses than prescribed as part of HAART today. He wouldn’t really listen, even when we put a draft of an assigned article for Harper’s magazine through his door later (opened a crack for his hand to stretch through and take it), a few months before he died.

Matthew Grace panics the GMHC

But a similar incident that was even more striking was the amusing but depressing and telling incident which happened a year or so ago to filmmaker and nutritionist Matthew Grace, author of A Way Out: Disease, Deception and the Truth about Health. Grace is an extreme skeptic about modern medical treatment for ailments, having been diagnosed with “multiple schlerosis and spinal cord degeneration” and being unable at one point to stand or even move his legs.

Given little hope of recovery from this crippling state, he refused all conventional treatments and fought his way back to health and impressive strength and vitality using his own precriptions for nutrition and exercise. His book has a photo on the back which in itself is a remarkably strong argument for the validity of his theories, however extreme. For as it shows, there is no one in New York who looks healthier and stronger than the rugged jawed, thick biceped, smooth skinned Grace, veins and muscles rippling in the picture and straight backed and glowing with health in real life.

Grace has been lecturing on the HIV∫AIDS theory for some years, attacking it as yet another example of the misguided venality and commercial fiction of a drug based medical culture. He has also been filming a documentary, and one day he arrived at GMHC, where several representatives of the gay activist group were delighted to meet with him and be filmed advancing their platform. having been told that his topic was “Heroes of AIDS”. Half way through the interview, Grace announced that he wanted to contribute $150,000 to the work of the organization, and produced a check for that amount made out to GMHC.

He said, however, he had one stipulation. What was that? the GMHC people asked. “That you show me convincingly why you believe that HIV causes AIDS”, said Grace. Apparently this resulted in an instant uproar and the summary folding of the interview session, with Grace and his crew ushered out to the sidewalk as if they were enemies threatening the whole foundation of GMHC’s social and cultural existence.

The question raised, of course, is why there is such alarm if this foundation stone is investigated, and if it is so cracked and vulnerable to examination, why is such a large and active gay activist body governing the health and treatment of a large part of the gay community built on such a rickety foundation?

The answer, of course, is much more deeply rooted than a discussion of the science would indicate.

72 Responses to “Why gays love their ARVs”

  1. Truthseeker Says:

    TS — you ruined it! We had reached agreement, a detente, and you ruined it with that comment. In any case — you blame as many gays as you can get your hand on, that’s just fine, as I don’t know any gays who would be all that interested in your opinion.

    The blame referred to those who are purposely deaf to those who would help them, which doesn’t include you, Mr No HIV Meds Except Every Six Months. You after all were able to read Celia Farber’s piece in Harpers without throwing it away in panic, for some reason.

    But it also, come to think of it, includes gays unable to think with their brains instead of their attitudes, yes, who cannot read posts properly before reacting to them with a look-at-me song and dance, whose own posts’ main use is to provoke highly intelligent corrective responses from others, some of them equally gay but somehow free of it when discussing science. In a way, you seem to be merely the equivalent of CN on the other side, we have to tell you, except for your invaluable reports on your own actual experience.

    At this point in the story, you have no right to wax on about your considerable sacrifice, or anyone else’s for that matter.

    Not that we mentioned our own sacrifice at all, but sure, if at this stage you don’t recognize the work and other sacrifice (perks, money, more important research, recognition, prizes, social ease) of the heroes of this corrective movement, including especially Peter Duesberg, Harvey Bialy, Celia Farber, Christine Maggiore and a host of others that you and other incurious exemplars of foolishness ignored over two decades of preferring to take your drugs rather than listen to them seriously, then yes, you deserve blame and every bit of discomfort visited on you as a result.

    You deserve that blame for every second you prefer prancing about showing off your personal gay attitudes and your inability to think straight, coolly and scientifically about a life and death problem – your life and death, by the way, as well as many others – and to indulge your self centered, gay centered emotionalism, of which this last post was a quintessential example in its disgraceful contempt for the very idea that you should be grateful for the sometimes heavy sacrifices made for your unworthy self by others.

    In inability to show gratitude you are merely a typical specimen of the human race. But to actually argue against it, that makes you as a disgrace to the human race. If there is anyone who deserves your humble thanks it is the roster above.

    You and anyone else who is benefiting from their work, but especially those who actively scorn it, which in your ingratitude you come close to.

  2. Celia Farber Says:

    Would I be able to cool this down a bit if I said this:

    Speaking for myself, I have only ever done what my inner voice told me to do, in “journalism” and elsewhere.

    I never ‘sacrificed’ anything, and nobody owes me any thanks.

    That is not to be UNgrateful to TS for being gracious in that regard, to those who are said to have sacrificed, myself included, but I feel it is important to stress that everybody did what they did because…of nothing other than..because something in them was LIKE that, giving that message. Everybody being themselves, for good or ill. Getting beaten with rusty pipes in dark alleys is not the same as ‘sacrifice.’

    One does one’s job as one understands it. Until one is beaten hard enough to be made to understand that one has misunderstood the job description.

    I will admit to a deep seated contempt for those who have tortured all of us, over so many years, but I don’t want to see the innocent saddled with a debt of gratitude.

    It isn’t NoHIVMeds’ fault that journalism failed him and the world alike on this uber-subject for 20 years.

    It is the fault of each editor, journalist, professional, through history, each faced with the choice to either investigate or not investigate.

  3. GS Says:

    Could we all please relax?

    I know I have taken part in this, but I think tempers are about to really explode. While raging tempers are sometimes necessary, this topic is not important enough for us to be fighting amongst ourselves.

    Please agree to disagree. We are not going to change each other’s minds about this topic. Plus, no matter which perspective we side with it will not change the mess that is AIDS.

    GS

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    I never ‘sacrificed’ anything, and nobody owes me any thanks.

    You have sacrificed what you have lost relative to not caring about the truth enough in your reporting, and taking the easy way and being a hack who just passed propaganda from your in tray to your out tray, which would have won you a good deal more money, respect, prizes and fame and ease that the path you took, however you may have been impelled down that path by your own makeup, and not been motivated to do it for the sake of those you have rescued from victimhood. No one is accusing you of being a saint or a self sacrificial idealist, but the fact remains that you have sacrificed a huge amount and those who have benefited should have the grace to be grateful to you for doing it, whatever your motives.

    If a doctor rescues the life of my new born babe I don’t ask him what his motives were in undertaking his profession, but I thank him for his action. And if it turns out that he gave up his night at the opera to deliver the babe, I recognize that sacrifice in my thanks. This situation involves far greater sacrifices by individuals for the good of society and the benefit of people they don’t even know. Yes, it arises out of the idealism and other qualities of the individuals concerned, some of which are functions of individual character, such as Peter Duesberg’s passion for science as a process, but the sacrifices are still made.

    One of the grosser stupidities of this arena is the blindness of those who could easily help with money for Peter Duesberg and others for the kind of money which he and others need in pursuing their destiny to serve science and the social good rather than their own selfish interests. With 400 million millionaires around there are only one or two who will think to give him money even when the whole thing is laid out for them at special evenings. Meanwhile they all give to AmFar and others who want to poison gays and Africans.

  5. nohivmeds Says:

    Let me put this very simply, TS — and please excuse my “prancing” and my “gay attitude” (???? if that isn’t homophobia, what is it) — some men in my community have made the ultimate sacrifice. You should kindly keep that in mind when throwing global insults at a heterogeneous group of people. Your posts on this topic have made your hatred for gay people very clear. We’ve got it now. Best to move on.

  6. nohivmeds Says:

    And TS — I believe you owe me an apology, personally, for this statement:

    ” You deserve that blame for every second you prefer prancing about showing off your personal gay attitudes and your inability to think straight, coolly and scientifically about a life and death problem – your life and death, by the way, as well as many others – and to indulge your self centered, gay centered emotionalism, of which this last post was a quintessential example in its disgraceful contempt for the very idea that you should be grateful for the sometimes heavy sacrifices made for your unworthy self by others . ”

    That was a piece of really disgusting writing, TS. Base and vulgar — especially for you. Full of unnecessary vitriol, and nothing but destructive. I’m deeply hurt, actually. So I give you the chance to rethink that paragraph. If you’re comfortable with that paragraph, then apparently, this is not about gays, it’s about me — it’s personal. And I thought you were interested in rising above the personal.

  7. nohivmeds Says:

    Why should any of us “obey” the rules of discourse for this blog when you can so easily toss of such a hurtful statement, clearly directed at a single individual, rather than an issue? And what exactly do you get out of attempting to demean and abuse me in front of the world? A feeling of superiority? Proof to yourself that you’re straight? A release for anger that I have nothing to do with and am not the cause of? I could easily attack back, but I won’t, as you’ve now dragged the discourse into the gutter. I’ll leave it (the discourse) and you there.

  8. nohivmeds Says:

    It seems that this blog is only concerned with demeaning women and gays. Who would want to be a part of that? I thought we were here to discuss science, not what Culshaw looks like or what you believe gay men are like. Enough. If this is the direction you choose to take, you go there alone.

  9. German Guest Says:

    Dear Celia Farber!

    I read your Book “Serious Adverse Events”. It took http://www.amazon.de almost 8 weeks to ship this journalistic treasure to Germany.

    On my part, there is only one effort of thankfulness I can imagine. I urge everyone I know to buy and read your book. I urge esp. my gay friends and fellows to read your book.

    Let me just tell you this: Thanks to your book and the fantastic work from Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr. Claus Koehnlein, a growing number of gay men actually living on HAART just lapsed from faith. They finally will give their doctors an extremely hard time!

    Thank you!

  10. kevin Says:

    German Guest:
    Dear Celia Farber!

    I read your Book “Serious Adverse Events”. It took http://www.amazon.de almost 8 weeks to ship this journalistic treasure to Germany.

    On my part, there is only one effort of thankfulness I can imagine. I urge everyone I know to buy and read your book. I urge esp. my gay friends and fellows to read your book.

    I concur. I’ve purchased several copies to give to my HAART-taking friends, and one to replace my original, as it fell in the pool, the only time I ever put it down 😉 It’s a great read and being able compare the details of this disease’s bizarre treatment history is overwhelming. The book is very effective at opening the reader’s eyes to the contradictions that have accompanied each new treatment breakthrough, among other things. One of my friends has begun to do his own research after reading the book, and that’s what I’ve been asking him to do from the very beginning (Thanks, Celia). He had complete faith in his doctor, which we all know is dangerous when they are so free with the poison.

    Regarding the continued bickering…agreeing to disagree on the matter is in order, as other posters have recommended. We’ve all made sacrifices to standup for this issue and all are worthy. Regardless, I’ve found that it’s best not to allow oneself to be so sensitive when posting online, which is by it’s very nature, somewhat impersonal, i.e. it’s easy to misinterpret the written word which then leads to unnecessary escalations. I’m moving on, and I suggest everyone else does the same.

  11. Truthseeker Says:

    Humble apologies to NHM for giving the impression that we wished to hurt his feelings or to excoriate him for anything at all other than not being grateful for the self sacrifice of worthy people in the cause of truth and promulgating truth to help him and anyone else interested against the juggernaut resistance of multibillion institutions and corporations and the hostility of their army of fellow traveling lemmings.

    The reference to “gay attitude” was not meant to say “attitude typical of gays” but to say “bringing in gay attitude” to muddy what is meant to be a clearheaded discussion of what is true in this field according to the best thinking and the best sources. We don’t even object to gay attitude if it is positive and meant to spice up an otherwise dull and earnest recitation of sins and correctives. That is why we incited a lively discussion of juvenile attitudes toards attractive members of the opposite sex, only for a little icing on the cake and not to divert from the cake in any way. We view Rebecca Culshaw with the utmost admiration for being one of the truly accomplished people who can combine scientific and mathematical precision with a clarity of exposition worthy of Mark Twain.

    Anyhow we apologize to NHM for anything he may have taken as a personal disparagement since we were only trying to deal specifically with what he said about gratitude and stand up for the rag tag band of dissidents tilting against the mammoth windmill of HIV∫AIDS even though we do agree with what he and Celia implied, that they all have their own peculiar reasons for doing it which rarely include a saintly attempt to rescue the lemmings of the world from disaster, at least not as a top priority. It is a priority of a kind with some though including this blog, whose aim certainly is to wean people away from sucking at the poisonous teat if we can do it, in however small a way. What other use does journalism have than to bring illumination to the dark corners of the world where bandits lie in wait fo the unwary, or sins against the common weal lie unexposed? What other purpose could this blog have other than to reform? We are trying to rescue innocents from iatrogenic murder by the powerful and the knowing. Do you imagine for one moment that they are going to do nothing in return? Self sacrifice is the name of the game. Only the naive fail to realize what is involved.

  12. nohivmeds Says:

    I’d just like to report, that since re-initiating a pulse of the ARVs on 10/18, the two bacterial infections and systemic thrush are gone.

    I believe your apology is sincere, TS, but it’s not enough.

    You still seem profoundly confused about homosexuality (that would be the nicest way of saying it). I’m certain now that nothing I write will change that, so I won’t expend any more effort in that direction.

    Thank you for trying all the same. Thank you for the effort. That is meaningful.

  13. Bialyzebub Says:

    Against my better judgement(and at some sacrifice to my third stomach) I have been reading this thread, and wish now to actually say something that I think is worth the saying.

    NHM,

    If you stopped referring to those chemicals as ARVs, and even used the monkey prof.’s fav term “microbicide” instead, you might be able to retain their undeniable effectivness in treating exactly the sorts of (ordinary antibiotic resistant, one assumes) acute infections you describe, without getting sucked into thinking the damn “viroid”* had anything to do with either your illness or your recovery.

    Unlike with ordinary antibiotics, however, knowing what represents a completed course that does not allow the eventual re-emergence of a resistant population is very problematic. So I hope your physican is as good as Claus K.

    *A term I just learned at Hank’s where the up to the minute inside report of the really big story of this week, and maybe ever, is being told right now.

  14. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    nhm,

    TS and thee seem to have reached critical mass on the non-negotiables. That may prove to have positive end results.

    For discussion only, kindly report names of ARV’s/ antibiotics/anti-fungals.

  15. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    Bialyzebub: re: the really big story:

    “It takes 27 outs to win a baseball game” Yogi Berra

  16. Bialyzebub Says:

    It also takes 27 outs to lose one. Yogi didn’t know everything.

    And the point, McK, is not win or lose (you guys always think that way…why? It even shapes your “religions” ahem).

    In this case, it sure as shooting stars is enough to be in the game.

    Did you notice that the plaintiff’s attorney was referred to by the Legal Editor of the newspaper as “prominent”?

    Do you think this is the last such court appearance for “the HIV”?

    These are rhetorical only fella, I’m gone to where I go now and shall not return while your clock still says it is today.

  17. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    BZB,

    You forgot: Comments to this entry are closed.

  18. YossariansGhostbuster Says:

    If the home team is ahead after 8 and 1/2 innings, it only takes 24 outs to loze.

  19. Truthseeker Says:

    where the up to the minute inside report of the really big story of this week, and maybe ever, is being told right now.

    For the record, this typically inscrutable comment by the always mysterious Dr B means that a lawyer in an Australian court case this week is challenging whether HIV actually exists and if it does whether it can be transmitted heteroexually, and two from the Perth group are giving evidence.

  20. Martin Kessler Says:

    Serious Adverse Events got a postive review in Liberty Magazine by Richard Kostelanetz. It’s a Libertarian publication.

  21. john Says:

    the link :

  22. Bialyzebub Says:

    Even Yogi might not know what a “loze” is, and the way I look at it is, if the home team is ahead in the middle of the 9th then it only needed 24 outs to win, but the visitors still had to make 27 to lose. No?

    Did you have a cow path like point buried somewhere here?

    And as long as I am, here that is … Thank You Martin for that bit of useful data!

    Kostelanetz sounds like a somebody, and those libertarians are not to be taken lightly. I am told by my infinite almost sources that the recent Farber publication on YBYL that was linked on Lew Rockwell received close to 3000 different visits in the span of less than 24 hours, topping even the ultra-magnificent Dr. Culshaw essay on Africa that got almost that number!

    Congratulations to Ms. Farber from the abodes of the BZB.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


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